The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2017 was +0.41 deg. C, up somewhat from the July, 2017 value of +0.29 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.72 +0.38 +0.85
2016 02 +0.85 +1.18 +0.53 +1.00
2016 03 +0.76 +0.98 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.44 +0.70
2016 06 +0.33 +0.48 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.37 +0.44 +0.30 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.54 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.45 +0.51 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.42 +0.43 +0.42 +0.47
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.38
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.24
2017 01 +0.32 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.22 +0.36 +0.09 +0.05
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.41 +0.46
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through August 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
NOTE: In June 2017 we added the Metop-B satellite to the processing stream, with data since mid-2013. The Metop-B satellite has its orbit actively maintained, so the AMSU data from it does not require corrections from orbit decay or diurnal drift. As a result of adding this satellite, most of the monthly anomalies since mid-2013 have changed, by typically a few hundredths of a degree C.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for August, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Interesting consistency to the anomalies this month.
And here comes Irma to finish the job
Nice job Trump-bama-bush-ton
fake news on tv. fake government stats on temps. fake news on hurricanes, Irma does not have a eyewall. cat 1 at best.
The best thing about our country is the assholes get to talk, than we get to vote.
those guys flying thru the eye? Told to fake the results?
It was “a category 5 liberal hoax” (Bill Mahler).
Of interest to readers of this post:
Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models Part 3: Lower Troposphere Satellite Temperatures
http://euanmearns.com/adjusting-measurements-to-match-the-models-part-3-lower-troposphere-satellite-temperatures/
Interesting. But the guy admits he is not an expert, deemphasises the downward adjustment of uah6.0. Other published analyses of radiosonde data yield different results with higher trend.
Finally by suggesting politics are behind adjustments on one side but not the other, he loses any credibility he had as an unbiased reviewer.
Yes cat. 5 Irma and this bounce in temperatures not looking good…
Cyclone activity is so quiet those last days :
no major hurricane making landfall in the U.S. since few days.
Interesting, even though it has already slammed the Caribbean as a Cat 5, if Irma goes slightly to the East and misses US, then it doesn’t ‘count’ as a valid data point, according to Roy.
Thanks for the report.
Hey Salvatore ….. Where ARE you ….. peek-a-boo
working on his model.
A comparison of anomalies in the 15 months since the 15/16 El Nino, with anomalies in the same period after the 97/98 El Nino. Also with anomalies in the 15 months leading up to the 15/16 El Nino.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99L08byUAxVZnl3eVpPV1RmTlE/view?usp=sharing
Hello Des, do you remember our recent discussion on the July 2017 thread, which started about here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-259961
A few ‘cm’ below, I wrote
Im a knowledgeless layman, but my guess is that the August TLT anomalies will go a bit higher than 0.32 C, say 0.35 C, in correlation to JMAs July jump.
I myself did not think I would keep below what Roy Spencer communicates.
We are completely out of the 2015/16 El Nino (according to JMA: 10% Nino, 60% neutral, 30% Nina); so I guess that this OHC evacuation toward the troposphere now becomes a distinct, El Nino independent phenomenon.
I’m sure the Warmistas will cry ‘Huuuuuuh! Glooobal Waaarming!’; and the Coolistas conversely will say: ‘The next La Nina is coming soon!’.
In french this is called ‘dialogue de sourds’.
I said it was only an estimate, and that I was only interested in how close I get. It was not a competition.
bindidon…”Im sure the Warmistas will cry Huuuuuuh! Glooobal Waaarming!; and the Coolistas conversely will say: The next La Nina is coming soon!.”
What you are claiming is that global warming with no apparent cause has suddenly arrived following an extreme El Nino. It was absent from 1998 – 2015 and suddenly it is here without explanation. If you think it is CO2 related then prove it, or are you going to claim what other alarmists claim, “what else could it be”?
How do you explain the cooling from the peak of the 2016 El Nino of about 0.4C for August and about 0.65C earlier in 2017? And how do you explain the warming from the EN in the first place?
Has it occurred to you there may be other interactions going on between ENSO, the PDO, the AMO, and so on? The PDO was only observed in 1977 and not identified till the 1990s. The planet warmed 0.2C mysteriously during that PDO event and that warming has never been explained. Neither has the sudden 0.2C warming of 2001.
The only reasonable conclusion to reach at this time is that no one has a clue what is going on.
There certainly are other effects. Are you claiming that all these other effects have magically conspired to give us ONLY warming over the past 40 years?
I am also a simple layman and get lost in some of the more complex arguments but I have a simple observation. 20,000 years ago, a mere blink of the eye in geologic time sea level was 400 feet lower than today and New York City was under a mile of ice. Can someone explain to me what caused sea levels to rise 400 feet and a mile thick glacier to disappear? I had no idea that Exxon was operating refineries and such that long ago. Why is no one trying to figure out what happened over this time frame and why are we worrying about a couple feet of sea level change every hundred years?
My Irma forecast: It will change again.
It was orbital forcing with feedback from ice albedo and CO2 out of warming oceans.
We have more residential housing and other assets on the shoreline now.
I’m a layman too, but more knowledgeable people like barry will correct me if I’m wrong.
Mike,
I know.
Why should anybody be concerned with arthritis, or dementia or diabetes, when we used to worry about the plague?
Why should we be concerned about low wages, or losing health insurance, when we used to be serfs, had no sanitation, and barely lived to 30?
That’s right, Svante.
Nice one Mike.
Mother Nature changed sea levels by over 400 feet in 20,000 years and we are having hissy fits over the tiny changes that are going on today.
Only a twit like David Appell could fail to see the absurdity!
400 feet in 20,000 years.
Converting to metric cos it’s easier…
122 meters in 20,000 years.
Av rate = 0.61 mm/yr
Av rate of 20th century = 1.8 mm/yr
3 times faster
Rate during satellite period from 1993…
3 mm/yr
5 times faster
Not worth raising an eyebrow?
Nate, Your analogy of dread diseases implies that man can control climate and that had we been around 20,000 years ago we could have prevented this rise. We can cure many diseases now but have no clue about manipulating climate. My question remains, what forces caused this dramatic rise in sea level so abruptly? Until we can answer that question claims of anthropological warming are peeing in the wind.
Mike, Milutin Milankovich worked it out in the twenties.
Note CO2 curve in the Vostok diagram here: https://tinyurl.com/qhnzt5r
Mike,
I was picking on your ‘our problems today are nothing compared to what they used to be’ sort of argument.
IMO severity of problems ought to be put in context of what are considered good living conditions for our time period.
Neolithic people dealt with a very slowly changing climate, and had none of the massive infrastructure (Houston, Miami) or agriculture that we have to be concerned about today.
You seem to be saying we dont understand past climate? Plenty of research has been done on the cause of Ice Ages and very much is known about its causes (orbital forcing, Google it).
Barry,
122 meter in 20000 years is 122000 mm in 20000 years or 6.1 mm not 0.61 mm!
You’re absolutely correct, Chris.
Where did that very cool August Dr. Roy was talking about go? Repeat after me “Global Warming is a Chinese hoax, global warming is a Chinese hoax, global warming is a Chinese hoax.”
Funny how one month brings out the fear mongering doomsayers.
Funny how deniers focus on select data points.
+0.13 degrees per decade, according to deniers favourite data set.
Funny how there is a presumed “normal” global temperature and that it’s also presumed to be “best”, circa 1850.
Where’s the justification for such rubbish?
No one says there is a “normal” or ideal temperature. There’ only the climate we and all other species have adapted to. If the climate changes — and it’s now changing extremely fast, geologically speaking — some species go extinct. This has happened in the past and will happen in this warming episode.
Evolve is the best answer.
Funny how there is a presumed normal global temperature and that its also presumed to be best, circa 1850.
Where on Earth do you get this crazy idea?
Wheres the justification for such rubbish?
Indeed. Explain yourself!
David Appell @ September 5, 2017 at 4:35 PM
“…and its now changing extremely fast, geologically speaking…”
It isn’t.
+0.013 degrees per year
+13 degrees per 1000 years
Geologically speaking, that’s crazy fast.
DA…”If the climate changes and its now changing extremely fast…”
Prove it.
The data set above, in conjunction with all other climate records, has the evidence you’re seeking.
0.013 degrees per year
0.13 degrees per decade
1.3 degrees per century
13 degrees per millennium
Ahhhh …. Joel ….. we are NOT headed for a 13 degree rise.
If you want to judge how fast the temperature is rising on geological scales, you need to extrapolate the data. That is the best measurement for the current rate of warming that we have, and that was the answer people were seeking, so… it’s not wrong
You’re right though, catastrophic changes to the biosphere because of the warming climate would certainly put an end to large-scale human contributions long before 1000 years were up, so there’s no reason to think we humans can sustain that sort of heating for that long and actually achieve a 13 degree average temperature rise. We’re probably buggered if it goes up by anything greater than 4 degrees.
No – I’m saying there is not enough fossil fuel left to get temperatures up to +13.
+4 will certainly have a devastating effect. But not to the point that we would stop production IF we had fuel left.
I hope you’re not one of those people who believe this has a chance of making us extinct.
Burning fossil fuels is only one way that humans are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There’s more to it than just fossil fuels.
I don’t think we’re facing 1000 years of warming. But the current rate suggests that if we did, it would be 13 degrees. How is the multiplication of a single year by 1000 controversial?
What if i had instead said 500 years for 6.5 degrees warming? Would you be just as critical of the number?
i guess, in 500,000 years earth temperature will rival that of the sun. My god…
There may not be a “normal” global temperature – but I keep seeing the baseline time period to measure global temperature anomalies as 1951 – 1980. Seems to be one of the cooler periods of the 20th century.
Yesterday is was 74 degrees F, but today it is 76 degrees F. 365*2+76 = 806 degrees this time next year!
Bart says:
and its now changing extremely fast, geologically speaking
“It isnt.”
Can’t prove it. Sad.
It shows the value of us predicting the volatile at micro levels.
Balanced comments are received by a wide audience. Those who rub it in eat talk to the few and eat their words. A bit of free advice.
Dr. Roy finally has collected enough data – 38 years worth – to say something meaningful about climate.
I encourage everyone to carry out the following exercise and determine for yourself that global temperatures have been rising during that period: take all of Dr. Roy’s data and perform a linear least squares fit to it. The slope of that line will tell you what the trend is for global upper atmosphere temperatures.
Report your results here.
Yep, the data shows that all warming has come from El Nino warming events, with ZERO signal of any CO2 warming.
Thanks for pointing that out.
“Because El Nino warming!” doesn’t identify the primary cause.
If that’s how El Ninos work, why aren’t La Ninas providing a similar downward driver on long term global temperatures, and balancing it out?
AndyG55
Actually, if you look at the last 20 years it is the other way around. The recent super El Nino was only slightly warmer than the super El Nino of 97/98. Yet the BULK of the record (ie. excluding El Ninos) shows a much larger increase.
El Ninos have been getting warmer have they?
Why, so have la Ninas.
I wonder why that is.
Meh. The Earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. That is why they call it the end of the Little Ice Age.
Bart
We all know how good “they” are at coming up with names.
Because of cause the “Little Ice Age” really was an ice age … jks
When was the end of the little ice age?
“take all of Dr. Roy’s data and perform a linear least squares fit to it.”
The shape of the base data tells that the linear growth is not a good hypothesis. A linear growth with a 60-70 years oscillation would fit more accurately the available data.
Paul Aubrin
So you believe it is possible to posit a 60-70 year cycle using data from only HALF of one proposed cycle??
The long term surface data show the ~65 year cycle, and the UAH data lay more or less on top of them.
mark shapiro…”I encourage everyone to carry out the following exercise and determine for yourself that global temperatures have been rising during that period: take all of Dr. Roys data and perform a linear least squares fit to it. The slope of that line will tell you what the trend is for global upper atmosphere temperatures”.
Please explain the following:
1)how does a trend line go from a region of -ve anomalies to a region of +ve anomalies and qualify as an indicator of anthropogenic warming? NOAA claims -ve anomalies represent cooling and +ve anomalies are warming.
2)how can such a trend line have a flat trend line imposed on it from 1998 – 2012 as claimed by the IPCC? They called it a warming hiatus.
All that is claimed by UAH is that the trend of 0.13C/decade represents the data from 1979 – 2017, they have never claimed it represents anthropogenic warming of a significant degree. The words offered by UAH are ‘little or no warming’ over the range.
3) why is the trend pre 1998 mainly below the baseline and that after 1998 SUDDENLY appears above the baseline following a major EN that raised global temps briefly to 0.75C?
Put away your least squares and number crunching and figure out how to solve such problems. If you can’t, admit it.
Any idiot can crunch irrelevant numbers and arrive at stupid conclusions.
I thought it would be +.30 c still no progress to a new high range which AGW THEORY is predicting.
The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.
+0.13 degrees per decade.
Nuff said.
I said year 2017 will be the transitional year due to my solar criteria finally being met.
Transitional? Because it will only be the 4th hottest year on record, following on from the hottest year, according to this dataset? There are many years in the data set which were cooler than the preceding year, why weren’t they transitional years? Why is 2017 suddenly different? Hint: it’s not.
The long term temperature trend is clear: +0.13 degrees per decade.
The long term trend of your predictions is also clear: wrong.
Time will tell.
Time has told.
I have said several times that if solar reaches specific low avg. value parameters following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general the sun would have a global cooling effect.
Year 2017 is the first time this is happening this is why this year is different.
INDEED Salvatore, you have told us COUNTLESS times.
I don’t understand what you hope to achieve by promoting exactly the same message for at least 7 straight years, without ANY evidence to this point that you might be right.
Why don’t you give everyone a break and come back to gloat IF/WHEN it happens.
Salvatore, what’s the trend since this past Thursday?
The last 20 Years uha: 0.07C incline. Is 0.035C per decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:240/plot/uah6/last:240/trend
And if we eliminate the cherry-picking and use the entire series: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend
Elliott…”And if we eliminate the cherry-picking and use the entire series:…”
Do you see that 0C graticule on the vertical axis of your graph? Please explain the meaning of a trend line crossing that baseline? What does the trend represent when it crosses the baseline?
When you understand that a trend line representing the transition from a region of cooling to a region of warming means absolutely nothing, get back. That’s especially true after the IPCC declaration that the region from 1998 – 2012 was a flat trend.
Johannes Herbes is correct, there is virtually no trend from 1998 – 2015 and the IPCC have corroborated the 15 year range from 1998 – 2012.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Do you see that 0C graticule on the vertical axis of your graph? Please explain the meaning of a trend line crossing that baseline? What does the trend represent when it crosses the baseline?”
Absolutely nothing special. Baselines are arbitrary. All N-year baselines give the same trend for the same N, regardless of the baseline chosen.
This is basic, high school mathematics.
Gordon Robertson says:
“…and the IPCC have corroborated the 15 year range from 1998 2012.”
Again, a willful lie, because you know that isn’t the latest data.
Tsk Tsk. Rotten liar.
And if we take that stoopid cherry-picking ‘right in the hand’ as coolist trolls do all the time, we get this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/trend
It’s a 0.06 incline, Johannes. Click on ‘data’ on the woodfortrees graph and look at the annual trend near the bottom of that page. Then multiply by 10 for decadal.
Confidence interval for the period is +/-0.16. Too large to say much definite about the trend. As expected with short-term data.
10,000 years of temperature data:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/342/6158/617.full.pdf
Nuff said.
Still recovering from LIA
What does that even mean? Is the climate on some piece of elastic and now we’re bouncing back?
— barry says:
September 11, 2017 at 8:45 AM
What does that even mean? Is the climate on some piece of elastic and now were bouncing back?–
It means that most of the time of Holocene, it has been warmer than LIA.
Or we had global warming for +10,000 years, and I would need some evidence, which could indicate a cause of cooling, otherwise the default position, seems quite obvious that we are recovering from LIA.
Joel…”+0.13 degrees per decade. Nuff said”.
To a clueless alarmist maybe.
You seem to agree that crunching numbers over a range is a relevant exercise without considering the contexts they represent. That’s one of the first things someone properly trained in statistics is taught, not to rely on averages garnered from straight number crunching.
Explain what that trend means when half of it is in a region of cooling and the other half is in a region of warming with a flat trend over most of it’s range.
Here are the 2017 monthly UAH anomalies so far, including the trendline:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99L08byUAxVMmlZcGRpZnpEZE0/view?usp=sharing
Please explain how you see a downward trend in 2017 temperatures.
And yes, the odds are September will be cooler. When the anomaly is averaging 0.32 for the year, and this month is high, the balance of probabilities suggests that the next month will be lower than this month. We are NOT talking about climate here, just random fluctuations about the (very high) mean.
Salvatore
I guess you couldn’t find that downward trend in my graph.
DES…”Please explain how you see a downward trend in 2017 temperatures”.
Please explain how you missed it. It’s plain as day if you follow the red running average curve from 2017, near the peak of the El Nino spike till August 2017.
Perhaps you missed that part about a downward trend IN 2017.
That was Salvatore’s claim.
In case you hadn’t realised, there has not been an El Nino during 2017. After the expected post El Nino drop, and allowing for random monthly variations, the anomalies have more or less stable. There has been NO downward trend OVER THE COURSE OF 2017.
The good thing about having a conservative data set in the mix is that it provides a reliable base case. If this trend settles at something like 0.35 and this El Nino ends up being another temperature step up, then there are a few posible explanations. This rate of warming seems most consistent with direct CO2 without strong short term feedbacks. Given the lack of evidence for strong long term feedbacks… I think Earth will survive.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7668/full/nature23316.html
What is a “conservative data set?”
[snip] please don’t mischaracterize my beliefs.
Do you believe that humans were on the planet within a week of its “creation”?
A conservative method that in this case sticks to original method. Unlike dynamic data sets that change through time. Haha… but yea Roy seems conservative… but I keep his politics out of the story. I know many really good politically conservative scientists and engineers with high integrity and small ego.
This data set has changed through time, it’s Version 6.0. As well as that clue, there’s this:
“NOTE: In June 2017 we added the Metop-B satellite to the processing stream, with data since mid-2013. The Metop-B satellite has its orbit actively maintained, so the AMSU data from it does not require corrections from orbit decay or diurnal drift. As a result of adding this satellite, most of the monthly anomalies since mid-2013 have changed, by typically a few hundredths of a degree C.”
According to your definition, it’s not a conservative data set.
Huh? This data set has changed as much as, and even more than some of the others.
There’s nothing wrong with that. None of them are perfect. And they will all continue to be improved. The meta-quarterbacking on these changes is ridiculous, including the silly belief that UAH is different in that regard. Aaron is not the first to come up with this spectacularly specious view.
Comparing 1998 to 2015 for the current and previous UAH data sets – versions 5.6 and 6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend
Or the long term view for the previous and current UAH versions:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2016/trend
No changes?
Barry,
You have to remember that until UAH 6 came into being, deniers preferred RSS 3.x because it showed less warming that UAH 5.x. Now that both have been adjusted to correct acknowledged errors in the numerous adjustments required to even get continuous data from a series of decaying-orbit satellites and the failed instruments that they have carried over 35+ years (and renamed V 4.0 and 6.0 respectively) the differences seem to have largely traded places (with RSS 4.0 looking more like UAH 5.6 and vice versa). Very conservative indeed!
AaronS says:
“A conservative method that in this case sticks to original method.”
What is the “original method?”
You seem unaware of the large adjustments UAH has made over the years…. Even recently.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html
AaronS on September 5, 2017 at 9:27 AM
Unlike dynamic data sets that change through time.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/v7nt4s2y.jpg
Roy Spencer certainly had major reasons to move in 2015 from UAH5.6 to UAH6.0, as he had for the previous transtion in 2011.
What exactly do you know about UAH, AaronS?
Of course you have to update for drift, integrate new data, etc. However they did not add climate models to the method (although this is admitedly minor), nor did they remove a hiatus by manipulation. I have not heard a single complaint about them adding warming, let alone have a whistle blower say:
“So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karls thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation. I finally decided to document what I had found”. John Bates
There is something meaningful to me at least. I am interested in long-term trends and have lower confidence in other sources of data for the reasons above. So if the conservative data also shows a warming trend, then it is most likely real and I accept it. By the way I didnt use R-S-S because it was oringinaly the lowest estimate.
Ironic to say I accept man made global warming on a blog and have someone call me a denier. Given the lack of logic in that paradox I will suggest he means I am not a believer like he is. Im ok with that.
Bindidon and Dave. I appreciate the data Bindidion provided. I have never seen that. You can observe the change in the arctic and impact on global. Thanks for sharing once I QC myself I will no longer claim UAH is static. I did not realize the UAH had changed that much downward- but i do add downward is still conservative for a Earth Temperature data set used to evaluate global warming. Do you have an equal comparison between HAD C-R-U-T 3 and 4 and G-I-S-S? Would be interesting to compare.
Bates also said:
that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
“Its really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “Its not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”
And,
“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was”…
Ive read that source about Bates second comment before. Do you have the reference I can see? Also, I cant imagine why he would possibly change his stance.
bindidon…”Bates also said:
that there was no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
Bates was being kind. NOAA is not being investigated in the States for good science.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/6/noaa-agrees-review-claim-data-manipulation-climate/
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/house-committee-to-push-ahead-with-investigation-into-alleged-climate-data-manipulation-at-noaa/
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Aaron: re links.
It is good practice to provide links. However, the website here ate the various versions of the post, until I had cut both links and some more text for context.
I recommend copy and pasting the text as quoted. You will find the links before long.
That’s what I had to do to discover the provenance of your quotes. You should try to provide links, too.
Sources are AP and Science Insider, interviews with Bates. My guess is that he became less florid when he has to answer questions rather than pen a blog post. His criticisms (data archiving standards) seemed overblown, and looked more like an in-house fight over protocol than a stunning revelation. But google about a bit more broadly and see what you think.
nor did they remove a hiatus by manipulation.
No, they installed one with the latest revision.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend
The House Committee investigation into “data manipulation” at NOAA appears to have stalled. They had nothing to begin with, and their star witness contradicted himself.
Hasn’t been any updates since the first quarter of the year. I suspect it will fizzle out if it hasn’t already. Waste of money, anyway.
AaronS on September 5, 2017 at 6:37 PM
Do you have an equal comparison between HAD C-R-U-T 3 and 4 and G-I-S-S? Would be interesting to compare.
Yes, I have a comparison of subsequent GISS revisions in an Excel file, but… where did it land? Even Google Desktop Search couldn’t help.
At least I can show you work made by Nick Stokes (a comparison of the differences between UAH5.6 and UAH6.0 on the one hand, and of the differences between GISS revisions on the other hand):
https://moyhu.blogspot.de/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html
Nick’s excellent post was the origin of the Excel chart shown in my previous comment above.
What now concerns the transition from Had-CRUT3 to Had-CRUT4, I could of course retrieve all that from their site, but…
Let us bring it to the point: there was a (really mad) polemic concerning this transition, which in fact was due to moving from CRUTEM3 to CRUTEM4 (the land data).
This move was centered about integrating a considerable amount of weather stations, mainly located in Northern Russia, what led to a corresponding uptick of CRUTEM’s average.
Arctic actually experiences the highest warming (that it did in the 1880’s and in the 1940’s already, what was shown by CRU as well). But as you can imagine, only the recent Arctic warming disturbed “some people”.
woodfortrees still has Had3 data, which stopped being updated early 2014. So we can make comparison with Had4 till then.
From 1950-2014:
http://tinyurl.com/ybxemvej
Had4 has a lower trend for that period, because the earlier temps are a bit higher than Had3. Here are the trend rates for the period:
Had3 0.12
Had4 0.11
Let’s compare over the satellite period – 1979-2014
http://tinyurl.com/y82qwh4m
Now Had4 has a higher trend. Here are the trend rates
Had3 0.14
Had4 0.16
Let’s put UAH and Had-CRU together in the same plot
http://tinyurl.com/y92n3e8k
And compare the change in trend from one version to another
HAD 0.14 –> 0.16
UAH 0.14 –> 0.11
Change was in the opposite direction, with UAH having a slightly bigger difference.
Barry,
I appreciate that data. I didnt realize the UA.H revision was that big compared to H.A.D-C.R.U.T. What is most interesting is the Delta between adjustments in U.A.H. 5 and 6 and H.ad C.r.u.t 3 and 4 sum to over 0.2 degrees C difference from 2000 to 2015. WOW. The man made climate change by data manipulation exceeds the natural trend.
Skepticalscience posted some details on the differences just after they were implemented.
http://tinyurl.com/ycnhfb6r
(I don’t normally like to link to SkS, but this was a technical post, with quite a few useful links to source)
The man made climate change by data manipulation exceeds the natural trend.
How did you determine, “the natural trend?”
The biggest reason for the change from Had3 to Had4 was greater coverage, particularly in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions, where warming has been pronounced (even in the satellite records). When other data sets were masked to match Had3 coverage, they produced more similar trends. When Had4 got more coverage, similar but not as much as other surface data sets, Had4 trend became more similar.
Basically, inclusion of more Arctic coverage made Had4 warmer at the end of the record. This is not surprising, as all data sets show the fastest latitudinal warming is in the Arctic. Even the satellite data (and even after UAHv6 lowered Arctic trends by a lot – it is still the fastest warming region on Earth in the UAHv6 record).
Warming rate for Arctic land temps for the whole UAHv6 record is 0.22 C/decade. No other region has warmed as fast as even 0.2 C/decade.
For comparison, UAHv5.6 Arctic land has warming at 0.42 C/decade. The latest revision reduced the trend for that region by 48%.
Now that the EL NINO environment is ending let us see how much warmth will be present as we move forward. Answer nada.
In the meantime the recent burst of solar activity (a surprise solar flux 120) lends credence to the idea that this cycle is going to be not only weak but long.
Global ocean temperatures last check were +.291 c.
My solar climate play is very low solar will result in overall lower ocean temperatures and an increase in albedo .
Thus far this year the global temperatures have been trending down and I expect this trend to continue with global temperatures at 30 year means within a year.
AGW will be in more trouble to justify this development if it occurs which is looking more likely.
“Global ocean temperatures last check were +.291 c.”
That statement is utterly meaningless unless you state the BASELINE.
“I think this blip ends before NOV. is through and if solar conditions continue to be sub par cooling in a more pronounced way will start in year 2014.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/15/2013
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4#comment-1047
The return to cooling always seems to be just about to happen with Salvatore.
Yes, it does. Though he once said cooling started in 2002:
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
It is critical to acknowledge that if Salvatore were an alarmist and he were to claim that the oceans would raise 200 meters by last Tuesday, you lot would not criticize him and, as shown in cases of other alarmists’ bizarre claims, you lot would even go as far as to protect him.
So your comments regarding Salvatore’s opinions have an exact value of zilch.
Please prove otherwise by providing links to your exchanges with alarmists (e.g., Prince Charles), exchanges where you bring them to task for disasters that “always seem to be just about to happen” (e.g., disappearing islands) and yet never taking place.
Typical Laura-like polemic, based on pure guessing. I’m waiting for your very first comment able to enrich the debate.
You are that sexist fellow from the other thread, aren’t you? What an awesome addition to the inhumanity of alarmists.
As before, please provide evidence that your motivations are not tribal and that your “facts” are indeed worth considering at all.
In the meantime, the “enrichment” of the “debate” for the likes of you remains one in which alarmists make one ludicrous claim after another without any consequence.
Laura,
Be nice. Many here have a bad case of dish it out but can’t take it.
Dishing out changes in topic to make fatuous, speculative criticisms isn’t too threatening.
Hi Laura.
It is critical to acknowledge that you have zero evidence of my responses to bizarre claims that overstate the effects of climate change.
The key is timescales. Current warming trends indicate that we’re increasing the average global temperature by ~1 degree per century, so the catastrophic effects of 4 degrees of warming won’t be experience for another few hundred years, yet. In personal/economic/political terms, that’s beyond any long range planning envelope. In geological terms, that’s the blink of an eye.
It’s easy to see how a scientist’s description of imminent catastrophic effects (on a scale of millions of years) being misunderstood by less scientifically literate people as meaning imminent on a personal timescale, rather than geological timescale.
This leads to two results:
1. Some people will accept the scientist’s analysis, but misunderstand the timescale and repeat the misunderstanding as fact. These people definitely exist, and I would hope to educate them on how their mistaken understanding and/or fast and loose use of scientific terms feeds the mess of disinformation that is rampant on this topic.
2. Some people will hear the scientist’s analysis and scoff at it due to the misunderstanding, and/or will hear the mistaken layerperson’s understanding and assume that represents the scientific consensus, and therefore dismiss the scientific facts that they mis-communicated.
The nature of the carbon cycle suggests that industrial processes and deforestation today will contribute to warming for decades, if not centuries. That is why it is imperative to act soon, even though the worst consequences are still centuries away.
This might even be true. The trouble is that it is simply not possible to curb drastically and rapidly the CO2 emission, as required according to the (questionable) numerical models, and still power a civilization of as much as 7+ billion people. At the very least, not right now. Technologies are just either not mature or still don’t even exist. There is no serious alternative to power agriculture or maritime transport, for instance, except ridiculous wishful thinking.
“The trouble is that it is simply not possible to curb drastically and rapidly the CO2 emission, as required according to the (questionable) numerical models, and still power a civilization of as much as 7+ billion people. At the very least, not right now. Technologies are just either not mature or still dont even exist.”
Technically false. All required technology exists. The only non-existent technology that is frequently mentioned is carbon capture and storage, and it’s not required.
Commercially false. The costs of implementing solutions are less than the projected costs of continuing as we are.
It would have been nice to have started transitioning away from the dirtiest fossil fuels 20 or 30 years ago, but that’s no reason to not start now.
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best option is now.
Laura
I MOST DEFINITELY would criticise him. On YouTube I attack people at both ends of the spectrum – proponents of massive cooling at one extreme, and idiots who propose human extinction in the next decade at the other. Both are deniers of real science.
As I told you, just ridiculous wishful thinking and/or plain lies.
And by the way note that you are merely a “denier” of the reality and fundamental laws of physics. Funny.
Once more, let me recall a stubborn fact:
There is by now no serious way to power agriculture with renewable energies and feed 7+ billion people
None.
And no agriculture => no food => much less people and for the survivors no democracy, slavery, etc etc.
Well in summary; just like 5 centuries ago when hardly 10 times less humans were already on 100 % renewable wind, solar and water.
Some food for thought
alphagruis:
Yes, the transitional effort to transform the agricultural and transport sectors will take longer than the stationary energy sector. No doubt.
However, you seem to be assuming we need to get to zero emissions, total. We don’t. The carbon cycle through the atmosphere means we just need to balance the equation. Where we can substitute non-emitting techs and processes, we should, so that industries that have no real alternative (e.g.steel production) can continue to support modern society.
Yes, transport and agriculture will take longer to reduce their global emissions intensity than the energy sector, and that’s fine – IF we transition the energy sector quickly. If not, then too much warming will be locked in for the next couple of hundred years.
You want a simple way to drastically reduce agricultural emissions, really quickly? Put an emissions tax on livestock, proceeds to be used to help producers shift their business model to lower emission intense products. Beef becomes an extra expensive delicacy, pork somewhat more expensive, and chicken a little more expensive. Voila, change in consumption patterns and a massive reduction in agricultural emissions.
Laura…”As before, please provide evidence that your motivations are not tribal and that your facts are indeed worth considering at all”.
What facts, Laura? Bindidon does not deal in fact he deals in alarmist propaganda. As far as being sexist is concerned, alarmists feel that anything goes when dealing in alarmist propaganda.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/08/steyn-on-the-anti-science-labeling-of-dr-judith-curry-by-dr-michael-mann/
…. as he provides us with Denier propaganda ….
Laura,
Why are you mad at tribalists on only one side of the argument? Ive seen much on the other side. Many many commenters have a view that any science that suggests a need for more regulation MUST be wrong!
Let me take this opportunity to chastise fellow alarmist Dr No for his brutal fear mongering, he was really out of line here: https://tinyurl.com/ybekkfm9
Laura on September 5, 2017 at 5:26 PM
You are that sexist fellow from the other thread, arent you? What an awesome addition to the inhumanity of alarmists.
Wow. You name me a ‘sexist fellow’ just because I claim about you writing all the time comments without even a shadow of what we could view as science?
Your contributions up to now in various threads rather remind me the same kind of journalism as that produced by alarmist reporters, but at the opposite site.
Summing up, the alarmists claim to have science on their side yet fail to provide any evidence that their “science” has any value other than as a weapon against normal human beings.
As they cannot provide the requested evidence, simple as it is, they divert and attack, in order to pursue the only goal they truly care about, namely, the tribe.
The “science” they claim to have on their side be damned. The “facts” they claim to be sound be damned. If you are an alarmist, they will let you say anything you want, they will go as far as to protect you no matter how ludicrous your claims, even if it means that this “science” and these “facts” will be ignored, dismissed, trampled on.
Prove me wrong. Show everyone the exchanges that I have been asking for. What could be simpler? You have had over TWO decades of opportunities to challenge the alarmist doomsayers. Some of their claims over the years have been so outlandish that it is beyond comprehension that any rational person could possibly go along. So bring it on. I want to see the evidence. Prove that your “facts” have real value as science and not as tribal weapons, which is what they are here, in this blog, and elsewhere.
Are you looking for posts where so-called ‘alarmists’ disagree with each other?
If you consider me an ‘alarmist’, I can provide plenty of examples where I disagree and argue with David Appell. I certainly don’t ‘protect’ views I think are wrong from people who may be in the same ‘tribe’ as me.
Just let me know if that’s sufficient and I’ll search for the relevant posts.
For now, here’s a post where I disagree with a paper cited by so-called ‘alarmists’ that recent trends are much higher than historical.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261476
BTW, I’ve asked the same question as you about skeptics. Though rare, there have been a few times when ‘skeptics’ have disagreed. Notably, Bart and Kristian have argued against members of their ‘tribe’ on a few points. For the rest, not so much.
Laura, how would you categorize me if you read this comment:
There are alarmists and there are pollyannas, who are just as certain that all will be well. Neither view is reasonable. We know from physics that the surface of the planet will warm with increased CO2. We dont know how much or how fast, despite what the pollyannas and alarmists push.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/reprieve-binding-paris-treaty-now-voluntary-mush/#comment-204085
Laura, your faux outrage at ‘alarmists’ is as you call them, is misdirected. Why are you not outraged with those who regularly deny science, who want to end funding research to find the facts, who promote false doubt about the science, all because of a political or corporate agenda?
–alphagruis says:
September 5, 2017 at 9:07 PM
That is why it is imperative to act soon, even though the worst consequences are still centuries away.
This might even be true. The trouble is that it is simply not possible to curb drastically and rapidly the CO2 emission, as required according to the (questionable) numerical models, and still power a civilization of as much as 7+ billion people. At the very least, not right now. Technologies are just either not mature or still dont even exist. There is no serious alternative to power agriculture or maritime transport, for instance, except ridiculous wishful thinking.”
The bright side is we will need electric powered machinery for use on the Moon and Mars.
On the moon, solar power is quite viable.
Anywhere on the Moon is far better than Earth, but polar regions have site locations in which more than 80% of the time one can get 1360 watts per square meter of sunlight.
Whereas on Earth, at best it’s about 25% of the time one can get peak solar hours.
Mars also isn’t limited to peak hours, so in average 24 hours day one gets 50% of the time at “peak hours”- or 12 hours at 600 watts compared to say 900 watts for 6 hours on average day. In terms of Kw hour per day, Mars with it’s weaker sunlight get on average 7.2 Kw hours of solar flux, and in the better places on Earth per day average one get about 5.4 Kw hours. Whereas worst place like Germany get about 2 Kw hours on average.
Or there is no question that Moon is far superior as compared to Earth or Mars, but Mars is better location than compared to the Earth surface.
Mars like Earth has continuous sunlight during summer periods in polar region and during these month of constant solar power it’s 600 watts, whereas with Earth the polar region tend to cloudy one get less solar energy than Germany.
So anyhow Mars poles get the same amount of sunlight as elsewhere on Mars in terms of yearly average, but starting with Spring Equinox and ending Fall Equinox in this period time one higher average daily amount of solar energy than anywhere else on Mars [and anywhere on Earth]. But of course in winter you have long period of night.
Joel
No, I’m not. Yet, according to the “consensus”, a drastic reduction is indispensable if one expects to have a sizable effect on climate.
My point was basically that it is by no means obvious, as usually seems to be believed by the proponents of a (“climate sufficient”) carbon neutral economy that such a thing is indeed ever possible at present population level. One may of course hope so but that’s all and nature doesn’t care.
Even what you call the energy sector is IMO likely to get into trouble if the transition is forced march.
As for agriculture you suggest a solution in the form of taxes and constraints. Yet it’s by no means that simple and agriculture in particular here in France is a complex system. It is absurd to tell farmers they should no longer raise grass-fed cattle in all those mountainous regions where this the tradition for very very very good ecological and economic reasons. These farmers cannot and won’t grow wheat or soya beans instead in order to feed vegans.
gbaikie
IMO, electric powered machinery is excellent as long as it can be fed with a grid.
If batteries are to be relied on it’s highly questionable. Too less power per unit weight (0.25 kWh/ kg).
So IMO it’s essentially carbon for ever in transport and agriculture. Be it fossil or synthetic.
Jet or diesel fuel ( 10kWh/liter) 40 times more than batteries.
” alphagruis says:
September 7, 2017 at 6:47 AM
gbaikie
IMO, electric powered machinery is excellent as long as it can be fed with a grid.”
Well at lunar pole, it would very easy to have a solar power grid.
In terms at the beginning of lunar development, one could have a 2 or 3 site [which quite near to each other] which provide a constant electrical power supply.
Later one could solar network which encircles the polar region- so power storage needed for 100% of electrical power from solar energy.
This is why the Moon would be very viable in terms of solar energy.
Or it’s step one, for eventually powering Earth with solar energy- from solar satellites [which also can get 100% of the time providing electrical power. And it’s better than that because one deliver electrical power where ever someone wants it on Earth surface- war zone, disaster zone, or middle of the pacific ocean. Or solar power from space can balance a grid, rather than imbalance a grid.
Mars is similar to Moon- not nearly as good, far better than using Earth surface as site to harvest solar energy.
It should be remembered that Solar panels were made for use in space- where they current being used as cheapest way of getting power in space.
Or modern Lingo the hippies appropriated “advanced alien technology” not designed for Earth surface use.
Or moon is good, because it has small polar region, and to start development has high mountains- or some mountains called “peaks of eternal light”.
Or some people say, God gave us the Moon, so humans could go to the heavens”.
“Or solar power from space can balance a grid, rather than imbalance a grid.”
Just that ability to balance Earth’s electrical grid- assuming on continued to use conventional power plants, is worth hundreds of billions of dollar.
Or it’s the inverse of current solar power use, which already has and will continue to cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
But solar power from space if say it captured half earth’s electrical market is worth trillions of dollars per year AND makes electrical power “too cheap to meter” except the cost to meter will also lower in cost. So maybe 1/5th current prices of eletrical power and have unlimited source of electrical energy- with zero pollution.
“electrical power and have unlimited source of electrical energy- with zero pollution.”
Also it ends global poverty, and essentially one is balancing
economical inequity.
Or basically solves every friggin thing lefties have whined about [but a more profound way of solving it]- and basically the global Market can finance- or requires no huge governmental funds [not something that the Lefties like- because people control it, not the power crazed Lefties with centralize power [who constant task is trying to make everyone miserable].
Laura,
‘alarmists make one ludicrous claim after another’
alarmists ‘use facts to bludgeon’ their opponents
alarmists ‘are tribal’ beasts of some kind
We really are a bunch of slimy pigs! Because we disagree with Laura!
People who agree with Laura are of high moral standing!
You appear to not just want to argue with our facts and our opinions, but more so- you want to malign our character and our motivations, which you assume you know! (remember when you assume…)
Whereas I assume that most on my side AND your side are just regular people who care about this issue, and believe we have facts to support our views. (though some are nuts!)
I TRY to look at comments on their own merits. Are they supported by facts, logic?
‘provide evidence that your motivations are not tribal and that your facts are indeed worth considering at all.’
No thanks. Don’t see the point. I dont pay ransom to terrorists.
Again alarmists claim to stand for science.
Again alarmists fail to demonstrate that such a claim is credible.
My question is why do you require an ethics test for only those who disagree with you?
Suggests you are tribal indeed.
Recent arrival to the alarmist tribe, climate ghoul Jennifer Lawrence proclaims the “scientific truth”…
…as alarmists do, that is, with no respect for science whatsoever and with the overt and covert support of the alarmist tribe.
yes, celebrities not credible as scientists. Also easy to attack.
But again no bad characters in your tribe?
Laura,
In fact, there is some evidence that your side is more tribal. To become a member in good standing of your tribe, one has to deny the science of climate change. The 17 or so repub candidates for President understood this well. Regardless of their previous positions on the issue, they were compelled to deny or diminish climate science, or to say the now famous, ‘I dont know, Im not a scientist’.
How would they decide policy on any science-related issue is left unclear.
One sensible voice:
Lets be clear. I wasnt happy with the original agreement, especially in light of the Obama administrations failure to work with Republicans in Congress on terms acceptable to both parties, Kasich wrote. But, I know that climate change is real. It is a global issue and will need a global agreement to address. And we could have negotiated that agreement in ways that would not needlessly destroy jobs.
http://wdtn.com/2017/06/01/kaisch-speaks-out-about-decision-to-leave-paris-climate-accord/
Apologies David Appell, internet ate my quotes again.
Salvatore is on track, if you take into account the transient El Nino. Basing your entire outlook on a decoupled temporary phenomenon is like playing with fire – sooner or later, you are going to get burned.
We keep getting told long-term global warming is due to el Ninos – temporary, transient phenomena.
The calculated trend in the 2000’s to now is biased upward by a transient phenomenon. It’s not real. Now that the El Nino is fading, temps are right back where they started.
‘temps are right back where they started.’
Maybe on planet Bart..on Earth they are 0.2 above where they started.
They’re currently the same as the el Nino year of 2010. Is that “right where they started?” Otherwise the only other time temps were as warm as current in the UAH record was halfway to the largest el Nino blip of the 20th century.
It’s in the noise. Last month, it was dead center. And, the current direction is downward.
Proof positive that Bart’s stats eyeball sees what it wants to see.
It’s what your eyeballs saw, too, Nate. You said “they are 0.2 above where they started.” Well, last month, the reading was 0.12 lower, and the month before exactly 0.2 lower. Obviously, it is bobbling around where it started, and the several-month trend is down.
2012-2014 ave 0.12
2017 ave 0.31
last 3 mo. 0.30
It’s about July temps, is it, Bart?
“Temps ARE right back where they started”.
Present tense = six weeks ago?
Confusing.
10 y ave prior to El nino 2005-2014
0.12
Why do you guys insist on whistling past the graveyard?
Why not fact-check before shooting unsupportable assertions from the hip?
For example, by you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261390
Can you explain this list? I have no idea what point he is trying to make.
Weatherbell avg for AUG was +.335c so far for SEP. +.227c
Reason why it is lower is because Wx. Bell takes into account the higher latitudes more above 80 N latitude.
I take the average of the two.
>”I take the average of the two.”
Two what? Days in August so far?
How long does the trend of +0.13 degrees/decade need to be maintained before it convinces the final deniers?
If global temperatures are still as high or higher then they are a year from now and solar is in the tank I will have to admit to being wrong.
On the other hand if global temperatures trend down what will that say for AGW theory?
You said “a year from now” last month.
I am not going to permit you to keep saying that each month.
Your clock is at 11 months and counting.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 3, 2017 at 10:11 AM
“If however Dr. Spencers data and Weatherbells data still show temperatures this high a year from now I will have to say I am wrong.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-257573
Fair enough.
No Salvatore, you can be right even if temperatures go up.
There are about two dozen factors that decide global temperature.
Most of them have short term impact, but can overwhelm long term changes.
How strong is your solar variation in w/m^2, and how long will it last?
CO2 adds very little every year, but lasts for thousands of years. It will come back with a vengeance if your solar influence quits after a hundred years.
Try a 250 Gton CO2 spike here: https://tinyurl.com/yb65bxkq.
Indeed, he can.
The long term warming trend of about 0.6 degC/century has been with us since at least 1900, well before CO2 emissions took off with a sharp inflection circa 1950. It will likely be sustained until it isn’t.
Bart,
Again you prefer the ‘things just happen’ meme. No reasons needed.
Things do “just happen” without any influence from humans at all. Just because you can hypothesis a cause and effect relationship does not mean such a relationship truly exists.
Cause and effect doesn’t exist outside human contribution? That’s a view mistakenly attributed to ‘warmists’.
Prior to Franklin, lightning destroyed houses. It was an ‘act of god’. Understanding it was useful.
We have physics based causes, some natural and some not, that predicted the global warming and its spatial pattern, that indeed occurred, and is continuing. That is useful.
As an alternative theory, you offer ‘stuff just happens’. That is not very enlightening or useful.
We have physics based causes, some natural and some not, that predicted the global warming and its spatial pattern, that indeed occurred, and is continuing.”
Actually, their spatial projections are worse than their bulk temperature projections.
Everything that happens has a cause and effect. But, just because we see an effect does not mean the cause is the only thing our imaginations allow us to see.
CO2 as the cause of the warming of the last century is debunked by the simple fact that the warming trend started well before CO2 could have been the driver. Cause must precede effect in this universe.
On the one side we have detailed predictions that are falsifiable, correctable. Your ‘stuff just happens’ is not falsifiable or even testable. That takes it into the realm of belief, not science.
‘Warming before co2’ is a strawman. No one is arguing that all temp variation explained by co2.
“On the one side we have detailed predictions that are falsifiable…”
…and have been duly falsified.
“Your stuff just happens is not falsifiable or even testable.”
Nonsense. It’s just not in a high state of development, because all the investigative energy is being wasted pursuing the chimera of CO2 induced warming.
But, the idea is based on the ubiquity of cyclic behavior observed in systems which store and release energy on timescales proportional to their physical scale. Such systems are typically described by partial differential equations with boundary conditions. It is well established science.
‘based on the ubiquity of cyclic behavior observed in systems which store and release energy on timescales proportional to their physical scale.’
Hand-waving that does not explain observed long-term trends.
‘Such systems are typically described by partial differential equations with boundary conditions. It is well established science.’
Indeed calculus and arithmetic can be applied to these problems, as well as all other physical phenomena. Whats your point?
Des
Great!
I’d rather be skeptical than a dumbass brainless lemming.
I see you’ve chosen to be both.
You are a very sharp observer.
Sceptics value facts.
+0.13 degrees of warming per decade is a fact.
You may be doing scepticism wrong if you’re not incorporating facts into your world view.
Brought to you by El Nino. Not a sound basis for long term extrapolation.
Trend in a number of percentiles:
98th percentile: +0.15 degrees per decade
95th percentile: +0.14 degrees per decade
90th percentile: +0.11 degrees per decade
80th percentile: +0.11 degrees per decade
70th percentile: +0.12 degrees per decade
60th percentile: +0.12 degrees per decade
50th percentile: +0.12 degrees per decade
40th percentile: +0.13 degrees per decade
30th percentile: +0.14 degrees per decade
20th percentile: +0.13 degrees per decade
10th percentile: +0.13 degrees per decade
5th percentile: +0.12 degrees per decade
2nd percentile: +0.13 degrees per decade
The lower percentiles are not affected by El Ninos. The trend is there pretty consistently across the ENTIRE distribution.
I do not know what your numbers refer to, nor what point you are trying to make.
The temperature rise declines. The last twenty years: 0.035 C per decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:240/plot/uah6/last:240/trend
That site is [as it often does] using old data (UAH beta v6.0, not UAH v6.0). With the latest data the 20-yr trend is +0.06 C/decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:240/plot/rss/last:240/plot/none
RSS LT v4.0’s 20-yr trend is double that, +0.12 C/decade.
But both have significant uncertainties; the interval is too short to indicate long-term climate trends.
It doesn’t say what version of RSS LT they’re using.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:240/plot/rss/last:240/plot/none
David,
“It doesnt say what version of RSS LT theyre using”
If you click the data link it shows it to be:
#—————————————————-
#Data from Remote Sensing Systems
#http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
#—————————————————-
#
#File: RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
In other words, that is the deprecated version 3.3, which RSS warn is outdated and erroneous (like UAH 5.6).
Basically, woodfortrees is too out of date to be useful at present
Yes, you have to hunt around for version numbers, and then you usually find the data is old and out-of-date.
WFT is a useless site.
“With the latest data the 20-yr trend is +0.06 C/decade.”
That is consistent with the 0.6 degC/century rate of rise since at least 1900, long before increasing CO2 could have initiated it.
https://tinyurl.com/y7hfgmhh
Bart,
At least use the same data set!
For Had4 the trend from 2000 until present is 1.6 degrees per decade see https://tinyurl.com/y7f3cojv.
I notice that the warmers use phrases such as ‘one degree’ without specifying temperature scale such as degree Celsius or Fahrenheit.
This is truly the mark of an ignorant troll without any scientific training.
Bryan,
Only Yanks use Fahrenheit. For the vast majority of the world there is no confusion. Why would we even consider the possibility that a scientist would confuse Celsius with an anachronistic temperature scale?
Unless ….. you’re not a scientist ……
We all know he means degrees C. The data he is citing is in that form, as is the chart.
Don’t mistake your ignorance for others’ malfeasance.
Des
How are we to know that you Joel and Dave A are not ‘Yanks’ (or not) as you put it.
Writing values without units is the mark of an ignorant troll.
Alongside other slapdash giveaway signs in your posts I suppose its all we can expect
Bryan
Given that a troll is someone who makes deliberately provocative comments, I’m sure you will understand how I am having difficulty equating the omission of the STANDARD scientific unit with being a troll.
I guess that means we can ignore a speed limit sign that just says “40”. After all, it is just trolling us.
Des
Your speed limit example is pretty poor
Each country has one form of speed limit so unless you are unsure of which country you are in, you would not have a problem.
This site is frequented by several nationalities including ‘yanks’
So both temperature scales are in use.
The following passage could have been written by a warmist
‘A very tall man measuring 3 went for a walk at 2 .
His temperature rose by 0.5 but his weight stayed the same at 9.’
Do you not see that putting in scales as well as values is a silly warmist habit.
If you want to be taken more seriously in future use the correct units.
I must humbly apologise for totally confusing Bryan by inadvertently missing the letter “C”.
I would have thought that it would have been obvious to anyone (with the minimum requirement of 0.5 of a brain) that it had to be Celsius as it was just a reply to Bart’s comment preceding my comment.
However i was also mistaken in my trend figure, as it should have been rounded up to 1.7 C per century for the period 2000 onwards rather than the value I quoted as 1.6 C per century.
This figure can be found by clicking on “raw data” at the bottom of my above link to the “Wood for the Trees” web site. I can assure Bryan that, despite the data from this web site is missing a temperature unit, that the unit for all the data on that web site is in Celsius not Fahrenheit.
MikeR
If I handed in a lab report without without the correct units it would be given an embarrassing fail.
But in the slapdash world of a warmest it doesn’t matter .
A hint for you…..
Use Fahrenheit units instead of Celsius but omit the unit as usual.
Much more alarming
Bryan, we’ve all been here for quite some time, and all knew what unit was meant. You can take it as read that all temperature units are in degrees C unless otherwise stated. Don’t mistake your ignorance for someone else’s problem.
MikeR @ September 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM
“For Had4 the trend from 2000 until present is 1.6 degrees per decade…”
Those are degrees C for sure – C is for cherry, as in picked.
It is not surprising that Bart’s instant Pavlovian response to the mention of the letter “C” is to associate it with cherry picking. He has proved his credentials in this matter on many occasions and his initial comment that I responded to, is yet another magnificent example of his expertise.
His link to data for the years 1900 to 2000 only ( I will specify A. D. just in case Bryan is reading this post) and his use of an entirely different data set i.e. Had4, when what was being discussed was UAH data, demonstrates that when it comes to cherry picking, Bart has no peer.
Bart however needs to be reminded that his over consumption of cherries can have dire consequences for his digestive system and all those who may come in direct contact with him.
I think I am safe at this distance.
long term trend not a good fit to linear. Clearly it is more consistent with an increasing trend over last century +. Consistent with log (co2)
http://tinyurl.com/y9p5ez8x
Forever, if the conditions of that rise are not commensurate with the AGW hypothesis. They are not. A warming world does not establish that carbon dioxide is warming the world.
Joel…”How long does the trend of +0.13 degrees/decade need to be maintained before it convinces the final deniers?”
Why not take a course in statistics, Joel, then get back to us? Anyone who can’t see that trend crosses from a region of cooling to a region of warming, then claims the trend represents anthropogenic warming, needs a course in statistics.
I have never seen UAH claim that trend represents anthropogenic warming, all they have claimed is it represents the data over the range. The trick, Joel. is to LOOK AT THE GRAPH!!
Do you understand what the data is telling you? When you take the course, scrape the egg off your face and come back.
” Anyone who can’t see that trend crosses from a region of cooling to a region of warming, then claims the trend represents anthropogenic warming, needs a course in statistics. ”
What are you banging on about? You’ve spouted this nonsense a couple of times now. Negative anomalies do not necessarily indicate that it is cooling. They simply indicate that, in the case of UAH, that temperatures were below the mean temperatures for the 1981-2010 period.
If anomalies -0.2 C and rise to -0.1 C – then it’s warming
If they then rise to ZERO – it’s still warming and
if they rise to +0.2 C – it’s STILL warming.
I’m not someone who thinks that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming, but it will cause some warming – and that’s what appears to be happening.
To be honest, being associated with some on the sceptical side of the AGW argument is becoming embarrassing.
John Finn
Thanks for writing that. I guess Robertson won’t understand what you wrote, let alone would he admit that.
But I add that being no alarmist nor a fortiori a warmist, I feel similarly embarassed by being associated to them just because I don’t share the views of stubborn skeptics a la Robertson.
bindidon…”Thanks for writing that. I guess Robertson wont understand what you wrote, let alone would he admit that”.
You certainly don’t.
john finn…”If anomalies -0.2 C and rise to -0.1 C then its warming
If they then rise to ZERO its still warming and
if they rise to +0.2 C its STILL warming”.
You are going to have to define warming. Alarmists are throwing the trend of 0.13C around as if it indicates an anthropogenic warming of 0.13C/decade over the range of the satellite data.
I have no argument that a warming is a warming but in the context of anthropogenic warming you have to define what is anthropogenic and what is not. A trend from 1979 – 2017 has to be broken down to what is rewarming from volcanic aerosols and what is contributed by El Nino activity.
I have no argument that the data from 1979 – 2017 does not describe ‘warming’ per se. However, when you begin at -.3C, cross the baseline then finish at +0.3C, you are NOT describing anthropogenic warming wrt the baseline.
What do you imagine the baseline represents?
Worst summer since 1998 in the UK, total washout. Now settling down to Autumn.
Good to hear. Your cricket team will be out of practice for the coming Australian summer.
Not quite true Tim, but don’t let the facts get in the way of the story you want to tell.
I would rate the UK summer akin to a curate’s egg – some good parts (June heatwave for example), some bad parts.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2017/a-wet-summer-comes-to-a-close
Murali depends where abouts in he UK you live.in Northumberland we had 4 days of above average temp in early June.July was cool and damp. August the same apart from he odd day.September has started cool again.Autumn has come a little early.could be a long winter if the Jet Stream stays to the South.
There was no June Heat wave where I live in the centre of the UK. Do you even live in the UK?
Why do you compare this small UK corner with the entire world?
Why not?
Because it makes no sense.
Would I for example compare the UAH grid cell with the highest warming trend of near 5 C/century, located on the latitude band 80N-82.5N, with the entire grid?
Certainly not.
Tim Wells…”Worst summer since 1998 in the UK, total washout. Now settling down to Autumn”.
Weather tends to be variable, Tim. Here in Vancouver on the ‘wet’ coast of Canada we have endured the opposite. We’re all praying for rain.
It looks like a la nia is trying to form take a look at climate reanalizer sea surface temperature anomaly.
It’s neutral.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
The outlooks:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks
suggest that we will be dancing with a La Nina.
Remember that the Nino 3.4 temperatures are themselves expressed as anomalies relative to a long term (30 year) average that gets updated every 5 years. See
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
As a consequence, a SST (temperature) that would be considered La Nina now would have been neutral a few decades back. Add approximately 0.4 degrees if you want to directly compare present day Nino 3.4 data with SSTs pre 1990.
Not sure what that had to do with my links to model projections for the coming year.
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.WtuMHv7u.dpbs
Notricks, eh?
The usual meme of only citing US landfalling hurricanes. Nothing to do with global, eh?
Because a written summary says so, rather than a graphical interpretation of the current SST anomalies?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.9.4.2017.gif
Last month was only 0.03C outside the la Nina threshold based on NINO3.4 sea surface temps at -0.5 Nina line.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
Warmest 12 first 8 months of the year in the UAH record.
1. 1998 (average 0.57) … EL NINO
1. 2016 (0.57) … EL NINO
3. 2010 (0.40) … EL NINO
4. 2017 (0.32)
5. 2002 (0.25) … EL NINO
6. 2015 (0.21) … EL NINO
6. 2007 (0.21) … EL NINO
8. 2005 (0.20) … EL NINO
9. 2014 (0.16)
9. 2003 (0.16) … EL NINO
11. 1991 (0.13) … EL NINO
11. 2013 (0.13)
The years marked EL Nino had at least one El Nino month between January and August.
So the warmest three NON El Nino years to date:
1. 2017
2. 2014
3. 2013
ie. the LAST THREE non El Nino years.
That is deceiving because the first half of year 2017 was trending toward El Nino.
The El Nino environment was present even though officially we were not in EL NINO. Not to forget we had just come off a strong EL NINO.
Des, things have changed and now we are now in an LA NINA environment.
No, Salvatore: we are in a 60% neutral ENSO state with 30 % La Nina and 10% El Nino.
exactly
la nina environment
We had just come off a weak la Nina at the beginning of 2017.
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Conditions need to persist for a while before we can say we are at la Nina levels. And they need to persist for 7-8 months to be a full-blown la Nina.
Salvatore, there is a 5 month lag between current Tropospheric temperatures and SSTs in the Nino 3.4 region. Here is the cross-correlation between Nino 3.4 monthly values and UAH 6:
https://imgur.com/a/CE5Qs#SXRu9cE
So at the present time we should just be coming under the influence of whatever was happening in the first half of 2017, while the UAH data for the first 6 months of 2017 would actually reflect what was happening June-December LAST year. And that was actually officially over the threshold for La Nina:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Conclusion: With both weak La Nina (second half of 2017) and mild warmth (below El Nino thresholds) influencing 2017 temperatures so far, this is as close to a neutral year as you are ever going to find. And yet UAH 6.0 monthly data remain in the highest few % of any months since they began collecting data……
Actually, that was the cross-correlation for RSS 4.0 TTT, but the UAH 6.0 is here (very similar, unsurprisingly since UAH 6.0 is in any case similarly weighted for total troposphere to RSS 4.0 TTT):
https://imgur.com/a/nFXHi
Record 5 y average .267. Old record .166
The increase of the mean global temperature began as early as AD 1800, before there was CO2 emissions by humans. The trend just continues (well below the predictions of the alarmists) and there is no reason to believe that the cause is CO2.
You think humans didn’t invent fire until 1800?
You think humans didn’t do any deforestation until 1800?
Interesting. Please, tell me more about how humans didn’t affect the carbon cycle until the 1800s.
Jean Meeus says:
“The increase of the mean global temperature began as early as AD 1800, before there was CO2 emissions by humans.”
There were anthropogenic CO2 emissions before 1800, from land use changes.
CDIAC found that CO2 emissions from land use changes in 1850 was about 500 MtC (equivalent to 1.8 Gt CO2).
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/1850-2005.txt
You guys are grasping at straws. Face it: Yes, the Earth is warming. No, it is not because of atmospheric CO2.
OK, Bart, if not CO2 slowing the release of heat out of the atmosphere, then what is causing the warming? The rotation rate of the Earth has not changed measurably, the warming does not correlate with solar input, waste heat from biological activity is insufficient to produce the warming, the planet hasn’t started being bathed with some new extraterrestrial energy in the last century, so what is it? I constantly hear this “it’s a natural process”, “the Earth has warmed before”, blah, blah, blah, “so it isn’t CO2” nonsense with no explanation as to what “natural process” is responsible. Any process producing the level of warming we are currently experiencing must have measurable mechanism, so what is it and where can I find the data demonstrating it?
Slipstick,
Check out cloud cover.
Norman,
If cloud cover was the cause, the Earth would have been completely enrobed in clouds eons ago.
The system is not stationary. In addition to cyclical solar input, there are long term energy storage and release modes involving tidal forces, and the resultant precession and nutation of the Earth’s axis of rotation, creating massive redistributions over time.
Just because you have a potential cause, and do not think there are others, does not confirm the hypothesis. This is the kind of thinking that made primitives sacrifice virgins to volcanoes to appease the rain gods.
The warming we have seen is not consistent with rising atmospheric CO2. That’s just all there is to it. Moreover, we are not the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2 in the first place. It’s a total scientific fiasco of the first order.
Bart,
Nothing of what you propose correlates with the temperature rise over the last forty years and, contrary to your claim, we are the only drivers of the additional 30% of CO2 concentration that has been pumped into the atmosphere in the last century and a half.
“Nothing of what you propose correlates with the temperature rise over the last forty years…”
Sure it does. E.g., the AMO correlates very well with the observed ~65 year periodicity.
“…we are the only drivers of the additional 30% of CO2 concentration…”
Nope. The data are very clear. Temperatures are driving CO2, and not the reverse.
AMO aliases global temps.
Or can you demonstrate causation by the AMO?
I see global temps leading AMO from about 1960. Here’s the data with 30-yr averages.
http://tinyurl.com/y87kvoxl
On monthly scales, global temps usually lead. Here’s 20 years worth for easier comparison.
http://tinyurl.com/y7kavvue
Sorry, don’t see AMO leading. It usually lags.
“I see global temps leading AMO from about 1960.”
Just differences in spatial phase relationships. The AMO is basically calculated as North Atlantic temperature anomaly with a trend removed. Its constituent data are thereby part of the data used in the GAT calculation. Perhaps, if you averaged temperature anomalies in the South Atlantic, it would show GAT lagging, and together the North and South Anomalies would line up with GAT.
Actually, looking at this again, there is no phase discrepancy:
https://tinyurl.com/y8u34nwb
That’s a problem with overly smoothing data – temporary features get smoothed over, and you lose the detail that allows you to see what is genuinely happening.
slipstick…”OK, Bart, if not CO2 slowing the release of heat out of the atmosphere, then what is causing the warming?”
If you don’t understand heat and why it cannot be trapped by other molecules in the atmosphere why talk about it?
Heat is the energy of atoms. Unless you trap an atom/molecule as does the glass in a greenhouse, you cannot trap heat. CO2 cannot trap heat, it can only absorb a tiny fraction of the IR flux radiated from the surface. How that translates to trapping heat or returning it to the surface has never been explained by alarmists.
Molecules that comprise air do not prevent heat from rising as nitrogen or oxygen molecules which make up 99%+ of the atmosphere. That rising hot air represents convective heat flow. You cannot trap it unless you have a surface like the glass in a greenhouse.
You seem to be suggesting that IR is heat and that the trapped IR somehow slows down the escape of EM energy from the surface. Not possible. IR is emitted naturally by any atom/molecule as the atom/molecule cools.
Besides, there is not enough CO2 to capture any more than a trivial amount of the IR flux radiating from the surface.
Heat is not being trapped. RADIATION is being trapped. It’s not the same thing. Your entire comment is predicated on the greenhouse effect being all about the trapping of heat.
Des,
Yours is a semantic point which in no way answers the question. Read “heat” above as LWIR if it makes you feel better.
Gordon Robertson
Are you a religious preacher? You make claims that have no support and act as if they are established fact.
Again you state: “Besides, there is not enough CO2 to capture any more than a trivial amount of the IR flux radiating from the surface.”
Where do you get this nonsense from. You make up facts (fake physics) and just by the power of your belief you think they are true. Satellite evidence of outgoing Longwave IR at the TOA clearly shows you are incorrect but you persist in preaching false facts. You should not do this, especially one who says NOAA is dishonest and lying. When you are clearly posting false information and have been informed many times it is false and keep doing it, you become lower than the very agencies you believe so strongly are dishonest. Maybe the dishonesty you see in these agencies is because of your own dishonest character.
Thanks Norman
“Satellite evidence of outgoing Longwave IR at the TOA clearly shows you are incorrect but you persist in preaching false facts.”
Indeed it does. However, this does not establish that, in the present climate state, an incremental increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration necessarily produces an incremental increase in surface temperature.
In the present climate state, surface radiation is intercepted by CO2. However, that intercepted energy is quickly thermalized, and carried off by other atmospheric constituents and distributed throughout the atmosphere. Those other atmospheric constituents also thermalize the CO2, which provides an avenue for their heat to be released to space.
Thus CO2, in the present climate state, both heats and cools the atmosphere. What matters is which process has the upper hand. Based on the abject failure of the climate models to correctly forecast temperatures, and the fact that we do not appreciably influence CO2 concentration in the first place, it is apparent at we are in a climate state in which there is essentially no impact on surface temperatures from additional CO2.
Bart
You bring up good points.
When I look at the global Net radiation from the CERES web page covering the time period from 2000 to 2016 it does not show a general upward trend in net radiation reaching the surface.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/srbavg
It has variations but overall the amount is fairly constant. The surface receives about 115 W/m^2 net positive in February and around 101 W/m^2 in June. Evaporative cooling and convection remove the net positive to keep the Earth’s surface from warming to a temperature that would have to then radiate this excess away.
Changes in either of these can cause fluctuations in the surface temperature.
My argument with Gordon Robertson is not about AGW or the model projections on future warming (which I am fairly skeptical of). It is with fundamental physics and heat transfer.
If there were only a few hundred, or a few thousand CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, they could not possibly change the measured temperature of the atmosphere. They would individually have to carry and release tremendously high energy per molecule.
According to GHG hypotheses, there is a point at which there has to be enough CO2 in the air to physically support this measurable temperature change.
Trouble is, I can find no literature calculation of this minimum CO2 concentration.
Analogy – is it like doing laboratory colorimetry with solutions that are too dilute, too colourless, to move the needle?
Somewhere, there has to be CO2 mass term in the GHG equations. You cannot forever get away with going dimensionless by talking mass ratios like doubling.
So, what is the minimum mass of atmospheric CO2 that is able to carry the energy enough to move the GHG temperature needle? References? Geoff
Sorry, comment submitted at the wrong place.
Hello Des, do you remember our recent discussion on the July 2017 thread, which started about here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-259961
A few cm below, I wrote
Im a knowledgeless layman, but my guess is that the August TLT anomalies will go a bit higher than 0.32 C, say 0.35 C, in correlation to JMAs July jump.
I myself did not think I would keep below what Roy Spencer communicates.
We are completely out of the 2015/16 El Nino (according to JMA: 10% Nino, 60% neutral, 30% Nina); so I guess that this OHC evacuation toward the troposphere now becomes a distinct, El Nino independent phenomenon.
Im sure the Warmistas will cry Huuuuuuh! Glooobal Waaarming!; and the Coolistas conversely will say: The next La Nina is coming soon!.
In french this is called dialogue de sourds.
I answered this earlier.
I personally (being a climaic layman) do not doubt that _certain_ human influence on the global temperature exists. It is quite improbable that the increasing levels of CO2 have only natural causes and it is equally improbable that their rise has no effect on the global temperature. The core of my problem with alarmism is in the following points:
1. The average rate of the increase of the temperatures does not seem to be overly dangerous – maybe 1.3 deg per century
2. There is probably also a natural increase superimposed on the AGW which we cannot aspire to influence
3. It does not seem wise to invest great amounts of money to lower the AGW part of warming when its effect is not so important as it might seem twenty years ago
4. There is little or no reflection on the validity of their earlier conclusions on the part of the alarmists – which harms their credibility in my eyes
5. If any of the parameters of computer simulations are adjusted to measured data (taken in a certain period of time) than it is hardly justifiabe to use the results as a long term prediction. It is similar to approximating a sinusoid with a polynomial. It is even more true in a system with an unknown feedback. This thought undermines one of the main arguments of alarmists
That’s the reason why some people here, though discredited by other people as alarmists, in fact aren’t.
Concerning
3. It does not seem wise to invest great amounts of money to lower the AGW part of warming when its effect is not so important as it might seem twenty years ago
you must understand that many people (especially in the insurance world) are interested about the long term, and need worst case assumptions for the next 50 years.
I don’t hink these people beaing alarmists or hearing to alarmists either. They simply do their job.
With the fatal consequence that collaborators e.g. at Munich Re have a view over Global Warming differing fundamentally from ours.
@hloubavy
And may I add.
6. Even if AGW could be proven to be definitively catastrophic within a few decades, the stubborn fact is that we actually cannot technically act and curb right now the CO2 emission to the required extent to hope to influence climate without doing much more harm than good.
It simply means that alarmists with that kind of agenda really believe that our species might be willing to accept the death of a large part of it’s population right now for sure because of a lack of food ( agriculture can’t be powered by renewables right now) rather in a 4 or 5 decades from now because of (hypothetical) climate havoc. Utterly ridiculous from the perspective of biology and behavior of living things.
Oups
…our species might be willing to accept the death of a large part of its population right now for sure because of a lack of food rather than in a 4 or 5 decades from now because of (hypothetical) climate havoc. Utterly ridiculous from the perspective of biology and known behavior of living things.
1) That’s the current UAH lower troposphere rate which is lower than other records. There is risk that feed-backs will add more, polar amplification means greater impact there. Risk, risk, risk…
2) Probably not (which), and if there is we should be very careful not to aggravate it.
3) Time is running out so it is more important now.
4) Forget about media and politicians, …
5) … science is zooming in on the truth.
6) The US has cut carbon emissions by 15% while reducing cost at then same time. How difficult was that? Anything that is granted for free will be overused, including the right to dump garbage on your neighbor.
On model tuning to historical data: https://tinyurl.com/y9f5k88e
Roy,
I miss updates of number of days without major US huricanne landfall.
UAH data change at every update and differ strongly from RSS,
so what do we learn with that ?
It has been more than 15,000 minutes since the last major hurricane hit the continental United States.
Thanks Spencer.
Is this like “Dr Nick” ?
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Followed you link and it suggests that 2016/17 is a weak La Nina period. How do you reconcile that with your statement earlier in this thread that “Now that the EL NINO environment is ending”? Didn’t it already end in May 2016?
Have not had a strong la nina for over 20+years.See above data.
Here is the bottom line we have 3 possible temperature outcomes over the next year.
go up from here- I am wrong
stay neutral -verdict is out
go down from here – I am correct.
“stay neutral -verdict is out”
I’m sorry, I just don’t get this… For over 4 years you have repeatedly asserted that temperature fall is about to happen. Yet here we are with among the highest temperatures ever recorded in the UAH record, despite El Nino having last been seen in May 2016 and weak La Nina or neutral temperatures ever since. And you are now throwing out a continuation of current temperatures as “verdict is out” and that you will only be wrong if temperatures go up still further in the next year. How much warmer does it have to get than it is already (in a neutral year!) before you accept that your previous predictions are clearly already wrong?
If the avg. global temperature by year 2018 does not fall to 30 year means or lower I will be wrong.
On the other hand if temperatures do not avg. at least +.40c above normal for year 2018 and beyond AGW theory will have to be questioned at the very least.
“if temperatures do not avg. at least +.40c above normal ”
how do you define “normal”?
.40c above 30 year means I meant to say.
Why .40c because that would keep with those years 2018 and beyond being in the top 3 warmest years since 1979, and keep the case alive for global warming.
“keep the case alive for global warming.”
The funny thing about this statement is that even Roy Spencer has stated on this (his) site, quite clearly, that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to that warming. His doubt and skepticism relates not to this basic observation, but rather to the scale of that contribution and the long term sensitivity of the planet to GHGs, compared with the scale of natural variations in climate over the medium and longer terms. Call me a lukewarmist too for agreeing with him that the latter is the only real question remaining in this debate. i.e. not that humans have contributed to global warming, but how big that contribution is.
+ 10
Dave says, September 5, 2017 at 2:32 PM:
That the Earth has warmed is a “basic observation”, Dave. That we humans have somehow contributed to this warming (in any other way than simply exaggerating the latter part of it in the officially published data) is however NOT a “basic observation”. It is mere speculation. A loose claim. Based on theory and nothing else.
In fact, relevant observational data from the real Earth system strongly suggests that we have NOT “contributed to global warming” in any discernible fashion.
You do not test a scientific hypothesis by simply thinking about it theoretically. Especially not if your theoretical considerations are the ones that underlie the very hypothesis that you want to test in the first place. That would be completely circular.
You test it against OBSERVATIONS from the real world.
But that’s just stupid. How do you know that we humans have contributed to global warming? What empirical observations from the real Earth system do you base this “knowledge” on? What and where is the evidence?
Dave…”The funny thing about this statement is that even Roy Spencer has stated on this (his) site, quite clearly, that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to that warming”.
Roy has been clear about that. He has claimed the degree of warming is not something we should be concerned about. John Christy, also of UAH has claimed little or no warming over the satellite record of some 38 years. Some parts of the planet (significantly large parts in the Tropics) show no warming at all.
Lindzen has placed a limiting factor on CO2, based on a doubling of CO2, at a small fraction of a degree C. That’s in line with treating the atmosphere as a constant volume and mass where temperature varies with pressure. Applying the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s law of partial pressures reveals a partial contribution to warming by CO2 of a small fraction of a degree C.
Clearly the AGW theory has taken liberties with physics that are not justifiable.
And while I’m about it, why 0.40 C? Where did you pull that magic number from? Is it based on standard deviation of the “normal” years? Or does it have some fundamental quantitative significance in your theory?
Dave
I’m afraid Salvatore gets more and more confused due to more and more persons putting his guesses in question.
Dave
How much warmer will it get……..you will have to ask the Chinese and Indian’s they plan to massively plan to increase there out put. You have know control over what happens next
Get used to it
Have a nice Day
Both have now ratified the Paris climate agreement.
https://tinyurl.com/yd4ds7gu
Of course they have. It imposes no restrictions on them in any meaningful timeframe. No pain, all gain vs. their global competitors. Why wouldn’t they sign it?
Well they had to stop building coal power plants anyway, the pollution is just too bad: https://tinyurl.com/p3slnqb
Coal can be burned cleanly these days. And, the Chinese certainly have not stopped building coal fired power plants.
http://tinyurl.com/y7xaqw8s
Yes, a lot is being built, and at the same time a lot less: https://tinyurl.com/l9wgcky
Relentless increase in water vapor (call WV IR active because calling it a ghg sometimes confuses) of about 1.5% per decade is countering the average global temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring. Switching from coal to natural gas for electrical power generation is adding to the WV uptrend.
Dave, do you agree if temperatures fall to 30 year means or lower AGW may be wrong?
Do you agree if temperatures are say just .20 c above 30 year means that questioning has to come into the picture?
If not what kind of a global temperature decline would make you start to doubt AGW?
“do you agree if temperatures fall to 30 year means or lower AGW may be wrong”
That would depend on which 30 year period you compute the mean over, and what period you consider relevant for assessing your chosen criterion.
Would a day at the 30 year mean be enough to convince me? Certainly not. A single month? Again no. What about a full year. Still probably no, because there is clear periodicity in the swing from La Nina to El Nino with a period around 3-4 years. But give me a 5 year average that sits right on the corresponding average of the preceding 30 years, and now I will listen. If you are right, that should be just about to start any day now, no?
Fair answer ,thanks. Ignore my last 2 post I did not see your reply when I wrote them.
no later then the summer of 2018
“Dave, do you agree if temperatures fall to 30 year means or lower AGW may be wrong?”
No. Warming from CO2 is already proven. AGW is already proven. It’s conceivable there could be abrupt cooling events in the future, for a host of natural reasons (esp a huge volcano) & just the nonlinearity of the climate system. But those are rare. Absent them, the long-term trend will continue to be upward.
above for year 2018 and beyond.
Notice how Dave avoids the question as if it is 100% certain that AGW is real in spite of the fact that this period of time in climatic history is nowhere close to temperatures during the Holocene Optimum ,Minoan ,Roman warm periods as well as the Medieval warm period.
Again Dave what would global temperatures
For my part once global temperatures are within +.20 c I start to think it is not going in the right trend for AGW.
If global temp. fall to or below 30 year means that will prove AGW theory is wrong.
Salvatore, which data shows those past eras were warmer than today?
Which *specific* data and studies?
David,
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
From the above study:
“We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 +- 0.4C and 1.5 +- 0.4C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65 warmer than in recent decades.”
“The inferred similarity in temperature anomalies at both hemispheres is consistent with recent evidence from Antarctica (30), thereby suporting the idea that the HTM (Holocene Thermal Maximum), MWP, and LIA were global events.”
Yep, global events, sure. How does that prove the global average temperatures (not deep ocean only) during those events were warmer than they are today?
Joel,
The oceans heat the atmosphere. Why do you think atmospheric temperatures rise during an El Nino?
Crickets from the usually bombastic DA…………
My question was what would global temperatures have to do to make you doubt AGW?
Salvatore, you can be right even if temperatures go up.
You have to work out why. Please respond here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261256
How do you know those periods were so much warmer than the current warm period? And how much warmer were those periods?
Temperature data from the past ranging from Ice Cores to pollen to tree rings etc
Which data, specifically? And who reconstructed it — you?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/
Dr Spencer himself shows this thru data. Past temperatures warmer then today.
Not so. See below.
And how much warmer? You said that the current warming doesn’t come close to the Holocene maximum, Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. What do you mean by that? How much warmer were those? 0.5C? 1C? 5C?
look at the temp graphs.
The data are northern Hemispheric, not global.
Loehle’s reconstruction ends in 1935.
Add 0.6C (conservative) to the right hand side of the graph to get an idea of NH temps from 2000-2010.
That puts recent NH temps 0.2C above the warmest period in the last 2000 years, according to Loehle data.
As ever, read the fricking report, not just some blog page with a graph.
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/SupplementaryInfo.pdf
Aren’t we a super volcano away from a little ice age? Or a couple for the big ice age? Seems like the planet leans towards warmer naturally but for these events. Is there anything we can do to negate these events? I’m airing on the side of more co2.
Also, is there any connection between where hurricanes form and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter or other planetary phenom. at this latitude? Seems like it.
A super volcano is one that is rated VEI 8. The last one of those was 26000 years ago. The second last one was 75000 years ago. That is actually more frequent than normal – they average one every hundred thousand years.
Yes, it’s certain that we’ll get one eventually. No, it’s extremely unlikely we’ll get one before we run out of fossil fuels.
If instead you mean VEI 7 volcanoes that occur every 500 years or so on average, then you mean:
– one volcano away from a few years of cooling
– a couple away from extended cooling IF other conditions are ripe for cooling as they were at the onset of the Little Ice Age.
The only way a VEI 7 eruption (eg. Tambora) would trigger a full glacial period is if we are already on the cusp of one and it pushes us over the edge. We are NOT on the cusp of one.
https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-were-warmer-than-today-for-most-of-the-past-10000-years/
Here you go David but you will oppose it because it does not agree with what you want.
Why are you showing only Greenland data, with graph that puts the little ice age over 1000 years ago and shows 1855 temperatures as present temperature?
Here is a study of Atlantic Ocean temperatures during the Holocene:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jsachs/lab/www/Sachs-NW_Atlantic_Holocene_Cooling-GRL07.pdf
It shows 10,000 years of cooling, confirming the general temperature decline throughout the Holocene noted in the GISP2 ice core data.
Yes, that’s a genuine scientific paper, and that’s the way it used to be. Now we can add the modern instrumental record: https://tinyurl.com/yammkudq
Splicing proxy records to modern instrumental records is fundamentally misleading. Marcott has been thoroughly debunked.
https://tinyurl.com/y8y5na7p
https://tinyurl.com/y7wdbz5p
As the proxy data were baselined to the Met Office’s instrumental data climatology (1961-1990), what’s the problem with extending the record using the Met Office instrumental data? Dunno what Pielke’s complaint is, but it’s not covered by the NRC quote.
In any case, the basic results have been repeatedly corroborated in virtually all millennial reconstructions.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
Bart, I assume you to be a fair person, and invite you to have a look at a rather differentiated view on the stuff:
https://moyhu.blogspot.de/2013/03/my-limited-emulation-of-marcott-et-al.html
Especially of interest by the way are Brandon Schollenbergers comments at the CA thread you mentioned.
How large is the area as stated in the paper?
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean between Virginia and Newfoundland
It’s the oceanic jet stream where coastal waters off Eastern America meet deeper waters. In this paper, a narrow, curved band about 1500 miles long.
Why do skeptics insist on using such small regions to make claims about global stuff?
Beware any claim of ‘global’ anything that completely excludes the Southern Hemisphere.
See also:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/342/6158/617.full.pdf
“Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years”
You’ve quoted this three times in this comments section. It’s deep ocean temperatures, which are not immediately analogous to surface or atmospheric temperatures. The deep ocean temperatures could lead or lag global temperature changes.
It does not prove your claim that any period in the last 10,000 years was objectively warmer on a global scale than the present day.
And if deep ocean temps were a good proxy, now we ave 2 cited papers that contradict each other.
Too much to ask for a decent overview of the situation? Probably. single-study syndrome strikes again.
Time-periods compared in that paper are different by hundreds to thousands of years. Older data has poorer resolution than newer. Doubtful a lag could be assessed, but if so, it’s not discussed therein. Proxy data are assessed in 200 year intervals, making a comparison with decadal periods in the near-term rather problematic.
For the same reasons, their conclusion that recent OCH warming rate is greatly accelerated compared to proxy is a hell of a stretch. I can’t figure out how they have good enough proxy resolution to say that.
You cultists can’t seem to let go of your religion.
Be happy in your ignorance.
SkepticGoneWild,
I must commend you for again citing a proper scientific paper, and I have no reason to doubt what is says.
Here’s a discussion of it at Judith Currys: https://tinyurl.com/yapafr4k
In my post above, I rejected a conclusion of the paper that recent OHC rates are much faster now than in the proxies. Why would I do that if I’m an alarmist religionista? I’ve just committed blasphemy if I’m one of those.
Whereas you just vomited some ad hom without dealing with one point in the discussion of the paper YOU cited.
You’re the one spouting dogma, bub.
Svante,
Thanks for the Judith Curry link.
Poor Barry is pissed off with the results of the study indicating ocean temps were warmer during the MWP than today, and that the MWP was a global event. Bummer, man.
Way to avoid the point.
If our current climate is unprecedented, which it is, poor Barry, Des, and their ilk cannot fear-monger anymore, the AGW balloon gets popped, the money dries up, and the reason to tax us to death goes away. This is why I despise the climate pseudo scientists and their lemming followers so much. All that wasted money that could be used to feed the poor, or for medical research to cure disease, all thrown down the toilet on a non-problem.
skeptic,
Youre money argument getting swept away in storm surge of just a couple of hurricanes. Many moer to come. Sustainable?
Correction in above post:
First line should read:
“If our current climate is unprecedented, which it is not,..
If our current climate is unprecedented…
The earth has been much warmer than in the distant past. It was 1000C at the surface shortly after formation.
But it’s only unhinged skeptics that make the straw man argument that surface temps are supposed to be unprecedented – therefore if they aren’t no AGW.
I guess it seems like an attractive narrative for skeptics. But unfortunately – it’s fake. AGW does not require – not remotely – that the temperatures of the last few decades have to be higher than at any other time in the history of the globe.
It’s linked to another fake narrative – if temps were higher before from natural causes, then this automatically means that’s what’s causing higher temps now.
That bad logic dispatched with a simple analogy:
There were forest fires before humans. Therefore humans cannot cause forest fires.
blah blah blah blah blah
Your bs is not worthy of a response
‘Blah blah blah’ means you have no response to a well reasoned argument.
Continuing the discussion from the previous head, Mike Flynn wrote (re. the probability of a new record global average temperature by 2020):
“There will either be a new record, or there wont. The probability, by definition, is 0.5.”
Again, I say “Bravo”.
Salvatore estimated zero chance so I have a pretend bet of one dollar with him that, theoretically, should yield me 100 dollars if the event occurs.
In Mike’s case, I will also bet a dollar on the expectation of winning a dollar in 2020.
I should point out that Mike may be a bit confused (possibly because of his age). I don’t think he is aware that he is acknowledging a high probability (0.5) that A NEW WARM RECORD WILL BE SET by 2020.
Think about it, after about 100 events, the chances that a random process will yield a new record maximum or record minimum is about one in a hundred (or 0.01). Therefore, Mike is implying that the temperature record is far from random and is dominated by a warming trend.
Congratulations, you now qualify as a WARMIST.
Dr. No up to year 2017 which I maintain is a transitional year.
Only time will tell. Both sides have made their points over and over and over again and nobody is gong to change their minds.
The only thing that will change the minds on both sides is data that goes for or against a given side.
Time will tell and by that I mean by the summer of year 2018.
dr No,
Think about it yourself. After a hundred fair coin tosses, the possibility of a head is still 0.5.
Foolish Warmists in the past have claimed that after, say, 100 heads in a row, it is a near certainty that a tail will result on the next throw. Apparently due to the foolish Warmist “law of probabilities”!
Complete nonsense, of course.
Regardless of what you think I am implying (you could always look at what I write, and ask me if you cannot understand.), it seems a fact that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten. You may think this is indicative of warming. I don’t.
If thermometers show increases in temperatures, this indicates heating (or warming if you prefer). Call me a Warmist for accepting reality, if you wish. Foolish Warmists, however, seem to believe that there is a GHE which makes thermometers increase in temperature, which is nonsensical.
CO2 heats nothing. Trends are not generally useful for prediction. The longer a trend continues, the closer it may be to an inflection point.
So what is your probability calculation of a new record (however measured) by 2020 (whatever that means)? Note that NASA and NOAA couldn’t even agree afte the event, in relation to a supposed “Hottest year EVAH!” proclaimed by Gavin Schmidt! Maybe it’s not a easy as you think?
Keep at it. A Danish parliamentarian in the 1937-38 parliamentary year, apparently said “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” Versions of this have been attributed to many others – from Nostradamus to Niels Bohr and beyond!
You still lose. You can’t outguess me. I won’t even use a computer! Still wanna bet?
Cheers.
“Think about it yourself. After a hundred fair coin tosses, the possibility of a head is still 0.5.
Correct, but it would not be a record. Think about it.
If it landed on its side – that would be a record!
dr No,
First, I stated a “fair” or statistical, coin. It has no edge, and only two outcomes – precisely one or the other.
There are only two possibilities in your proposition – either a record, or not a record.
No “almost”, no “nearly”, no “closer than it would otherwise be”, or similar foolish Warmist weasel words or evasions. You might claim that there could be an occurrence of a tie. This would not create a new record.
Now you might say that there is an infinity of numbers which will not result in a new record. On the other hand, there may be an equally ranked infinity of numbers which will result in a new record. Still 50/50, or do you claim that the infinity of reals greater than the present number which defines the notional (or actual “average surface temperature”) is greater than the infinity of reals between 0 and said temperature?
However, you don’t seem to have proposed a probability for a particular non-binary occurrence in any case. You might believe you have a case for guessing the probability of a particular number occurring at a particular time, but if you can’t even predict whether a fair coin will come up heads or tails at some specific time, you are unlikely to purposefully predict anything more complicated.
Even knowing that the probably of a fair coin showing a head is 0.5, you are no better off. Habitual gamblers “feel” that the next turn is more or less likely to deliver a particular result, depending on past results. Silly, but widely believed.
Even the proposition that a series of tosses will result in even numbers of heads and tails is demonstrably false half the time. Tossing a coin an odd number of times cannot provide equal numbers of heads and tails.
You’re dancing around the point, of course. There is no GHE, so if heating is observed, one might be better employed to find the heat source making the thermometer hotter. Sound fair?
Cheers.
By your (faulty) reasoning, the chances of the stock market being higher than this year by next year are 0.5.
How about by the year after ? – still 0.5?
How about by 2020 ? – are they still 0.5?
How about by 2030? are they still only 0.5 ?
Clearly you can see the absurdity of your reasoning.
dr No,
Good try at the foolish Warmist tactic of deny, divert and confuse.
Questions, questions. Irrelevant attempts at gotchas.
But what the heck. You must be aware that poorly performing companies are replaced regularly with better performing companies, to ensure the various indices keep increasing. Even with this manipulation, Nature has her way. The drop in the market in the crash of 1987 demonstrated this.
I wish you luck with your stock market predictions. You won’t be betting my money, that’s for sure!
But back to the non-existent GHE . . .
Cheers.
“So what is your probability calculation of a new record (however measured) by 2020 (whatever that means)?”
Simple.
I estimate that a new record is likely to be set after the next El Nino.
El Nno events occur, roughly, every 5 years.
I expect another event to have occurred by 2020.
It may be a strong or weak.
I would say that the probability of a new record then may be slightly greater than 0.5.
Lets say, about 0.6.
i.e. it turns out that you and I do not differ greatly in our estimates!
Although my value is based on logic and yours on ignorance.
.
.
Note that 0.6 means that you can (pretend) to bet a dollar that a record will occur and you will win 67 cents if it does. I win a dollar if it doesn’t.
The point being that I am quantifying my level of confidence that global warming will continue – and not that I expect a new record every year.
“You still lose. You cant outguess me. I wont even use a computer!”
Heaven forbid that my computer would be more reliable than your gut feeling!
dr No,
Your guess is as good as anybody else’s, and just as useful. You “estimate”, you “expect “, it “may be” this or that, you “would say” . . .
You claim your guess is logical, whilst mine is based on ignorance. Really? Or are you just assuming?
You state you are confident in your guess. I wish you success in finding someone who cares. All the confidence in the world (plus $5 or so) will buy you a cup of coffee in most places.
Any professional hedge fund manager had confidence they couldn’t possibly lose billions of dollars due to their inability to reliably peer into the future. I’m fairly sure that countries such as the US attack foreign countries confident they will win reasonably quickly. Why else would they do it? So much for confidence!
I’m not at all confident of my ability to reliably perceive the future. To date, my assumptions (call them “gut feelings” if you wish), seem to have been reasonable. I assume my peaceful life will continue. I have no idea what assumptions I will probably make in the future. Hopefully, they will be as good as those in the past.
You claim that you can guess better than me. You should wind up more content, healthier, wealthier, etc, than I, I suppose. I wish you all the best.
Cheers.
“If thermometers show increases in temperatures, this indicates heating (or warming if you prefer). Call me a Warmist for accepting reality, if you wish. Foolish Warmists, however, seem to believe that there is a GHE which makes thermometers increase in temperature, which is nonsensical.”
Maybe this will help.
Greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer.
That is broadly correct. The Earths planetary average temperature depends mainly on its distance from the sun and its reflectivity.
I think we agree on that fact.
However, the composition of the atmosphere (including greenhouse gases) does affect the SURFACE temperature and the the STRATOSPHERIC temperature. While the surface gets warmer, the stratosphere gets cooler – and vice versa. The AVERAGE PLANETARY TEMPERATURE remains the same. I think this misunderstood fact is one reason for the confusion amongst denialists such as yourself.
dr No,
You wrote –
“While the surface gets warmer, the stratosphere gets cooler and vice versa.” Another assertion presented as fact? Even Skeptical Science has to keep changing its view, as in –
“Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming – Revised”
First, “The IPCC confirms that computer modeling predicts the existence of a tropical, mid-troposphere hot spot about 10km above the surface.” It seems that the “hot spot” refused to cooperate and make itself visible, so the “stratospheric cold spot” was invented as a replacement.
Unfortunately, the “tropospheric hot spot”, the “stratospheric cold spot”, and Trenberth’s “missing heat” continue to evade efforts to find them reliably in reality. It’s a travesty, obviously. I suppose that the GHE makes the troposphere hotter, but the stratosphere colder during the day when the Sun shines. When temperatures drop to -90 in the Antarctic, the GHE makes the troposphere either hotter or colder, but you claim that the stratosphere heats up. Or does this only occur in sunlight? What about at night?
You’re wrong about the average planetary temperature, too. The Earth has demonstrably cooled since its creation, I’m told. I may not have been there at the time, but neither were you. I’m happy with my assumption that the Earth was created in a molten condition. How about you?
Still no GHE. Maybe you need more estimates and guesses. Experimental support would be persuasive, but there doesn’t seem to be any.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Tomorrow the sun will either rise or it won’t.
So by your logic, the probability that the sun rises tomorrow is 0.5.
Des,
Not at all. The Sun does not “rise”. Sorry to disappoint you. The Earth orbits the Sun, and rotates on its axis in a reasonably predictable fashion.
Well enough for me to assume that the movements wii continue into the foreseeable future. So far, so good.
In your terms, however, I assume the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is 1. Just as I assume the airplane which I board will not fall out of the sky with me in it.
I’m not sure why you would make such a peculiar assumption as to my thought processes. Did you consider the alternative of asking, if you didn’t understand?
Still no GHE, no heating due to CO2, and climate remains the average of weather. I’m always ready to change my opinion if you can provide new facts. What about you?
Cheers.
So you felt the need to point-score by stating an obvious fact when you knew full well I was using common everyday language. I guess you have never referred to the rising and setting sun.
Apparently you believe you can just assume away an airplane crash.
“I assume it won’t happen, therefore it won’t”.
Let me give you another dichotomous event. A person will either die by age 95 or they won’t. Does that mean that there is a probability of 0.5 of YOU living to 95? That is – are you equally likely to reach 95 as not?
And a reminder of your wording for the sake of reference:
“There will either be a ‘new record’, or there wont. The probability, by definition, is 0.5.”
Proven? Lol spoken like a true believer ….
Not only has agw NOT been proven , it cannot be . further it cannot be falsified either, because all the other variables that effect the earths climate cannot be controlled …
As such it doesnt even qualify as a theory and instead should be considered a hypothesis only ..
I would add that the failure of predictions made by the IPCC should cast serious doubt on the extent (if any) of warming caused by co2 emissions …
And that as such, resources earmarked to help prevent ‘AGW’ would be better used dealing with real problems …
Careful, you’ll be labeled an apostate.
https://www.iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Global-Temps-Harris-and-Mann-2017.jpg
Is it me, or is the scale in that graph way of in the 20th century?
No one can tell. There’s no Y-axis, no values for temps!
Junk science = random graph from the internet with no sources, no Y-axis, no peer-review, no expertise from authors.
It’s a schematic, a cartoon. It aint science in any way shape or form. Thank goodness for the arrows pointing out “sudden cool down”, or we’d have no idea that we are looking at temperatures.
As the chart show the climate of today is in no way unique.
Who are these people? As far as I could find out, Chris Harris has a background in insurance, and is not, as advertised, a “climatologist.”
I note that their medieval warm period and Roman warm period are cooler than recent temps. So they’ve managed to come up with hotter temps in 1100 BC. What is that even based on?
No references, no formal study, no explanatory text. No publications in any relevant discipline. Just some chart on the internet with data from God-knows-where.
Please do better than this, Salvatore.
Barry,
Various geologists show records of climate going back thousands of years, hundreds of thousands. You will notice that the ice sheets covering the northern hemisphere came and went long before mankind was able to mine and burn hydrocarbons. So if you and Mann et al, had lived about 10,000 years ago, when the ice sheets were retreating rapidly, and the waters of the oceans were rising steadily, who, please tell us, would you have blamed for that?
The fact is, you know no more now, than they knew then, and act just the same.
The weather isn’t exactly what we would like, LET US SACRIFIC SOMEONE TO THE GODS!
In today’s world that is industrial man. So, that being true, all you true believers, please make an effort and stop using ANYTHING which is made by or dependent upon coal or oil. Don’t be like Gore and all those who fly to faraway places to each rich foods at the expense of the people and then tell the people how terrible they are for wishing the same for themselves. Live your religion.
AH… Too much to ask? Of course. It would mean giving up your decadent life.
Typical leftist hypocrites. Antifa in disguise no doubt.
The bottom line is the climate is not unique and AGW is going to have to do better then this.
I did not even include the Holocene Optimum some 6000 years which was at least 2c warmer then today.
Why don’t you respond to the criticism on your graphics?
Btw, what is the period that you describe as ‘today’ in your claims?
Sal, you can’t give a bottom line on global temps with graph from the internet!
Where does your critical thinking go when you present random stuff from unknown data and announce firm conclusions?
Holocene summertime temperatures in the Northern hemisphere were almost certainly warmer than summertime temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere today. Holocene Thermal Optimum data has warm periods in different location at different times.
The Loehle graph you have cited via Roy Spender is of NH temperatures, ends in 1935, and when instrumental data are added recent temps are warmer.
There are other examples of warmer temps globally in the more distant past. Surface temps were 1000C when the planet was forming, for example.
No one said temperatures at this time are unique. So you’re arguing a straw man, and based on misunderstood data, and even unknown data (from “iceagenow” website?).
Sorry, this is a long was from persuasive. Even if the MWP was warmer than today, this doesn’t destroy AGW. Because AGW theory doesn’t rest on all-time uniqueness of present surface temperatures.
Let me repeat my question from the previous thread:
Would another hurricane strike on the US so soon after Harvey affect your opinion of climate change?
“The most powerful Atlantic Ocean hurricane in recorded history bore down on the islands of the north-east Caribbean on Tuesday night local time, following a path predicted to then rake Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba before possibly heading for Florida over the weekend.”
Why is it that chicken little alarmist fear mongering AGW cultists always cry “wolf!”, or “the sky is falling!”, with seemingly every weather event like it has never happened in the history of the planet? This is why no one gives a rats ass anymore.
I’ll take that as a “No”.
You sound a bit ridiculous though, resorting to “the history of the planet” as a way of dismissing the historical climate record.
dr No,
Doesn’t the history of the planet include its climate?
It certainly includes historical weather, and climate is merely the average of weather!
Are you dismissing historical weather (and climate) as irrelevant? I know the Australian BOM dismissed all official temperature records prior to 1910 as unreliable and therefore irrelevant.
Australia and the contiguous US are similar in size, so it might be a reasonable assumption that US records prior to 1910 are also unreliable, being taken using the sand type of instrument, and the same type of personnel.
The historical record is looking a bit dodgy, according to some Government experts.
Cheers.
dr No-nothing,
Why would any sane person with an ounce of intelligence look at two weather events and change one’s opinion regarding climate…… O wait, that’s what you do.
dr No,
The climate has been changing since the creation of the atmosphere. Climate is the average of past weather, after all.
Maybe you meant to say that you think that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have a useful predictive effect in relation to future specific weather events?
I don’t believe this is so, but maybe the climatologists could save lives and tens of billions of dollars by warning of specific dangers, rather keeping their predictions secret, and crowing “I told you so!” after the event. Or maybe climatologists can’t guess any better than me, so have to take refuge in saying sciency things like “probability distribution functions”. Completely useless, but keeps the grants flowing.
Oh well.
Cheers.
“Or maybe climatologists cant guess any better than me, so have to take refuge in saying sciency things like probability distribution functions.
Mike, climate predictions are about predictions of statistics (mean temperature etc.)
Weather predictions are about specific events (rainfall, wind etc.). Even then, the forecasts are based on their estimates of the most likely events since they cannot ever be 100% sure about what will happen tomorrow, the day after, or by next week. So accept the fact that there are rarely any 100% confident predictions in this world.
Anybody who refers to “sciency things” has got to be an engineer !
dr No,
Climate predictions are completely useless guesses, the confidence assigned by the guesser notwithstanding.
Of use to neither man nor beast. Climate is the average of past weather – no more no less. The predictive ability of self proclaimed climatologists is on a par with a reasonably alert 12 year old child, and of as much use.
Foolish Warmists sometimes claim that their predictions are based on physics, whereas you seem to be claiming that climatologists predict statistics. What part does the GHE play in the prediction of statistics? What use is the prediction if it can’t be depended on?
This might account for the use of “projections” or “scenarios” in lieu of “predictions”, by the fortune tellers calling themselves climatologists.
Maybe you could show the physical characteristics of the GHE established by careful, reproducible, scientific experiment, if any such existed in the real world. But alas, the GHE exists only in the fantasy world of the foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
dr No,
You wrote –
“Maybe this will help.
Greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer.
That is broadly correct.”
So greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer. Not just “broadly correct”, that’s just foolish Warmist weasel words, unless you are prepared to explain.
So what’s the problem with the supposed GHE if it doesn’t result in heating of the surface or the atmosphere? Or did you really mean to say something else?
You’re no help at all! Have you anything useful for me? Preferably something I don’t already know. Guesses about the future are not facts, but if you can supply any useful assumptions better than mine (based on physics rather than guesses, estimates, or maybes), I’ll take them on board.
Cheers.
Mike, you have trouble listening.
GHE does not affect the AVERAGE planetary temperature. But the planetary temperature involves both the surface and the atmosphere (including the stratosphere). Enhanced GHGs cause the surface to WARM and the stratosphere to COOL – all the while the planetary temperature (i.e. the average of the SURFACE and the ATMOSPHERE) stays the SAME. Got it? Please don’t make me repeat such a simple principle.
Or is this too “sciency” for you?
“So greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer. Not just broadly correct, thats just foolish Warmist weasel words, unless you are prepared to explain.”
I say “broadly”, since enhanced GHGs can potentially affect the amount of cloud cover, snow and ice on the SURFACE. This, in turn, could affect the ALBEDO of the EARTH. If the ALBEDO decreases due to the loss of reflective clouds,snow and ice, the EARTH as a whole will absorb more SOLAR RADIATION which will lead to a higher PLANETARY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.
BUT, this is not the key argument. It may or may not happen, that is why I say “broadly”.
dr No,
You wrote –
“Enhanced GHGs cause the surface to WARM and the stratosphere to COOL all the while the planetary temperature (i.e. the average of the SURFACE and the ATMOSPHERE) stays the SAME. Got it? Please dont make me repeat such a simple principle.”
Really?
You also wrote –
“Greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer.”
It seems that that you are saying that GHGs cause the surface to warm but do not make the Earth warmer. I assume you are implying that increased heating of the surface is balanced by an equivalent amount of energy leaving the stratosphere, and resulting in a far greater temperature drop (the specific heat capacity of the stratosphere – which consists of rarified gas – being far less than the specific heat capacity of the troposphere, not to say solids or liquids) measured in degrees used on the surface.
This is just silly in theory, let alone not being observed in practice. Trying to deny, divert and confuse by then claiming other factors may destroy your argument, by finally stating “BUT, this is not the key argument. It may or may not happen, that is why I say broadly.”, is not scientific at all.
Are you trying to your key argument may or may not apply, or that excess GHGs may result in cooling rather than heating? If the albedo increases, due to an increase of clouds, snow, and ice, doesn’t this mean that lower temperatures are needed to create the snow and ice? Where did the heat go? Into the stratosphere, perhaps? What stops the stratosphere cooling – particularly at night?
Quite odd, and I can’t understand why surface cooling causes stratospheric warming. Does the heat lost by the surface penetrate the troposphere without effect, but somehow suddenly decide to heat up the stratosphere, rather than hide in the ocean? Does this mean that the stratosphere above the -90 C of the Antarctic is much much hotter than the stratosphere above, say, a solar collector at +90 C? At what height? How many degrees? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just because something heats up on the surface in sunlight, doesn’t mean that something else cools by losing an identical amount of energy.
The whole Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, even after being exposed to four and a half billion years of solar radiation. The stratosphere is still much cooler than the surface, you’ll find.
You say –
“Got it? Please dont make me repeat such a simple principle.”
No, there’s nothing to get. You’re making progressively more complicated scenarios, which require ever increasing gullibility. You don’t have to repeat anything, if you choose not to. I don’t care one way or the other. Maybe you could actually state the “simple principle” in terms which can be verified by experiment. If it can’t be supported experimentally, your principle remains a fantasy – or at best an hypothesis.
Cheers.
Sigh !
One last time.
If you measure the outside temperature of your roof in winter, when you have a fire going, with and without insulation, what do you find?
No insulation means a relatively cool room and a relatively warm roof.
With insulation means a relatively warm room and a relatively cool roof.
No spurious violation of the conservation of energy.
Neither the insulation nor GHGs cause an overall increase in the heat generated. But they do affect the temperatures within the system.
It really is so simple – why can’t you see it?
dr No,
Yet more pointless and irrelevant analogies. I live in the tropics, so I use insulation to keep cool. Is the GHE responsible for the use of insulation to keep things cool?
Regardless of that, the cooling of the Earth shows that you may be misinterpreting the law of the conservation of energy. Heating something with sunlight does not force something elsewhere on Earth to cool down. That would be amazing, if true, it’s not, of course!
When the surface cools at night, the stratosphere does not heat up as a consequence. That’s just foolish Warmist fantasy.
You ask why I can’t see the GHE. Probably for the same reason I can’t see unicorns – non existence.
Carry on. Make a thermometer hotter with CO2. I believe it’s called the “greenhouse effect”. Nothing to do with real greenhouses, of course. Even deluded foolish Warmists reluctlanty accept the description is incorrect, misleading, and stupid.
“Greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer.
It seems that that you are saying that GHGs cause the surface to warm but do not make the Earth warmer. ”
Please don’t be obtuse.
You know I am referring to the average planetary temperature, which is broadly speaking, unaffected by the presence of GHGs. To be precise, the average planetary temperature can be found roughly 5km ABOVE the surface. While it can remain constant, the SURFACE can warm/cool while the STRATOSPHERE above can cool/warm.
Am I making any headway?
dr No,
I’ll be anything I like. Your demands are not likely to have overmuch influence on me.
You refer to the average planetary temperature, which is actually above 3000 K. You’re wrong again. The average temperature is found somewhere between the centre of the Earth, and the surface, obviously.
In any case, at night, as the surface cools, so does the atmosphere – including the troposphere and the stratosphere, at rates commensurate with their specific heats and initial temperatures.. No balancing, no conservation of energy. No heat input, and things cool.
Sigh away, if you wish. Maybe you can sigh a GHE into existence.
Cheers.
“You refer to the average planetary temperature, which is actually above 3000 K”
!!!!!!
You are joking. No? Then I give up. I have spent too much time trying to help you.
I get more sense talking to my dog.
I note you live in the tropics. That may help explain matters since it is a well known fact that intelligence increases with distance from the equator.
dr No,
The Earth is apparently a large ball of molten iron and rock. Granted, it is enclosed by a very thin skin of congealed rock, overlain by a little water and gas.
The interior (more than 99% of the total volume) ranges from about 5500 K to aroundd 1000 K. I’ll let you come up with the average you prefer – somewhere between 5500 K and 1000 K.
Maybe you should talk to your dog. Your dog might believe your GHE assertions if he or she s a little below average on the dog IQ scale.
Still no GHE to be found. CO2 heats nothing. Climate is the average of weather.
Cheers.
Analyzing the ENSO 3.4 SST Index falling temps (currently -0.16C) and equatorial 0~450 meter ocean temperatures, a new La Nina cycle seems very likely to start sometime early next year.
This new La Nina cycle will cause global LT UAH temps to exhibit a falling trend for at least the next 6 months.
It primarily depends how long and cold the coming La Nina cycle becomes.
A strong La Nina cycle will cause an abnormally cold winter for the Northeast and Central US.
This will not be good news for the CAGW advocates.
I recommend checking in with the various groups monitoring ENSO for well-informed forecasts.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
forecasting ENSO is pathetic
Didn’t you just forecast a La Nina?
“Pathetic”
I couldn’t find that word in a scientific glossary.
Of course because AGW hides behind EL NINO and or an EL NINO environment which was present the last 1 1/2 years until very recently.
Without the aid of favorable ENSO conditions watch the global temperatures drop.
Sorry Salvatore, but here you are wrong.
You can’t simply eliminate all ‘favorable’ ENSO conditions (alias El Nino) without eliminating all La Nina events as well.
B. Santer, C. Bonfils et alii published in 2014 an article presenting their work on extracting, out of the RSS3.3 TLT record till end of 2012, all ENSO and all volcano influences during the satellite era.
The result was a residual ‘warming’ of 0.086 C / decade, to be compared with 0.124 C / decade at that time, i.e. about 70 %:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/3s6xea9x.png
extracted out of
https://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/89054
Without the aid of favorable ENSO conditions watch the global temperatures drop.
Temps are higher during el Ninos, especially strong ones, if there is no counter-effect (like a big volcanic explosion).
Of course temps drop after el Ninos.
But this is a discussion of short-term weather, not long-term temps. Get a long enough record and el Ninos/la Nina cancels out. These don’t provide long-term heating or cooling, just short-term energy exchanges.
Mr Spencer,
Could you please tell me why a get a PayPal cookie when I visit this page.
Oops – why “I” get a PayPal cookie?
Des,
it seems to me that your browser accepts third party cookies. These may arrive from everywhere to you, with an arbitrary number of sites between Roy Spencer’s site and you.
If you use e.g. Firefox you easily could manage to forbid them.
Chrome tells me what cookies I have picked up on my current visit to this site. PayPal is one of them.
Yes Des.
But does it tell you which site initiates, reads and updates the PayPal cookie?
Hard for me to imagine Roy Spencer inserting such code in his HTLM & Javascript streams.
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.WtuMHv7u.dpbs
One of the trickiest climate web zones I have ever seen.
To trust in Gosselin and btw in Lning and Vahrenholt is an intellectual challenge!
bindidon…”To trust in Gosselin and btw in Lning and Vahrenholt is an intellectual challenge!”
You’re being idiotic again. Gosselin is an author who is quoting a NOAA expert. What does Lning and Vahernholt have to do with anything?
Have you no rebuttal to the information supplied in the article?
All of the global temperature sets are made by combining data from smaller subsets.
Here is a subset from remote Macquarie Island, in the vastness of the Southern Ocean, an island often unmanned, where the Automatic Weather Station clicks away with no problems from TOBs, no UHI, no site moves – this is about as pristine a site as I have been able to find on the ground.
The data here are from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, acknowledged with thanks. They are, so far as I know, completely raw and unadjusted.
I am trying to find a small-area satellite temperature record that covers this remote island, to compare with ground measurements here. This covers the last 50 years, through El Ninos and La Ninas and Southern Oscillations and almost anything that people claim to cause temperature variability.
Can anyone help explain please,
why is there no global warming evident? How many more ?pristine places like this are there around the world? Why do they not seem to influence the satellite data?
People say, there is noise in these measurements and in this rare case the noise acts to counteract the signal to make a flat line response for 50 years. I understand this line of reasoning, but I do not go for it completely. There is too much evidence of artifacts and tampering at other global sites, that confuse the minds of those who look at the problems in inadequate depth.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/macquarie_gw.jpg
Yes, there are specific locations that haven’t warmed, and even a few locations which have cooled. Why do you think this precludes GLOBAL warming?
See,
Because when I study official data in depth, I find I can easily attribute at least half of this alleged global warming to man-made adjustments. One adjustment method is to minimise the representation of sites like Macquarie Island that show no warming in the last 50 years.
Is global warming precluded if a different selection of sub-sets is chosen by some compilers? (I do not mean completely precluded. I also mean greatly reduced.) Geoff
Please explain precisely what BOM does to “minimise the representation of sites like Macquarie Island that show no warming”.
Here’s the data straight from BoM:
Annual mean maximum temps:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=300004&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
Annual mean minimum temps:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=300004&p_nccObsCode=38&p_month=13
Looks a bit different to the unsourced graphic you found. And there is data missing for 2006 for this weather station. Why is it plotted in your chart?
I recommend going to source, not some graphic of unknown origin on the net.
The Antarctic ocean waters is one of the few places on Earth where there has been little to no warming. Surprising, perhaps, that Macquarie Island, near to it, shows some warming.
Looks like whoever made that chart did a bit of fiddling and then made a specious connection between a single weather station and global average.
They could also have used a portion of the North Atlantic for the same ruse. It’s always possible to cherry-pick, but wise thinkers should spot such chicanery immediately.
It actually looks like the same data to me.
It’s 2005 that is missing, not 2006. When you check the BOM data, it is only February 2005 that doesn’t have an average, and that has taken out the whole year. But when you look at the daily data for Fen 2005, there isn’t a day missing, so not sure what is going on there. I have no problem with him using the daily data to calculate the February average himself and hence the 2005 average.
But as you and I have already said, not all parts of the globe have taken part in the warming. There is a part of the Northern Territory which has actually cooled significantly. These people seem to believe that raising the global average must mean that temperatures everywhere on the globe have risen.
Des,
This GHE is a wondrous thing. Causes temperature to fall in some areas, but to rise in others, resulting in an average which increases, except when it doesn’t.
Maybe the magical physics of the heating properties of CO2 vary from place to place, and whether the Sun is shining or not. I wonder if you could provide the conditions under which an increase in CO2 causes the temperature to fall in a particular location?
Is there any point to this farce? The world wonders!
Cheers.
What are you talking about? Why would CO2 be the cause of cooling in a particular area? Don’t you believe that natural variation in weather and climate can’t cause cooling or warming on a regional scale?
Mike Flynn on September 6, 2017 at 6:50 AM
I wonder if you could provide the conditions under which an increase in CO2 causes the temperature to fall in a particular location?
Well it is absolutely evident to me that you won’t believe even half a syllab of what is written in the document accessed by the link
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
but it is certainly not less evident to you that I do care just as little about what you believe or don’t.
Yes, Antarctica is a special corner… don’t mind, Mike Flynn!
No GHE, no GHG, no AGW (like Roy Spencer, I guess it’s about 50 % of all).
Cheers? Prost!
Krakatoa,
I don’t believe in the existence of phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether, the indivisibility of the atom, or the heating properties of CO2, aka the GHE.
Some foolish Warmists believe in one or more of the above, but seem unable to accept that heat makes thermometers hotter, lack thereof allows them to cool. This occurs even in a vacuum, in the complete absence of any GHG, or any gas at all!
No need for any GHE. Of course I accept that heat makes thermometers hotter, wherever they are located. I’m guessing you don’t disagree with this fact.
Nature includes all possible heat sources, including heat created by humans. Exposing a thermometer to a fire built by Man graphically indicates the power of anthropogenic heating. Nothing to do with any greenhouse effect – just Nature at work.
No GHE necesssary, or existent. CO2 heats nothing.
Your original query stems from another commenter claiming that CO2 causes warming in some places (a possible implication being that any warming is due solely to the GHE). Any areas that fail to heat are caused to cool by the GHE operating in reverse, or by natural variations which only seem to operate to overcome the assumed heating effects of the mythical GHE.
You might say that increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere always results in higher temperatures, but the highest surface temperatures on Earth are found in places with the lowest amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere. Reverse GHE, perhaps? Increasing the amount of GHGs causes the temperature to drop. Or don’t you agree?
No GHE. None.
Cheers.
Bindidon,
At least part of that paper is nonsensical, inasmuch as the data presented does not accord with observed fact, or even other foolish Warmist literature.
For example –
“CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.”
You would be aware that H2O is supposedly the greatest contributor to the non existent GHE.
Here are figures from Wikipedia – apparently drawn from Warmist literature (you can look up the references yourself if you wish) –
“water vapor, 3670%
carbon dioxide, 926%
methane, 49%
ozone, 37%”
In case you want to complain that H2O is “natural” and CO2 isn’t, oxdising a simple hydrocarbon like CH4, results in CO2 and H2O, whether you like it or not. Two molecules of water for every carbon dioxide, if memory serves.
Climate being the average of past weather, claiming that CO2 somehow alters the climate without specifying how it alters the weather, is just silly.
The problem is that if you accept that H2O is the most important GHG, the map in the paper shows the most pronounced GHE in places with some of the least H2O on the planet. More reverse GHE, do you think?
Another pointless and silly pseudoscientific piece of nonsense, based on fantasy.
Still no GHE. GHGs heat nothing. Heat makes thermometers hot, and removing the heat allows them to cool – all the way to absolute zero, in the absence of any external energy source.
Have fun trying to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of GHG between the thermometer and the heat source. I don’t believe you can, but I’m always prepared to consider new facts.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn on September 6, 2017 at 9:19 AM
As expected, you did not read the paper with the necessary concentration: you just performed what I call ‘an ultradiagonal scan’, whose purpose is not to detect anything unusual yet alone to try to understand it, but solely to quickly search for patterns confirming your subjective, or better, egocentric views.
During my professional work, I had often to do with people who behaved exactly as you do (of course in a completely different context).
People I e.g. tried to carefully explain how a highly complex, grammar-driven tool generator works, but who answered after a few minutes that ‘every simple macro processor would do the same job’.
You fatally remind me them.
*
I recall only one minuscule detail here:
CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.
How did you manage to bypass that sentence’s key word? No idea.
Has H2O in your mind suddenly become an anthropogenic forcing agent? You just moved by your own into a completely redundant blind-alley.
These people evidently are aware that H2O is by far the most powerful IR absorber (but… outside of the atmospheric window, huh huh).
I told you that more than once: I’m not at all interested in even trying to convince you. Do it yourself!
Bindidon,
Your mind reading abilities are as poor as any other foolish Warmist. You have no idea how or what I read, unless I tell you.
You wrote –
“You fatally remind me them.” I haven’t the faintest idea of why you wrote that, what it means, or what it relates to.
Maybe your writing skills reflect your comprehension skills relative to the absurdly silly paper to which you provided a link.
I sympathise if you suffer from some sort of cognitive defect, but that’s not my problem.
As to “anthropogenic forcing” of climate, climate is the average of weather, and the presence of so-called GHGs has no quantifiable effect on weather, and hence no predictable effect on the numbers which are the averages of weather records.
In any case, as I pointed out, combustion of hydrocarbons results in carbon dioxide and water, at the minimum. You exhale both. To claim that atmospheric water vapour created by man, both directly by living, and indirectly by burning hydrocarbons, is not anthropogenic, is strange.
Continue to deny, divert and confuse in the usual foolish Warmist fashion, if you wish. It still won’t create a GHE, because such a thing is impossible. A fantasy, unsupported by experiment. Cargo Cult Scientism, practised by the delusional, and eagerly lapped up by the gullible and easily lead.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, I guess.
Cheers.
Thanks Mr Flynn for your usual nonsense.
In any case, as I pointed out, combustion of hydrocarbons results in carbon dioxide and water, at the minimum. You exhale both. To claim that atmospheric water vapour created by man, both directly by living, and indirectly by burning hydrocarbons, is not anthropogenic, is strange.
Maybe you compute the ratio between the water vapor which existed before apparition of mankind and that due to our exhaling, hydrocarbon burning and all cooling activities using water?
You are an intelligent troll, no doubt! But an intelligent troll still remains a troll.
Even if you would be confronted with a definitive proof of the stuff, you would discard it forever.
Cheers.
Bindidon,
I have no intention whatever of carrying out any calculations at your behest. You may waste your own time if you wish.
Are you trying to say that CO2 and H2O present in the atmosphere prior to the advent of human augmentation of both had no effect on global temperature? If you’re trying to say that only the human addition causes temperature increases, I’d probably ask you to explain why the vast amounts of H2O in the atmosphere (and vast amounts there must be, as there is plenty of unvapourised liquid H2O lying about on the surface), have not produced enough “warming” over the past four and a half billion years to prevent the surface cooling? Even in spite of the vast radiogenic heat production within the Earth – orders of magnitude greater then, before the shorter lived radioactive elements were “used up”.
Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, and all the rest of the deluded foolish Warmists, took quite some time to accept that H2O was a more important and effective “greenhouse gas”, given the supposed physical properties required!
No GHE. Even you cannot find a reproducible scientific experiment which demonstrates that increasing the amount of GHG between a thermometer and a heat source, causes the thermometer to become hotter. That’s what the GHE is supposed to achieve, and it’s nonsense. That’s why nobody has ever managed to do it.
Cargo Cult Scientism followers, such as foolish Warmists, still believe in then one-existent. In their view, faith is superior to fact, and facts are only a matter of opinion – experiments are useless!
Man generates heat. Heat makes thermometers hotter. Even at night, when the GHE can’t even stop hot deserts cooling rapidly! Have you considered any alternative reasons for thermometers to get hotter, apart from the GHE?
Cheers.
Yes, Des, you’re right. 2005 data is missing, not 2006.
In Geoff’s graph the record begins in 1966.
BoM temp data for the weather station start in 1949.
I can see an upward trend in the BoM data, not in Geoff’s graph.
This is partly to do with scaling: BoM graphs have a 3C range. Geoff’s has 8C range, visually minimizing the trend.
Excising 17 years of data (29% of the full record gone), also “hides the incline.”
Geoff’s graph is a ruse. Why would you remove 29% of the ‘pristine’ data?
To sell (speciously) “no global warming.”
Mike, the point is that if CO2 increase would increase global temperatures it would increase the temperature of the whole system. But this has nothing to do with how heat is distributed around the globe.
You dont believe in the GHE, fair enough, but small region on Earth that is cooling, is not a strong argument for that.
Krakatoa,
Given that the Earth has cooled from its initial molten state over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of absorbing continuous sunlight for four and a half billion years, might be considered overall cooling, rather than heating due to the GHE.
Sure, an object on the surface will heat up in the presence of sunlight, and cool at night. The atmosphere behaves chaotically, and some places will cool, some places will heat without apparent rhyme or reason. Continents will move unpredictably – up down and sideways. Nature in action.
Marine fossils are found at heights of over 6000 m, and fossilised plant remains are found in fossil fuel deposits 3000 below ground. Foolish Warmists calculate supposed sea levels changes to 0.01 mm, or less – less than one eighth the thickness of a human hair. And we’re supposed believe this is important, or even possible?
And still the Earth has cooled, and continues to do so, at a rate estimated (sorry about that) at between 1 and 3 millionths of a K per annum. No GHE required or existent, it appears.
The GHE and unicorns have much in common – non existence being a primary shared attribute.
Cheers.
Barry,
In fairness and unknown to you, I chose to last 50 years of data for two reasons –
1. The data quality is more questionable for the few years before the 50 year start;
2. Australian conventions changed in 1966 to be all metric, including changes from deg F to deg C. I wanted that rounding error to be out of the data.
and 3. I first worked up the data because of email correspondence with Dr David Jones of the BOM, in which inter alia he wrote “Macquarie Islands data shows strong warming – about 0.5C in the last 50 years. ”
What are we to do when the Head of Climate Analysis for Australia makes a comment like that? Do I presume that in the jargon of today he has drunk the Kool-Aid of global warming? Do I presume that he did not even look at the data?
Earlier, I wrote here about ” … those who look at the problems in inadequate depth”. That is how I have classified Dr David Jones, which is a worry given his position. How I classify you does not matter.
To those above who provided helpful further info about Macquarie Island, thank you. The comments on GISS are alarming. Geoff.
Geoff,
1. The annual data start in 1949. Pristine conditions ensued since then. Very little change to surrounds and no station move or blending, unlike other parts of Australia. But see below.
2. The change from Fahrenheit to Celsius came in September 1972, not 1966.
http://www.waclimate.net/round/australia-acorn.html
1966 was the year that currency changed from pounds and pence to dollars and cents. Changing to metric systems for other bits and bobs took place over the following years. Miles became kilometers in 1974, for example.
Does this mean you should start your temp chart in 1973?
3. I downloaded the max and min temp data and worked out the change in degrees C through linear regression.
1949-2016
Max +0.4C
Min +0.5C
“Last 50 years” has virtually no change. But you have to ask if your interlocutor was being precise. Did he mean from the beginning of the record, or 1966 exactly?
As for the ‘pristine’ weather station, there have been instrument changes, and a max thermometer was not introduced until 2003.
http://tinyurl.com/yd254op6
I could not discover if the original min thermometer was degrees C or F. It is an alcohol thermometer – not as accurate as mercury.
Make what you will of this information.
But why on Earth do you ask “What global warming?” based on a single site? That’s just plain nutty. You could do the same with a small portion of the north Atlantic (and for longer). Or the most Southern ocean.
But what has this to do with global temps, Geoff?
Barry,
When I am wrong, I apologise. Geoff
Oh, that’s not necessary. We’re all doing our best. I’ll take it for now that you are honest and ameliorate my comments accordingly.
Geoff Sherrington on September 6, 2017 at 3:01 AM
Sorry… but what in the world does your island have to do with the Globe?
From GHCN metadata:
50194998000 -54.4800 158.9500 8.0 MACQUARIE ISL 0R -9HIxxCO 1x-9WATER A
i.e. exactly here:
https://www.google.de/maps/place/54%C2%B028'48.0%22S+158%C2%B057'00.0%22E/@-54.48,141.0203123,3z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-54.48!4d158.95?hl=en
We are full in the Southern Ocean, near to Antarctica, and this should be a representative corner for the rest of the world?
UAH6.0’s monthly anomaly data reports for the oceanic part of the Southern Extratropics a trend of 0.08 C / decade, compared with 0.13 for the Globe.
I’ll come back later with
– GHCN unadjusted data for the island;
– anomalies of UAH6.0’s 2.5 deg grid cell exactly above the station.
Bindidon,
One thing Macquarie Island has to do with the globe is this. For several reasons already given, Macquarie Island grid cell seems a rather good candidate for ground truth of satellite data.
Yes, I am well aware that the island is not in the lower troposphere; however it is useful to know how well UAH data correlates with surface data. It is easier to tease out relationships when like here, the ground shows no T trend for the last 50 years. Geoff
Geoff Sherrington on September 6, 2017 at 3:01 AM (ctnd)
A quick extract of data from GHCN station id ‘50194998000’ out of the GHCN unadjusted record shows this (compared with GISS for the same period):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/6649vozm.jpg
From 1948 to 2016, Macquarie’s data gives a linear trend estimate of 0.08 C / decade, whereas GISS Globe’s gives 0.140 C / decade (I spare us the CIs).
During the satellite era, the island’s station shows -0.04 C /decade, and the UAH 2.5 deg grid cell above it does exactly the same (i.e. far below UAH’s SH Ext ocean average).
Is that in your opinion a correct view over the world?
bindidon…”whereas GISS Globes gives 0.140 C / decade (I spare us the CIs).
During the satellite era, the islands station shows -0.04 C /decade, and the UAH 2.5 deg grid cell above it does exactly the same (i.e. far below UAHs SH Ext ocean average).
Is that in your opinion a correct view over the world?”
Yes, it is. GISS is corrupt because they get their data from the fudge artists at NOAA. UAH has the only accurate temperature data over the oceans. Sats cover 95% of the planet.
Such a stupid comment in fact isn’t worth any answer.
You will never understand that the troposphere isn’t the surface, even if both sometimes correlate.
This below is what counts, Robertson!
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2017/gridtemp201707e.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jul_wld.html
Bindidon,
Can you please refer me to the source of your satellite cell data?
Re GISS, I hope that you considered my comments about little to no need for adjustments, when I noted TOBs, UHI and site change. I would be interested to know what reasons GISS might have given to alter this raw data at all. Do you have access to that type of explanation? Thank you Geoff.
Bindidon, what’s the GHCN trend for Maquarie Island over the satellite period?
See above, in bold: -0.04 C / decade…
Ah, got you. Thanks.
geoff sherington…”Can anyone help explain please,
why is there no global warming evident?”
There is no such thing as global warming, it’s a number derived from an average. You have to specify ‘average’ global warming. The term global warming is meaningless since there are locations in the world (Tropics) where no average warming has been measured by sats. A very large area of the planet is covered by that Tropical no-warming zone.
Same thing for the inference of global climate change. Not happening. Climates are local and range from small areas to larger areas that are far from global. Climate itself is an average of weather, another number if you like. Speaking of climate change globally is ludicrous.
Is this island to which you refer in the Tropical no-warming zone?
See the UAH global anomaly maps.
eg. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/july/JULY_2017_map.png
The areas in white showed no warming in July 2017. Compare that to the maps over the years and you’ll see an ever changing planet wrt to global averages.
In particular, look at the Arctic hot spots that move around month to month. Explain that using the anthropogenic theory.
Click on Map or Graph.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
You mean temperatures do not stay the same at the same location?
Gadzooks!
Guys,
should we meet in Florida this week-end to discuss how great are UAH adjustments ?
A videoconference would be fine (the flight Berlin-Miami is a bit too expensive).
The people believing in man made global warming are akin to the same people who once believed in a flat earth. Fear False evidence appearing real.
Manifestly you did not notice that you perfectly could reverse your sentence.
I guess half of warming is natural, the rest man made.
“If you were to ask how much of the warming that we see recently has been caused by our greenhouse gasses, its a little more than all of it. Dr Richard Alley
If AGW is really real the global temperatures should then not correlate so strongly to ENSO.
Mark my words if La Nina conditions come about and persist watch the global temperatures go way down.
AGW can not produce global warming independent of ENSO.
“If AGW is really real the global temperatures should then not correlate so strongly to ENSO.”
Why not? The warming/cooling effect of an El Nino/La Nina event is way bigger than the warming due to CO2 in a single year.
Not over decades
I don’t care wether or not GW is man made. But here is, one more time, the amount of warming shown by RSS3.3 TLT once you have removed ENSO and volcanoes:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/3s6xea9x.png
Mark my words if La Nina conditions come about and persist watch the global temperatures go way down.
Marked, Salvatore…
Bindidon : “I dont care wether or not GW is man made”
My sentiments exactly.
Hopefully Salvatore is wrong, although I suspect he might be right. No matter. Man, and most other creatures, sentient or otherwise, do better with warmer, flowable water, rather than ice.
Burn more hydrocarbons! Hope the Alarmist crowd is right and the CO2 keeps Salvatore’s prediction at bay!
lewis on September 6, 2017 at 1:33 PM
Burn more hydrocarbons! Hope the Alarmist crowd is right and the CO2 keeps Salvatores prediction at bay!
lewis, we seem to have a different view of what warming means for the future.
My layman’s guess (!!!) is that warming as we begin to experience it is the precondition of an incoming cooling, rather than an alternative to it.
The consequence of warming imho will be an increasing perturbation of the Thermohaline Circulation, mainly in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean, due to an increasing loss of salinity levels at sea surface there.
I think this eventuality be by far worse than the consequences of e.g. sea level rise.
When I contradict Salvatore, I do it because of his supposition that warming is already now in front of a shutdown. This supposition he embraces since at least seven years…
bindidon…”When I contradict Salvatore, I do it because of his supposition that warming is already now in front of a shutdown”.
No supposition, it has been corroborated by the IPCC and the graph here on this site. The graph actually shows we have been cooling in 2017.
My climate play – it is very low solar /increase albedo /lower overall sea surface temperatures which I believe 2017 is the transitional year. Hence lower temperatures.
I never said the globe was not warming up to 2017 which in my opinion the underlying cause was high solar activity/lower albedo /lower overall sea surface temperatures.
ENSO/VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY – removed from the data.
You say it was AGW responsible for the underlying warming, I say solar with those secondary effects.
What I thought at one time was solar was going to be much lower then it was from 2010-2016 hence I thought my climate solar play at one time was going to happen before year 2017.
Salvatore, I did not mention AGW: I only spoke of what I had read, i.e. residual warming, whatever initiated it.
Basta!
ok
This is certainly not of great importance, but we might notice that the following August anomalies within UAH’s record build the top ten ranking for this month:
1998 | 0.52
2016 | 0.44
2017 | 0.41
2010 | 0.35
1995 | 0.28
2001 | 0.25
2015 | 0.25
2007 | 0.20
2002 | 0.18
2011 | 0.16
The interesting fact here is that 2017 isn’t an El Nino year: we experience since months a mix of ENSO neutral and weak La Nina conditions.
It was on the verge of El NINO for the first six months
No it wasn’t if anything if would still be some effect of the 2016/2017 weak La Nina. Then temperatures rose a little bit, but by no means this was close to a real El Nino.
Until this period of time in the climate is UNIQUE which it is not AGW is wishful thinking.
Sorry, I can’t make sense of that sentence.
Ah, I get it now, the lack of punctuation confused me. How long will the current trend of more than 0.1 deg per decade have to continue before you would call it unique?
How can these numbers be on the verge of El Nino?
-0.4 -0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 -0.1
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Notice how warm region 3.4 was earlier this year this is year 2017 has been as warm as it has not to take into account the strong EL NINO previous to this.
Now watch what happens and watch how quick it will be if true La Nina conditions persist.
Yeah, but in the end no El Nino developed. It seems like you focus on this short warming and ignore the weak La Nina that happened before that.
Please explain away the melting of the last major glacial period – without mankind’s contribution of CO2, please.
Mainly CO2 from oceans + lower albedo.
As I have said by summer of 2018 global temperatures will be at or below 30 year means.
And when it wont it will be the next year….
We will see how it plays out.
kratatoa I said by next summer. We will evaluate.
salvatore…”As I have said by summer of 2018 global temperatures will be at or below 30 year means”.
Hope you’re right. There is obviously something freakish going on and it has nothing to do with the trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Solar activity is the only known factor that could have caused the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, all within 1000 years or so. It would not surprise me in the least if solar activity is found to have been related to the current schizophrenic weather.
Astronomer Syun Akasofu, who did pioneer work on the solar wind has revealed how it causes issues such as induced electrical currents in our atmosphere, lands, and oceans. It doesn’t take rocket science to conjecture that such solar effects may be driving our weather/climate.
Thanks we will see
Salvatore, why haven’t we “seen” in the last 15 years, since you first claimed global cooling had started?
.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
I can’t avoid laughing when people write things like
What you are claiming is that global warming with no apparent cause has suddenly arrived following an extreme El Nino. It was absent from 1998 2015 and suddenly it is here without explanation.
Firstly, what such people completely forget is that we are talking about surface warming, what certainly won’t make tropospheric temperatures measured at about 5 km above surface the best candidate to monitor that warming, even if they sometimes pretty good correlate (of course when comparing anomalies removing both temperature differences due to lapse rate, and annual cycles).
Secondly, these people either silently dissimulate that this absence of warming solely is due to a linear trend calculation including the strongest El Nino year since at least a century, or even worse, they don’t understand the problem.
Let us have a quick look using WFT, it is so simple to explain it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1998/to:2015.99/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015.99/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015.99/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015.99/trend
You immediately see that by excluding the high El Nino year anomaly from the start of your time series, the trend suddenly becomes quite different: it moves from -0.01 C to 0.06 C / decade (this so tiny difference is more than half the warming trend for 1979-2017, scusi per favore).
I suppose that when you only read stuff on sites a la Notrickszone, Goddard, Chiefio and other Tallblokes, you inevitably begin to discard the problem – intentionally or not.
In order to exclude the same problem at the time series’ end, I prefer to concentrate on the period 1999-2012: it reduces the UAH trend from 0.06 down to 0.02 C / decade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1999/to:2012.99/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2012.99/trend
For the same period, while NOAA Globe indicates a high 0.12 C / decade, the Japanese JMA gives 0.07 C for the Globes surface as well, and RSS3.3 TLT, which was preferred by the coolistas during Roy Spencers UAH5.6 era, 0.04 C /decade.
I will take the mean at 0.06 C…
bindidon…”You immediately see that by excluding the high El Nino year anomaly from the start of your time series…”
What authority seeking people like you fail to understand is that the ’98 EN was not a statistic it was a real event that caused immense change throughout the planet. The aftermath of the event seems to have increased the global average close to 0.2 C. Whether that is an artefact of the sudden steep pulse and whether it will eventually resolve is a question to be answered.
Prior to the ’98 EN, the UAH graph shows global warming mainly below the baseline and following the event the global average was mainly above the baseline. Why are you not talking about that rather than focusing on crunching numbers on WFT? Why are you not trying to understand what the data means rather than blindly crunching numbers that mean nothing outside the context to which they apply?
The point is, you don’t get what is being revealed to you. I have already explained that the EN spike is offset by the La Nina cooling that followed. There’s no need to go into the statistical inference you alarmists bray about regarding cherry picking the ’98 EN as the starting point of the flat trend series. You alarmists are focused on red herring arguments and missing the forest for the trees.
In that regard woodfortrees is aptly named. It’s a place where it’s easy to literally miss the forest for the trees.
Following the ’98 EN, the global average suddenly rose above the baseline and maintained a flat trend till 2015. UAH called that ‘true’ warming, as opposed to the rewarming prior to ’98. Why did the trend rise above the baseline and remain flat after 18 years of remaining relatively below the baseline?
Part of the explanation pre ’98 is volcanic aerosols cooling the planet. Part of that cooling range in the ’90s was claimed by the hockey stick to involve unprecedented warming over the past 1000 years. Only the surface record showed such warming. The satellite record showed ‘little or no [true] warming’.
Part of it could be explained by the nature of the anomalies used to plot the data. I don’t agree with anomalies, I think the data should be presented as absolute temperatures. However, we are stuck with them it appears and have to make the best of them.
Obviously, as the years progress, the baseline will change and the anomalies relative to the baseline will be affected. Therefore a trend line drawn through anomalous -ve and +ve regions will not have the same meaning as a trend line drawn through absolute temperatures.
If you are really into the WFT experience, try to find the absolute temperatures, if they are available, and see what is going on. Of course, then you have the problem of NOAA fudging. The historical temperature record has been forever ruined by the alarmist zealots at NOAA and Had-crut.
Robertson on September 6, 2017 at 3:01 PM
Prior to the 98 EN, the UAH graph shows global warming mainly below the baseline and following the event the global average was mainly above the baseline.
…
Part of it could be explained by the nature of the anomalies used to plot the data. I dont agree with anomalies, I think the data should be presented as absolute temperatures. However, we are stuck with them it appears and have to make the best of them.
Obviously, as the years progress, the baseline will change and the anomalies relative to the baseline will be affected. Therefore a trend line drawn through anomalous -ve and +ve regions will not have the same meaning as a trend line drawn through absolute temperatures.
Robertson
You have been explained so often, by various commenters including myself, what a baseline means, especially that it is a not a consequence of any data change over time.
It is a fully arbitrary concept, decided by the people managing their temperature series, and to a certain extent by WHO, in the hope to harmonise the concept by getting all these people using the same baseline and changing it alltogether as the current one becomes obsolete (e.g. from 1961-1990 to 1981-2010 or 2011-2040). Even the 30 years are fully arbitrary.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2017_v6-550×317.jpg
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170907/45th8h3c.jpg
But you persist in repeating the same nonsense all the time.
And I moreover tried to explain you why anomalies are used, and why absolute temperature lack sense. You deliberately ignore all that in a terrifying manner.
Maybe a neurologist might help.
It is so frustrating. The same old stuff is pasted again and again, and has to be explained again and again.
Bindidon showed us how to calculate absolute temperatures less than a mpnth ago. Click on the jpg here and see what they are: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258953
bindidon…”I suppose that when you only read stuff on sites a la Notrickszone, Goddard, Chiefio and other Tallblokes, you inevitably begin to discard the problem intentionally or not”.
You need to distinguish between sites who are whistleblowers and reveal the good work of others and using the whistleblowers as the source of the info.
I posted a link yesterday about the US government investigation of NOAA. The first one ran out of steam after Obama interfered and forbade the release of pertinent information from NOAA. The investigation is back on after further information was released about NOAA corrupting the historical record in an attempt to erase the 15 years ‘pause’ claimed by the IPCC in 2013.
Why are you not questioning such actions from Obama, who effectively had control of NOAA? Why did Obama need to suppress vital information from an investigation? And why did he hide his alarmist climate agenda from the US Congress?
In a similar manner, when Phil Jones of Had-crut was investigated following the Climategate emails the proceeding s became a kang.aroo court in favour of Jones. The University of East Anglia (where Jones is in charge of CRU) were asked to provide the questions to be asked of him. He was investigated by two men who had strong ties to the AGW movement and naturally they found no evidence against him.
Wouldn’t it be marvel.ous if in a crim.inal trial we were allowed to limit the pro.secutor to the questions he could ask while being heard by a judge who was on our side?
There was plenty of evi.dence to indict him but the investig.ation purposely focused on lame charges that had no bearing on the problem. They could have called Steve McIntyre, who had submit.ted an FOI to the British government to get access to Had-crut data. Jones is seen in the Climategate emails advis.ing his cronies not to cooperate with the FOI request.
Sorry for the Liberal usage of – and . to break up words that WordPress does not like. WordPress needs to get their act together and fix their broken system.
It has nothing to do with Roy. I have complained to them directly and heard nothing back from them.
When Had-crut cannot pass through a site filter without a hyphen you know you’re dealing with amateurs. I have checked with Roy it’s nothing he is doing.
Please Robertson!
Stop your endless paranoia.
bindidon…”Please Robertson! Stop your endless paranoia”.
Does it disturb your appeal to authority mind set?
Paranoia is an unreasonable fear. There is no fear in what I am presenting and it’s not unreasonable. It is based on evidence, part of it NOAA’s evidence against itself.
As far as Climategate goes, the scientific chicanery is well documented. Alarmists don’t seem to deny it, basically because it’s all there in black and white. What they deny is that the scientists committing the fraud are guilty.
Do you think the US senate committee investigating NOAA for scientific misconduct is paranoid as well?
Perhaps, each time I bring it up, it sets off your guilty feelings.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Do you think the US senate committee investigating NOAA for scientific misconduct is paranoid as well?”
No — Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is paid very well to keep his investigation going….
https://robertscribbler.com/tag/lamar-smith-fossil-fuel-campaign-contributions/
Two events happened here in san Antonio in August. The eclipse and Harvey. It was noticeably cooler during the eclipse for about 4 hours and about 4 days due to Harvey. Yet these are not showing up on the Anamoly map. August was not an overly hot month.
How could they do that?
While you describe spatially and temporally highly local events, the data presented by Roy Spencer show a world-wide anomaly average of 9504 cells in a 2.5 deg grid for one complete month.
Maybe you could ‘see’ Harvey if its cooling was so heavy that it manage to influe on the August value of the UAH grid cell above it.
But the eclipse? No chance. It would not be visible even in daily data records due to the velocity of the shadow at the surface.
Moreover, you certainly will have a time lag between any event at the surface and the troposphere’s reaction to it.
You had both of them acting together in one month. The temperature drops for a period
d of 5 hours…20 degrees across a huge swath of the us. It should register. Harvey was about 2 I
I’d
f those 2.5 degree grids….there should be something there
James Ryan,
There is absolutely NO WAY that the eclipse went anywhere close to dropping temperatures by 20 degrees for 5 hours.
But even if it did, 5 hours is only two-thirds of a percent of one month. Remembering that 20 degrees F is 11 degrees C, that would drop the global monthly average by only 0.07 degrees. And THAT is only if the eclipse affected the entire planet, which of course it did not go close to doing.
Try to get a feel for what is significant and what is not.
james ryan says:
“Two events happened here in san Antonio in August. The eclipse and Harvey. It was noticeably cooler during the eclipse for about 4 hours”
Not due to the (partial, there) eclipse, it wasn’t.
Bart on September 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM
Brought to you by El Nino.
1. 1972/73
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1972/gridtemp197212e.png
2. 1982/83
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1982/gridtemp198212e.png
3. 1997/98
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1997/gridtemp199712e.png
4. 2015/16
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2015/gridtemp201512e.png
Of course, Bart! I agree.
But… what caused the increase from event to event?
Any idea?
Natural cycles.
Disappointgly simple answer…
Well, it’s not CO2, so can you think of any other candidates?
Of course it’s CO2:
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
The upward trend predated significant CO2 rise.
Bart,
Please quantify “significant CO2 rise”, and provide a mathematical justification for your choice.
Bart says:
September 7, 2017 at 11:00 PM
“The upward trend predated significant CO2 rise”
Did it? On what basis do you claim that?
No proof it’s “natural cycles.” Which is why you didn’t attempt to prove it.
It’s not CO2. Do you have other alternatives?
No.
All right, then. Natural cycles it is.
Which?
Yeah, which natural cycle?
norman…”Again you state: Besides, there is not enough CO2 to capture any more than a trivial amount of the IR flux radiating from the surface.
Where do you get this nonsense from”.
Is it not obvious, Norman? Consider each atom/molecule in the Earths surface radiating a photon at a time. After all, that’s what they do. That’s an immense IR flux field.
Now take the number of atoms/molecules in the Earth’s surface and compare them to the number of CO2 molecules available to absorb them, one at a time.
What’s the ratio of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to the total amount of atoms/molecules radiating from the surface? There’s only so much of the surface radiation CO2 can absorb and I am claiming that is a trivial amount based on the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
With regard to the ability of CO2 to warm the atmosphere, there’s not a chance. Contributions of heat to the atmosphere is based on the mass of each molecule in the gas. That’s Dalton’s Law. At a concentration of 0.04% of the atmospheric gases, CO2 is limited by its mass.
AGW proponents have resorted to pseudo-science to create a virtual reality. They claim CO2 acts as a blanket that traps heat. Nonsense. Heat cannot be trapped because that involves trapping the atoms that contribute the heat.
Others claim CO2 back-radiates energy that can warm the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar radiation. More nonsense. That notion contradicts the 2nd Law and the conditions under which atoms can absorb IR.
Gordon Robertson
You should do the math before you post. Since you did not want to I will help you out.
I am not sure of how much depth water will emit IR from or how deep IR will penetrate water (solid matter like dirt would not have much IR penetration before being absorbed).
I will use this person’s calculations as it may be on the extreme end. He uses the number 240 microns for the depth 95% of IR will be absorbed.
http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/earth-radiator.html
Here someone did me the favor to calculate the number of Carbon Dioxide molecules in one cubic meter of air. They came up with 7.3 x 10^21 molecules/m^3.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrBT9slqLBZtrYA5yJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–?qid=20091024134159AA50Fv6&p=number%20of%20molecules%20of%20CO2%20in%20one%20cubic%20meter%20of%20air
Gordon Robertson
If you have one square meter of water radiating IR from a maximum depth of 240 microns, the total volume of radiating water molecules that will emit to the atmosphere above would be 1m^2 times 240×10^-6 m = 0.00024 m^3. Water has a density of 1000 kg/m^3.
1000 kg/m^3 x 0.00024 m^3 = 0.24 kg or 240 grams. Water has a molar mass of 18 grams/mole so 18 grams of water will equal 6.022×10^23 molecules. With 240 grams that would leave you with 13.33 moles.
240 grams of water would contain 8.027×10^24 molecules of H2O.
Remember from above post, air contgains 7.3×10^21 CO2 molecules/m^3 of air.
To find an equivalent amount of CO2 absrobers for the number of H2O emitters in the water below you would take the number of emitters.
8.027×10^24 divide 7.3×10^21 molecules in one meter above the water to find out how many meters would of air would contain the similar amount of CO2 to radiating H2O.
So in a column 1100 meters up you would have the same nubmer of absorbing CO2 molecules as you would H2O emitters. There is more than enough CO2 present to absorb the IR emitted from the surface which all empirical evidence already provides that you always ignore.
Gordon Robertson
Here is the empirical evidence that you choose to ignore. You make bold statements with no backing, no support and even the math does not support your wild speculations.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
Norman,
I’m not sure how anyone but a gullible foolish Warmist could be expected to believe the nonsense to which you linked.
It starts off with “Planets with atmospheres are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres.” which of course is completely nonsensical. A planet at absolute zero, with or without an atmospher,e remains at absolute zero.
A planet at 100 K has a temperature of 100 K, atmosphere or no, and so on.
Atmospheres create no heat, ignorant second raters to the contrary. The pretty graphic is likewise stupid. It shows all parts of the Earth’s surface miraculously illuminated by the Sun simultaneously, for a start.
How’s your opportunity to advance all the usual foolish Warmist denialist arguments – the authors didn’t really mean what they said, but something totally different. They just didn’t say it!
As an example, when the Earths surface had cooled to say 1000 K, from its presumed 5000 K at creation (and the fact that the Earths deep interior is still more than 5000 K bears this out, unless you believe in post creation differential heating involving a reversal of the laws of thermodynamics), then foolish Warmists claim that the planet would be colder without its atmosphere. No quantum is mentioned, of course!
The same when the planets surface temperature drops to 500 K, 255 K, 100 K, and 0K. Or maybe foolish Warmists really mean to say that the atmosphere possesses miraculous heating properties between certain unknown temperature limits, for unexplainable and mysterious reasons, creating unknown temperature increases in various undefinable parts of the Earth!
Anyone prepared to accept this explanation as science truly deserves the appellation of foolish Warmist. As Trenberth said once, in a different context “Its a travesty!”. Indeed it is.
That’s a start – you might care to attempt to defend the indefensible. I’d suggest you start with a link to an experiment which demonstrates how a the temperature of a thermometer may be raised by increasing the amount of GHG between the thermometer and its source of heat – except that there isn’t one, because the GHE exists only in the fevered imaginations of its foolish Warmist proponents.
Or you could just provide more links to the delusional maunderings of other foolish Warmists, graphic indications of unverifiable Cargo Cult Scientism! Another option might be to keep denying reality, I suppose.
In any case, no GHE, Atmospheres heat nothing. Just collections of gases, which can be heated or allowed to cool. No magic to be seen.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I haven’t figured out which of the two is more more boring. You or g*e*r*a*n.
You are not a very intelligent person I take if from the mindless and dull repetition you put people through. It was nice when you had left this blog for a time period. I had hoped you would have opened a physics textbook and started reading. Unfortunately that would require too much effort on your part. Also I do not think you possess the necessary intellect to comprehend physics at any level.
I guess you must think what you say is important to someone. Not sure who exactly since it is a much of mush.
Anyway I hope you do not respond to this post. You are not fun to read and you possess no knowledge of physics that is usable in any way. You really say nothing and are far too lazy and unmotivated to learn anything.
YOU: “Or you could just provide more links to the delusional maunderings of other foolish Warmists, graphic indications of unverifiable Cargo Cult Scientism! Another option might be to keep denying reality, I suppose.”
The only delusional foolish person is yourself. You are unable to learn physics or to comprehend concepts no matter how many times someone explains it to you. Go under the bridge troll and catch your goats crossing.
Norman,
Maybe you could quote me exactly, and indicate what it is that you disagree with?
Or can’t you find anything, and are just venting your spleen, in typical foolish Warmist hand waving fashion?
Has it occurred to you that you could just choose not to respond? I guess not.
Cheers.
norman…”Here is the empirical evidence that you choose to ignore”.
Norman, before you post a link you might want to read the article first to see if it stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Your article begins using smoke and mirrors with a dash of obfuscation. It states that atmospheres make planets warmer than those without them. Then it presents a leap of faith, presenting a diagram of so-called surface emissions dated 1972. That’s followed by the revelation that weather sats monitor the atmosphere for such emissions.
Problem is, current sats were not launched till 1978 and that diagram does not come from a modern sat image. In fact, there is no indication where the diagram comes from or whether it has any accuracy. For all we know it was drawn based on a theoretical concept.
But hey, when relating fiction about science who cares if much of it is fictitious.
Gordon Robertson
I did research for you on the image of TOA emission. They sight the source at the bottom of the graph.
Here is a link that clearly shows your conspiracy thought process is out of whack and can no longer function in a rational manner.
https://tinyurl.com/yazn8875
And this:
https://tinyurl.com/yd9rlkz3
The satellite was launched in 1970 and had IRIS spectrometer to measure IR from Earth’s atmosphere.
You should spend more time reading textbooks and less on conspiracy web pages.
Mike Flynn says:
“It starts off with Planets with atmospheres are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres. which of course is completely nonsensical. A planet at absolute zero, with or without an atmospher,e remains at absolute zero.”
{chuckle, chuckle}
So you’re unaware of the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Hilarious.
{snicker}
Mike Flynn says:
“A planet at 100 K has a temperature of 100 K, atmosphere or no, and so on.”
Where’s your experimental proof of this?
GOTCHA!!
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Others claim CO2 back-radiates energy that can warm the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar radiation. More nonsense. That notion contradicts the 2nd Law and the conditions under which atoms can absorb IR.”
How does this contradict the second law. Where do you get his junk science? Why do you keep peddling it? Why won’t you read textbooks and learn what the textbooks really say about it?
It in no way contradicts the second law or how atoms absorb IR. You just make things up and will not support any of your wild conjectures.
Why spend so much time making up physics when you could spend the same amount of time reading textbook material and actually making claims that are true.
norman…”How does this contradict the second law”.
The basic tenet of the 2nd law is that under normal conditions heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a cooler mass. The CO2 is generally located in a cooler region meaning it is a cooler mass than the surface mass.
Even grade schooler know that heat flows from hotter regions to cooler regions in a substance. Do I really need to explain that to you?
There is another issue however. IR can only be absorbed by an atom if it has the required energy to raise the electrons around the hotter atom, especially the valence electrons, to a higher energy level. To be more precise, the IR must have the exact energy difference between an electron residing at one energy level and the energy level to which it needs to be raised.
In a warmer atom (ie. an atom with it’s electrons residing already at a higher energy level), where does a cooler atom get the required energy to raise it.
Let’s link these ideas. The 2nd law claims heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body without external compensation being provided. Absorbed IR needs to have a specific frequency and intensity to be absorbed.
You have cooler CO2 molecules radiating to a warmer surface.
Tell me, norman, why won’t the surface warm?
Yet another point. The CO2 in the atmosphere is warmed by IR radiation from the surface. When the surface radiates it cools, and it will continue to cool if solar energy does not replenish the heat. There is a massive IR flux from the surface, most of which is not touched by CO2 because there is only enough CO2 molecules to absorb a tiny fraction of the surface flux.
How the heck does CO2 radiate back a fraction of a tiny amount and replace the losses of IR at the surface?
The people who came up with that lame theory are the ones who need to read some books on physics.
Gordon Robertson
If you are going to use the term heat in your statement then you must use the term as modern physics uses it or do not use it as it becomes an endless semantic debate.
YOU: “Even grade schooler know that heat flows from hotter regions to cooler regions in a substance. Do I really need to explain that to you?”
Heat is defined as NET energy so do you know what NET energy means?
You always claim that heat is transfer of energy by atoms or molecules. Then how does the Sun heat the Earth? IR is energy and there is a NET energy meaning energy emitted and energy absorbed.
You are unable to understand core concepts of radiant energy transfer. I have linked you to textbooks in the past. You read a few lines and conclude you understand the whole concept.
You have this wrong!
“There is another issue however. IR can only be absorbed by an atom if it has the required energy to raise the electrons around the hotter atom, especially the valence electrons, to a higher energy level. To be more precise, the IR must have the exact energy difference between an electron residing at one energy level and the energy level to which it needs to be raised.”
Only in the IR bands near visible red light do electrons change levels to emit this wavelength of IR. Most IR is not caused by electrons changing energy levels. It is atoms in a molecule that have a slight charge difference moving within the charge differences and generating IR. Read up on it and quit the nonsense.
YOU: “You have cooler CO2 molecules radiating to a warmer surface.
Tell me, norman, why wont the surface warm?”
You have been told many times and you could easily find the answer in a text book. The surface does not warm (only when solar input is not present, like night time conditions) because at the same time it is absorbing IR from the cooler CO2 it is emitting IR away from itself at a greater rate. Very basic math Gordon. Energy emitted is greater than energy absorbed. Net energy is lost and the surface cools.
Various definitions of heat per thermodynamics texts and university lecture notes:
“Heat is energy transferred due to temperature differences only.”
“Heat is energy in transit due to differences in temperature between two systems.”
“Heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body of matter to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference”
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects.”
I don’t know where you come up with your “heat is defined as net energy”.
SkepticGoneWild
I was not specific enough, perhaps, in my post to Gordon.
I should have specified that radiant heat transfer is the Net energy at a surface, the amount of energy it is emitting minus the amount of energy it is receiving via radiant energy.
You can download this free Heat Transfer textbook.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
Look at page 32 formula 1.32. It describes radiant heat transfer as the Qnet of a surface which would be the energy it is emitting (based upon its temperature) minus the amount it is receiving from another heated surface. If the temperatures are different you have a heat flow, a positive or negative Qnet. If at the same temperature you have no heat flow, only energy exchange.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is a massive IR flux from the surface, most of which is not touched by CO2 because there is only enough CO2 molecules to absorb a tiny fraction of the surface flux.”
False. As usual.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
There is some real nonsense in the replies to your comment. It would be pointless to tell Norman that adding an atmosphere to a planet does raise the surface temperature no matter whether you call it the Greenhouse Effect or something else.
How do I know? I use FEA (Finite Element Analysis) to calculate the average temperature of airless bodies as here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
The temperature of the Moon is about 90 K cooler than planet Earth even though both bodies receive the same TSI of ~1367 W/m^2.
Standard radiative physics easily explains the average temperature of the Moon, as I showed here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
and its variation with latitude, too. Exactly.
David,
I read your “paper” but you did not read mine or perhaps you read it but failed to understand it.
Your paper shows a Diviner LRE temperature plot but fails to superimpose a plot generated by your equation. That is not surprising given that your equation lacks a time variable. It simply can’t model the effect of varying the rate of rotation or the effect of the Moon’s non-Lambertian properties.
Varying the rate of rotation of airless bodies affects the average temperature but your equation is no help in quantifying that effect.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
Note that there is good agreement between this camel’s model and Scott Denning’s.
john finn…”What are you banging on about? Youve spouted this nonsense a couple of times now. Negative anomalies do not necessarily indicate that it is cooling”.
They most certainly do when plotted against an average over a range.
From NOAA, especially for you misinformed alarmists:
“The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value”.
I would agree that the anomaly maps do not give an overall picture of warming/cooling but the trend lines being discussed are pertinent to anomaly graphs. The thing I don’t like in particular about anomaly graphs is the baseline changing with time.
When you draw a trend line through the data without considering the context the trend line has no meaning wrt anthropogenic warming. You would certainly not refer to rewarming from aerosol cooling as anthropogenic warming. in the same way you would not refer to warming above the baseline caused by El Nino’s in the same way.
In that sense a trend line covering rewarming and true warming has no meaning.
In fact, it’s virtually impossible to wean out the anthropogenic warming if it’s there. That’s what frustrated Trenberth in the Climategate emails when he claimed the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why. He later explained they lacked the instrumentation to decipher anthropogenic warming from natural warming.
Gordon Robertson says:
“In fact, its virtually impossible to wean out the anthropogenic warming if its there. Thats what frustrated Trenberth in the Climategate emails when he claimed the warming has stopped and its a travesty that no one knows why.”
A huge lie. Trenberth claimed no such thing at all. He lamented the heat budget could not be closed, because the entire climate system was not being monitored.
Recommendation: Whatever Gordon claims, the opposite is true. Always.
Nice piece of hyperventilation, David. Only someone with limited reading skills could agree with you instead of Gordon Robertson.
You only call me names and disparage me — you never – never – produce a counterargument or attempt to disprove me wrong. Or yourself right.
Why are you so obsessed with me? Still from that Venus stuff?
David,
You are like the “Energizer Bunny”. You never stop banging an empty drum. If you could listen to yourself you might understand how much that annoys rational people.
It is interesting to see how the quality of denialist arguments degenerate over time.
Many of us have seen the long list, of the desperate fallacious arguments that denialists have used and discarded over the years as more and more data come in.
Lets face it, the game is over.
Surface temperatures keep increasing (now clearly independent of El Ninos), UAH values are rising, Arctic ice is steadily reducing, glaciers are melting, sea levels continue rising, and now, extreme events such as Harvey and Irma are becoming more extreme – if not more frequent. Big business everywhere now mandate risk analyses based on climate change. The only people not on board are politicians, but we know that they can and will change their minds when the heat is on.
Only a few denialist crackpots are left to spout nonsense, particularly because of their advanced years ( I rarely meet any young denialists). Furthermore, it is gratifying to see the number of people on this site prepared to call out these crackpots.
Team warmist – well done!
dr no…”Lets face it, the game is over.
Surface temperatures keep increasing (now clearly independent of El Ninos), UAH values are rising”.
Have you looked at the trend for 2017, it’s decidely heading down the way? All we need to increase the flat trend since 1998 to 20 years is a good La Nina this winter.
“Have you looked at the trend for 2017, its decidely heading down the way? ”
But I looked at the trend from midnight to midday and it is definitely up!!
Gordon Robertson says:
“Have you looked at the trend for 2017, its decidely heading down the way?”
From UAH LT v6.0, the 2017 trend is POSITIVE: +0.46 +/- 3.34 C/decade. Positive. But the uncertainty is so high it’s ridiculous to even talk about a 7-mth trend.
Completely useless.
dr No,
The following news may help you to celebrate –
“The official in charge of awarding EPA science grants doesnt want to see the words climate change” – Sept 5.
I’d be a bit wary about using “greenhouse effect”, or “global warming” as well, if I was a member of team warmist.
It seems that the EPA has woken up to the crackpot denialists, and started to curb their rapacious unceasing demands for increasing funds to waste on constructing amateurish and pointless computer games with no commercial value.
Big businesses, of course, are free to perform such risk analysis as they desire. Insurance companies do it all the time, secure in the knowledge that if they’re too big to fail, they’ll get a bail-out. They can always blame poor climatological advice.
Just as a matter of interest, the scientific journal publisher Elsevier just shuttered. The fact that
Dr. No-san:
Actually, it’s CAGW advocacy is disintegrating, while the evidence against the CAGW hypothesis gets stronger and stronger.
The disparity between CAGW’s global warming projections vs. reality already exceeds 2 standard deviations for 21 years, which is sufficient duration and disparity to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/modsvsobs.png
CAGW skeptics (not “deniers”) understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of SOME warming at higher atmospheric concentrations, but the physics show actual CO2 logarithmic forcing (ECS) is around 0.6C~1.2C per CO2 doubling by 2100, which is far less than the 3.0~4.5C which CAGW advocates projected.
We’ll likely witness a global cooling trend from around 2020 when both the PDO and AMO are in their 30-year cool cycles and when solar activity continues to collapse…
Apart from the 2015/16 strong El Nino blip, there hasn’t been an observable global warming trend since June of 1996 and counting… Following the next La Nina cycle, global trends from 1996 will be near 0.0C/decade for the past 22 years.
BTW, this year’s Arctic Ice Extent Minimum will be around the 5th~6th lowest since 2007 and +1,000,000 KM^2 larger than 2012’s summer minimum.. oops….
When the AMO switches to its 30-year cool cycle from 2019, Arctic Ice Extents will likely continue to increase over the next 30 years..
That’s a far cry from the Ice-Free Summer Arctic Ice Extent predicted to occur
SAMURAI on September 7, 2017 at 1:08 AM
The disparity between CAGWs global warming projections vs. reality already exceeds 2 standard deviations for 21 years, which is sufficient duration and disparity to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/modsvsobs.png
Samurai-san: did you ever visit KNMI’s page driving CMIP5 scenario runs
https://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip5.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
I apologize: I’m not in hurry with discovering models, so I can understand that other people behave similar.
But in fact we all should learn that stuff.
Sorry. Fat finger syndrome.
. . . Elsevier just shuttered the journal GeoResJ. The fact that GeoResJ recently published a peer reviewed paper to the effect that computer modelling showed no GHE warming, was not mentioned as a reason for closure. Team Warmist should have devoted their efforts to the EPA, to keep the grants flowing, by the look of it.
Team Warmist might need to consider joining the French League. The French Government is apparently offering grants to players who cannot obtain them from the EPA or other US Govt. agencies.
I wish you all “Bon voyage et bon chance”, from the ‘eart of my bottom!
Cheers.
Mike, both yours and Gordon’s responses bring to mind the expression:
“red herrings”
Empty, irrelevant, specious arguments are all you have left.
Why not admit defeat and retire gracefully.
dr No,
I’m not sure what you mean. Arguments are pointless in the face of fact.
Maybe you could quote me exactly, and produce new facts. I would change my opinion.
If you wish, of course.
What “defeat” are you talking about? There is no GHE – that’s just Cargo Cult Scientism – supported only by unsupported assertion and had waving, unless you can provide details of any experiment which demonstrates that increasing the amount of GHG between a thermometer and a source of heat increases the temperature of the thermometer.
No “defeat”, no “victory”, as these are foolish Warmist concepts proposed in lieu of science and fact.
The foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert, and confuse, will not turn the GHE fantasy into reality. That’s my assumption, any way. You’re free to continue to deny reality – that’s your choice, not mine.
I wish you well.
Cheers.
Have you seen the black knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
The last few lines are:
King Arthur: You’re a looney.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then. [Hopping on one leg towards King Arthur]
[King Arthur chops his other leg off, leaving his body upright on the ground.]
Black Knight: Alright, we’ll call it a draw.
King Arthur: Come, Patsy!
Black Knight: Oh, oh I see. Running away, eh?! You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!!
dr No,
Indeed I have and it’s very apt.
The US Govt. is progressively removing the “climate change” from its websites.
The US Govt agency the EPA is indicating that researchers might be better off not using the words “climate change” in grant applications.
India plans to build 370 coal fired power stations in the near future.
Japan 45.
China 700, locally and around the world.
World wide – at least an additional 2000 coal fired power stations are planned to be constructed in the near future.
If you wish in trying to turn science into a popularity contest or a debate, I’ll play along.
Popularity – I win.
Debate (given you can’t seemingly respond to any facts I produce, let alone falsify them), I think the audience might declare me the winner. In all modesty, I claim the win.
That would make me the noble King Arthur, and you the irrational, armless, legless, impotent, invective hurling, foolish Warmist Black Knight.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Cheers.
Dear Black Knight,what the politicians do or how many power plants are built does not alter the fact that the climate is changing due to enhanced GHGs.
I know you think otherwise, but the warmists have won, the trophy has been awarded, and it is locked in the cabinet. Try as you might, it is not going anywhere.
BTW, if you live in the tropics, you will no doubt be looking nervously at Irma, Jose and Katia.
I am not a hurricane expert, but the current situation appears very unusual – do you agree?
Mike Flynn says:
“India plans to build 370 coal fired power stations in the near future.”
India has so far emitted less than 1/9th the CO2 that the US has (1850-2014).
It annually emits about 40% of what the US does (2012).
Per capita it emits about 1/10 less.
Americans are the energy hogs; certainly not the Indians.
What “peer reviewed paper” was this?
Retraction Watch:
“Its not unusual for publishers to close journals that are not drawing enough submissions, as we understand was the case here.”
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/09/04/elsevier-shutters-earth-science-journal/
Mike Flynn
You were asked WHAT PEER REVIEWED PAPER WAS THIS.
Please respond.
Looking at global temp data over the past 167 years, there is a 100% correlation between 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool cycles, and 30-year global warming/cooling trends.
The current PDO cycle is more or less in it’s 30-year cool cycle, however its cooling effects have so far obscured by the North Pacific “The Blob” (which has dissipated), and the very strong 2015~16 El Nino event.
From around 2019, both the PDO and AMO ocean cycles will be in their respective 30-year cool cycles, so it’s highly likely a falling global temperature trend will soon develop over the next 3~4 years.
Moreover, from 2019, sunspot activity from current solar cycle #24 will drop to near zero as it enters the tail-end of its 11-yr solar cycle, followed by the next solar cycle #25 starting in 2021, which is projected to be the weakest solar cycle since 1790.
Solar cycle #26 starting in 2032 is projected to be the start of a 50~75 year Grand Solar Minimum event, which some astrophysicists predict will cause significant global cooling between 2032~2100…
Global temperature trends should become quite interesting over the next 5 years.
If a noticeable global cooling trend develops over the next 5 years, it will be impossible for the CAGW hypothesis from being officially disconfirmed, given the gigantic disparity that already exists between CAGW global warming predictions vs. reality.
What a load of rubbish.
For a start, your claim of a 100% correlation is impossible unless you have inadvertently correlated two identical data sets. Go back and check your calculations.
Dr. No-san:
For some reason, the comment section won’t let me post the graph, however, if you go to woodfortrees.com, and do a OLS trend analysis for all 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles since 1850, there is a 100% correlation between PDO warm/cool cycles and global warm/cool trends since 1850.
It’s not “impossible”…. There is clearly a 100% correlation for each 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycle.
The current 30-yr PDO cycle started in 2008. Well before 2038, a clear global cooling cycle will develop as has occurred since 1850.
Show me the first 10 pairs of data points you used.
I repeat, it is impossible to get 100% correlation.
It won’t let you post the graph because of the letters H.a.d.c.r.u in the link – this sire rejects the letter sequence D.C with nothing in between.
You can convert links to tiny URLs and they will post (as long as the tiny url doesn’t have that letter sequence).
Converting is as simple as copying, pasting and clicking.
Go here to overcome this site’s gremlims and post links freely.
https://tinyurl.com/create.php
I’ve already done so below for global temps, PDO and AMO.
Samurai
You’ve been offered a fix. What is now preventing you from posting your graph?
Exactly correct
meaning samural is exactly correct
Are you sooo sure, Salvatore?
Explain how the AMO and PDO are adding 500,000 Hiroshima bomb’s worth of heat into the Earth’s system every day (3e19 Joules/day).
Where is all that energy coming fro?
Looking at global temp data over the past 167 years, there is a 100% correlation between 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool cycles, and 30-year global warming/cooling trends.
100% correlation pretty much never happens.
Here global temps and PDO.
https://tinyurl.com/y75sg4lu
Correlation between mid 1980s to 2010? Nope, they’re anti-correlated for that period.
Global temps and AMO.
https://tinyurl.com/ydf6pe8u
Mid 20th century correlation? Nope. AMO declined while global temps remained flat.
And it looks to me like AMO might be aliasing global temps. Checking the data, AMO often lags global temps, so the ups and downs might be caused by global temp fluctuations rather than the other way around.
The SSN scaling is a bit heavy, but reducing it does not change so very much. It tells you the problem might be somewhere else.
That to discover luckily isn’t my job.
I’ve here detrended global temp data to compare more closely with the AMO. Global temp fluctuations more often lead AMO, which is why I think AMO fluctuations may be aliasing global temps rather than causing them.
http://tinyurl.com/ycyqasld
Correct, I did the same last year but then discovered that there is an ‘undetrended’ AMO dataset at NOAA. So using that guy you don’t need to detrend temps anymore.
SAMURAI on September 7, 2017 at 12:46 AM
Looking at global temp data over the past 167 years, there is a 100% correlation between 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool cycles, and 30-year global warming/cooling trends.
Samurai-san,
I’m always interested in possible correlations between world temperature averages and natural cycles of any kind (especially AMO, PDO, SSN).
Last year already I read about arguments similar to yours and thus I downloaded all the stuff at that time (sources below)
Here is for example a comparison of PDO, AMO, SSN and Had-CRUT4.5 updated for the period 1880-2017:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170908/mb7gykzg.jpg
What layman Bindidon sees here is that, if temperature and AMO were in strong correlation, the former should have drastically fallen by around 1955, to reach its 1925 level (-0.7 C) by around 1985.
The contrary has happened. Temperature has disconnected from AMO (if it was ever connected to); its running mean espouses by accident the AMO since 1995, what in fact means that the Had-CRUT anomalies are since then about 0.4 C higher than an exact AMO correlation would expect.
Two remarks concerning PDO:
– it looks often in contradiction with AMO (especially during the satellite era, where their conjunction seems to vanish);
– its influence on the temperature isnt perceptible in the data.
That is perfectly visible when you look at this satellite era, with PDO left unscaled this time:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170908/h72e746u.jpg
Nothing to say about SSN… and I guess TSI wouldnt tell us much more, so I dont search for any data download.
I have no idea where you take your assumptions from. Sorry for the 100% contradiction.
Data sources
1. PDO
http://tinyurl.com/zw2l8yh
2. AMO (undetrended of course)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.climo.data
3. SSN
http://tinyurl.com/yc8zhpvg
4. Had-CRUT4.5
http://tinyurl.com/h7l6jab
Thanks to the moderation for deleting this comment having now become obsolete. I guess it bypassed the maximal number of links.
SAMURAI says:
“Looking at global temp data over the past 167 years, there is a 100% correlation between 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool cycles, and 30-year global warming/cooling trends.”
No, there isn’t, and you can’t present the math showing that.
The Earth’s energy imbalance is about 0.7 W/m2. How are the AMO and PDO producing that, actually adding heat to the Earth’s system?
OK, here is a graph I made (using “tinyurl”) showing perfect correlation between 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles and global OLS temp trends during EACH PDO event:
https://tinyurl.com/yb6h52as
The current 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005 and global temp trends have been skewed by the 2015/16 Suoer El Nio spike. Eventually, a cooling trend during this PDO cycle will be apparent.
SAMURAI,
That website also has PDO data, so you can put that on the same graph as the temps. I’ve done so using your graph as the base, using the exact same time periods for the trends, with PDO added and trended to your selection. (I also cleaned it up to make the visual comparison easier)
http://tinyurl.com/yd76vwac
From 1977 to 2005 (your choice), PDO and global temps are going in the opposite direction.
Proton jump after yesterday’s blast on the Sun.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00930/qwxdz9tomtxh.gif
Current location of hurricane Irma.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00930/0t5b2rm8vhuz.png
AndyG55, you told me 4 years ago we were on the tip of a precipice, heading to record lows. We made a bet that we would reconsider our position based on the data. How’s that going for you?
He is sure somewhere at WUWT, telling there there is no warming by simply drawing a stright line over some UAH chart.
Maybe he is a sosy of a knowledgeless troll writing the same nonsense here all the time.
I read somewhere that interglacials last 10,000 years on average and we’re currently at 11,700? Isn’t that past the cusp?
Orbital modeling puts the next ice age 23,000 years in the future. There are other estimates, but that is one of the earliest.
Barry, do you have a particular citation in mind? I”ve seen 50 kyrs, but I’m interested in learning about other estimates. THanks.
I’ve seen 50K yr, too. This is the paper I read long ago on 23K years to the bottom of the next glacial period.
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/imbrie80sci_53864.pdf
climate play – very low solar will equate to overall lower sea surface temperatures /higher albedo hence lower global temperatures.
Why would lower SSTs equate to lower albedo?
Clouds? No, lower SSTs means less evaporation.
Barry two separate issues.
Lower sea surface temperatures due to weak UV light
Higher Albedo due to an increase in global cloud coverage.
That’s a contradiction, Salvatore, as barry noticed: lower SST means less clouds thus less albedo…
Two separate issues . More clouds due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays and a more meridional atmosheric circulation.
Lower sea surface temperatures due to less UV light
Yes yes yes Salavatore…
The connection of cosmic rays to clouds
Some researchers have held the belief that cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere [could] create aerosols which, in turn, [could] seed clouds and thereby [could] help in the formation of clouds.
This would make cosmic rays an important player in weather and climate. A study published in the August 2016 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics supports the idea of an important connection between cosmic rays and clouds.
If that was something supported by warmistas, it would be immediately discredited as pure nonsense.
Apos: I forgot to mention the origin of the stuff:
https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/2017/6/26/1200-pm-cosmic-rays-continue-to-rise-as-solar-cycle-approaches-next-minimum
The paper behind that report is here, Bindidon:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JA022689/full
Lead author Svensmark has been pushing a link between GCR and climate for many years, with mixed results. He seems determined to find one.
Here’s a paper from the same year that finds an opposing conclusion.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
Note: that comes from the CERN group running experiments trying to get ionization for cloud nucleation from GCR-like bombardment in a special chamber.
As always, it’s good to get a variety of views from the literature. A single study does not a theory make.
This is a longer list. Unfortunately, they are selected for ‘disproving’ the link. I wish it was more balanced (it would include all Svensmark’s papers if it was), but it’s the longest paper list I could find ready to hand.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/papers-on-the-non-significant-role-of-cosmic-rays-in-climate/
My own opinion: possible link, but jury is still out.
Thanks barry… though it is far away from the very kernel of my interest.
Possibly apropos of not much, but “cloud chambers” were used to detect invisible energetic particles. Particles would trigger cloud condensation nuclei, forming visible aggregations of molecules.
Given the role of chaos in Nature, and Lorenz’s work pointing out that the flap of a butterfly’s wing in Brazil could result in a tornado in a Texas – literally – who can say with certainty that one cloud condensation nucleus will not have a completely unforeseen effect at some time in the future?
Chaos appears everywhere in Nature. Predicting movements within the atmosphere might not be possible with any precision – ever.
After all, Heisenberg pointed out that the position and velocity of one humble electron cannot even be measured simultaneously, let alone predicted! Pretending that it doesn’t really matter, won’t help.
Feynman gave up on simple fluid dynamics as insoluble. I’m not within cooee of Feynman’s ability, but maybe you’re smarter than me. I wouldn’t just arbitrarily discard an idea which seems to have backing by theory and experiment. Who knows?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“After all, Heisenberg pointed out that the position and velocity of one humble electron cannot even be measured simultaneously, let alone predicted! Pretending that it doesnt really matter, wont help.”
An extreme perversion of what Heisenberg actually discovered.
His U Principle doesn’t apply to the macroscopic world. Your claim is just dumb.
bindidon…”Some researchers have held the belief…”
You have highlighted words like belief, would, and idea. You are obviously claiming that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation is highly theoretical.
Let’s look at current AGW theory. The best the authority on AGW, the IPCC, can claim, is that anthropogenic global warming is ‘likely’. They cannot state as a fact that humans have anything to do with global warming.
AGW theory is based on sheer consensus. It cannot be proved using the scientific method.
DA…”His U Principle doesnt apply to the macroscopic world. Your claim is just dumb”.
Could have swore that Mike referenced Heisenberg to electrons.
GR: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to all quantum systems, not just electrons. Take a class.
In my view, the eye goes to central Cuba.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00931/rhafnw458u3a.png
Threee hurricanes on one single pic…
In other news Irma has turned out to be the most powerful Atlantic storm ever recorded outside the shallower (warmer) waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Cause appears to be warmer Atlantic Ocean waters.
If it fails to make US landfall, of course, it doesn’t count for anything. :-/
barry, nation centrism (I refuse to use here ‘nationalism’) is by far not restricted to the USA.
bindidon…”barry, nation centrism (I refuse to use here nationalism) is by far not restricted to the USA”.
Don’t get your point, binny, especially with regard to nationalism and to what barry was talking about. I don’t agree with nationalism but I don’t get what you have against the word. Maybe it translates differently to you than what it does to someone over here.
You seem to have a disdain for the US, the other day you took a shot at them with regard to how long it took the US to enter WW II.
Many people hate the US due to a misguided notion that they are the root of all evil. Whereas I don’t agree with the US claiming the name America, I don’t hate the US and neither do I worship them. I come close to hating certain factions, like the current faction who refuse to get out of the way and allow the US government to operate, and especially to focus on stopping terrorists like ISIS.
Let’s face it, the US is the centre of the universe with respect to this part of the world. If Irma does not hit Florida, it might just as well not exist. There’s something sinister about a major storm hitting the US, as if it affects all of us in the US and Canada.
People in Puerto Rico don’t count? Cuba? The Philippines?
When do they teach Canadians such nonsense?
DA,
I didn’t realise that people in Puerto Rico, Cuba, or Phillipines refuse to count.
How do they add up? Subtract?
Ah well, you’re a perfect fountain of knowledge. Thanks for that. Are you aware of any other societies whose members do not count? Are they unable, or just choose not too? Wonders will never cease.
Cheers.
DA…”People in Puerto Rico dont count? Cuba? The Philippines?”
You’re a Yank, you tell me.
Gordon, if you don’t recognize the universality of human suffering, nothing I can write would convince you of it. Shame.
barry…”In other news Irma has turned out to be the most powerful Atlantic storm ever recorded outside the shallower (warmer) waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean”.
Is their a hidden point you are trying to make, Barry? I mean something you can prove.
It’s more a dig at US-centric focus by Dr Spencer than anything else, but let me wind you up anyway.
Irma’s intensity is consistent with global warming projections stating it is likely that intensity of the stronger storms will increase.
barry…”Its more a dig at US-centric focus by Dr Spencer than anything else, but let me wind you up anyway”.
There are 323 million people in the US and a good proportion of them live in areas affected by the Houston storm and now Irma.
Why would Roy not be focused on the US since he lives there?
Having lived adjacent to the US much of my life I don’t perceive them as the threat many people seem to perceive them globally. I don’t agree with US politics in general, or their right-wing philosophy, but I have no issues with them in general. I’d hate to think of the world without them.
“Irmas intensity is consistent with global warming projections stating it is likely that intensity of the stronger storms will increase”.
That shows the inaccuracy and unreliability of those projections. In physics, global warming should reduce the difference in heat between the poles and Tropics and reduce the strength of storms.
Hurricane expert, Chris Landsea, does not see much of a relationship between global warming and storm intensity.
“The bottom line is that nearly all of the theoretical and computer modeling work suggest that hurricanes may be slightly stronger (by a few percent) by the end of the 21st Century, even presuming that a large global warming will occur…”
Later he questions the accuracy of the models.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/
With regard to an increase in storm activity related to global warming, Landsea pointed to the obvious:
“A natural question should arise in studies that are comparing tropical storms and hurricanes today versus a century ago: Have recent improvements in our ability to detect and monitor these cyclones affected the record and thus the trends obtained?”
Why would Roy not be focused on the US since he lives there?
I think that’s fine.
The problem arises when US landfall is touted as some kind of indicator of overall (global) cyclone trends. This is exactly what happens when Roy has posted about “US landfalling Cat3+ hurricanes.” Such occurrences are relatively rare and essentially random, making them a useless proxy for global anything.
You can see the same chicanery in an article posted in this thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261739
Let’s note what the science actually says, and not what you think it says:
“Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling studies, the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall rates will increase in every affected region.”
– IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch14 sec 14.6.3 p.1252
More garbage science published in the IPCC, who does not seem to understand the concept of falsifiability
Yep.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/09/07/chart-as-co2-has-risen-major-landfalling-us-hurricanes-declining-over-past-140-years-maybe-we-need-more-co2/
That is of an incredible cynism. And as usual, the worldwide ultraskeptic connections work very well.
bindidon…”That is of an incredible cynism”.
Why is it cynical? Basic physics predicts that storm intensity should decrease as the planet warms. That’s due to a reduction in the differential between temperatures in the polar regions and the Tropics.
The Little Ice Age ended circa 1850 and during the LIA, global temps were 1C to 2C below normal. The planet has gradually warmed since the LIA with a reduction in glacier size and an increase in ocean level.
Basic physics. Is it possible your AGW theory is based on cynicism?
Exactly the warmer the world the less the polar/equator temperature gradient will be the less stormy/less cloudy the earth will be.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Exactly the warmer the world the less the polar/equator temperature gradient will be the less stormy/less cloudy the earth will be.”
The Arctic is warming about twice as fast as the tropics. So the gradient is INCREASING, not decreasing.
DA,
I’ll burst your bubble. If Arctic temperatures a rising faster than the tropics, they are converging. The gradient appears to be flattering, as the temperatures get closer.
Anybody can look up the Carnot cycle, and find out more about temperature differences with in relation to a thermodynamic cycle. I’m surprised you didn’t learn about entropy and thermodynamics on the way to obtaining your PhD in physics.
Or maybe I’m wrong?
Cheers,
Mike Flynn says:
“Anybody can look up the Carnot cycle, and find out more about temperature differences with in relation to a thermodynamic cycle. Im surprised you didnt learn about entropy and thermodynamics on the way to obtaining your PhD in physics.”
You’re jealous. Did you not have the motivation and temerity to get an advanced degree? What a shame.
David Appell says:
“The Arctic is warming about twice as fast as the tropics. So the gradient is INCREASING, not decreasing.”
Oops, this was wrong, obviously.
I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong.
Basic physics says that a heated system is a more energetic system.
Zonal temp differentiations have nothing to do with hurricane intensity. The phenomena are too localised to be affected. What might change is storm tracks.
Nope. Basic physics says you cannot extract energy without a “temperature” difference, in essence. The ocean contains enormous “heat” energy. You cannot extract this to power a ship, leaving ice blocks in its wake.
I have simplified somewhat, but feel free to pick at the details if you must.
Cheers.
Barry please explain why the Pacific is void of tropical activity?
Mike, do you disagree that if a whole system gets warmer, it gets more energetic? That’s what I said, so please respond to that.
Salvatore,
Are you trying to say that because there are no cyclones present right now that his says something about global warming?
Please do not be so dense. Long-term analysis is needed to test for any relationship with long-term global warming.
(There have been 6 hurricanes in the Pacific this season – near average for this time in the season, which starts June 1 and ends Nov 30 – we’re just over halfway through the season)
Salvatore,
Explain, in scientific terms, why there has to be typhoon activity in the Pacific right now.
Nothing wishy washy, as you usually do.
Mike Flynn says:
“Basic physics says you cannot extract energy without a temperature difference, in essence.”
A falling ball transfers energy to a spring. Where is the temperature difference?
barry,
First you must define your system. As I pointed out (correctly), that temperature differential is necessary.
As an example, the surface of a frozen glacier at -3 C is emitting over 300W/M2 approx. Even an area of one square km will be emitting 300 x 1000000 W. You can’t even boil a cup of tea with all that energy.
Now warm the glacier so that the surface is -1 C. Much more energy, and you still can’t even boil a cup full of water with it.
Keep going, and soon you’ll be able to devise “gotchas” just as puerile and pathetic as those posed by David Appell.
Some physicists have been convinced that using a large lens or parabolic mirror should surely allow concentration of the energy to boil water. I’ve even seen nicely coloured graphics, supported by mathematical calculations to “prove” it can be done. Just like foolish Warmist “energy balance” cartoons and calculations. Delusional fantasies.
No GHE, and the chances of useful entropy reversal in Nature are exceedingly remote.
Cheers.
DA,
You wrote –
“A falling ball transfers energy to a spring. Where is the temperature difference?”
What has that to do with the matter at hand? Where did the energy to make the ball and the spring come from? What about the energy required to lift the ball?
Maybe you concentrated energy from a glacier or somesuch, or maybe you’re just attempting another stupid “gotcha”. No temperature difference, no work to be obtained. Maybe CO2 magic will reverse entropy, and magically create some heat. That might work, I suppose.
Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing.
Cheers.
Where is the temperature difference?
You said, “Basic physics says you cannot extract energy without a temperature difference, in essence”
What is the temperature difference between the ball and the spring that extracts this energy?
MF wrote:
“Keep going, and soon youll be able to devise gotchas just as puerile and pathetic as those posed by David Appell.”
I am glad to see my questions rattle you this much.
They should.
First you must define your system.
I said “whole system.” That means global.
Barry,
As I’ve mentioned, it doesn’t matter if there is more energy distributed within the global system. You cannot extract energy from an isothermal ocean to drive a ship, and leave colder water in your wake, having extracted some energy from the water.
Whether the water is at 0 C, or 90 C, you still can’t do it. Energy is useless unless you can use it to perform work. As Einstein said e=mc2. So if you have 4 grams of water, you have twice as much energy as 2 grams. Completely true, but completely useless, without some means of accessing the energy.
Ice radiates at least 300 W/m2, but you can’t use it to keep warm, even if you have millions of such Watts available. In any case, I assume you are trying to imply that the Earth is getting hotter due to the mythical GHE. Nonsense, of course. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, even having been exposed to the Sun for the complete period.
Live in your fantasy world if you wish.
Cheers.
You cannot extract energy
You keep saying this. The global climate system has gotten warmer over the long term. Warmer systems have more energy. Apparently you don’t want to respond to this, so let’s move on.
“Extracting” energy.
Hurricanes – the topic of this sub-thread – extract energy from the oceans when they form and spin up.
There are some nice images of the ocean surface after Harvey tracked past. The wake is bluer – energy from the waters has fueled the vortex.
Warmer oceans means more energy to extract.
When the surface water is warm, the storm sucks up heat energy from the water, just like a straw sucks up a liquid. This creates moisture in the air. If wind conditions are right, the storm becomes a hurricane. This heat energy is the fuel for the storm. And the warmer the water, the more moisture is in the air. And that could mean bigger and stronger hurricanes. Satellite data shows the heat and energy transfer in action.
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/where-do-hurricanes-get-their-strength
Lancey told Live Science that there are several key “ingredients” in the recipe for a powerful hurricane. The first requirement is warm ocean water “the warmer the better,” Lancey said. And it can’t just be a shallow layer at the ocean surface, he added. Warm water provides the energy that fuels a growing tropical storm the higher the water temperature and the more warm water there is, the more energy the storm has to tap into, and the faster its winds can blow.
https://www.livescience.com/56361-why-hurricane-matthew-strong.html
I don’t know what you are talking about, but my comments have remained about a warmer system being more energetic, applied to long-term global, and, now, to the fuel for hurricanes.
Warmer waters tend to cause stronger hurricanes.
Is this clear? Do you need more references?
What’s cynical is the focus on US effects only.
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“That is of an incredible cynism. And as usual, the worldwide ultraskeptic connections work very well.”
As to the first, in your opinion, whatever you are referring to, is cynical. Is it correct, though? Your assertion of cynicism doesn’t help disprove whatever you’re referring to. If someone has presented something untrue, might you not be better pointing this out with facts?
As to the second, you haven’t defined “the worldwide ultraskeptic connections” at all. Is this part of some alleged conspiracy theory?
I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, although, referring to a group including Jones, Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt, and Hansen, –
” . . .these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate . . .”
could almost sound like a conspiracy. Being foolish Warmists, the conspirators seem to have failed, as in everything else they have tried to achieve.
Maybe the foolish Warmists need to adopt the methods of the “worldwide ultraskeptic connections” that you think are so effective.
Could you let me know what these methods are? They sound pretty useful to me.
Cheers.
Don’t even cite a quote. How convincing.
When all you have left is to claim a conspiracy, you have admitted you have no counterpoints whatsoever.
DA,
I said I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories. What part of that confuses you?
As to quotes, if you can’t use a search engine such as Google, it’s not my fault. You may blame your incompetence on me, but it still won’t make you any smarter.
Cheers.
I didn’t think you had a specific citation in mind. (That wasn’t difficult to infer.) It’s par for your course.
Salvatore: Marc Morano is paid $250,000/yr (and that was a few years ago) to deny climate science.
Raise your standards, or be laughed at.
DA,
I assume the laughter will be of the demented maniacal cackling of the foolish Warmist variety.
I’m not sure that Salvatore will be terrified by your implied threat. I certainly wouldn’t be.
Cheers.
MF: You have enough problems addressing the questions asked of you. You shouldn’t go searching for more.
—
Next you will say you don’t care about my or anyone else’s opinion. It’s as predictable as clockwork.
DA,
You wrote –
“MF: You have enough problems addressing the questions asked of you. You shouldnt go searching for more.”
Your mind reading skills have not improved, apparently. I choose not to answer foolish Warmist gotchas.
As to your instruction and advice – I’ll treat them with the vast ignore they deserve.
Cheers.
You don’t answer questions because they would reveal your scientific lies. You are easy to back into a scientific corner, and then you get all defensive and try to pretend you don’t care about anyone’s opinion. It happens over and over again.
You’re afraid to answer questions because you can’t. And I know it. Norman knows it. Barry knows it. You’re rather keep pretending to be truculent and a stupid troll than have the courage to engage in a honest intellectual discussion about the science.
God only knows what motivates you. I doubt you even know that.
David,
I don’t bother answering your stupid “gotchas” because you’re not seeking knowledge, as far as I can see.
You’re right – I don’t care what you or any other foolish Warmist think. Why should I?
Your mind reading ability about my thought processs is sadly deficient. You may believe your opinions are fact, but just like your opinion (or belief) that the GHE exists, your opinion is backed by precisely zip.
Keep it up. Maybe the power of wish fulfilment will bring the GHE into being. The laws of physics would appear to preclude such an anomaly, but I’m always prepared to change my mind if you can provide some repeatable experimental evidence that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and a heat source causes the thermometer to be hotter, but you haven’t so far.
Complaints about my approach to science won’t make the GHE become reality. Keep trying, maybe it might work one day. Who knows?
Cheers.
David,
What you think (or don’t) is your affair. As is your desire to be spoon fed with citations. I can’t think of a single rational reason why I should do anything, just because you desire it.
Is the feeling mutual?
Cheers.
You sure do get defensive in a big hurry.
I think I understand why.
DA,
You wrote
“You sure do get defensive in a big hurry.
I think I understand why.”
No I don’t.
So – no you don’t.
Still no GHE. Sad for you, maybe. Not for me.
Cheers.
If AGW is responsible for the Atlantic it must also be responsible for the Pacific which is dead quiet.
SIGH
Salvatore: AGW is responsible only for bad news. Please, pay attention.
Salvatore,
Just for fun?
New Zealand, at about 41 degrees South is not noted for being surrounded by warm water. In spite of this, the Shaky Isles manage to be ravaged by quite a few cyclones (which are just hurricanes rotating the correct way, of course). Only joking.
I believe that NZ has never officially been subject to a “tropical cyclone” because it isn’t in the tropics, and the surrounding ocean is too cold. There used to be “great storms”, such as the one in 1868, which killed at least 40 people in a much less densely populated time, flattened lots of structures, and rained a lot.
Fairly recently, it became allowable to use the term “ex tropical cyclone”, even after it has increased in intensity along the way. If it looks like a cyclone from satellite pictures, and acts like a cyclone on the ground, it’s a bit of a stretch to say it can’t be a cyclone because the water’s too cold, I suppose. The average seems to be around one per year, but I’m not sure if this is supposed to increase with AGW.
I live in a place subject to cyclones. I don’t look forward to the next one, I can assure you. Still, the topography is flat, so persistent flooding is no problem.
Cheers.
If AGW is not responsible for more intense hurricanes, then I suppose you would be perfectly happy buying a piece of real estate near the ocean, in Florida or the Caribbean, about 1 meter above sea level?
While the ocean views add $s to the value of a property, I would not be surprised to see coastal property prices dip as the risks become higher.
My advice: sell up now, in 10 years time the value is likely to have fallen.
dr No,
I’m sure that all your advice, all your confidence, all your belief in Cargo Cult Scientism, plus $5, will probably buy a cup of coffee.
People in general might prefer the $5. I certainly would, just in case your guesses turn out to be wrong.
Disclaimer – I live near the coast in a cyclone area. I have no insurance, as I choose to carry my own risk. At least I don’t contribute to any insurance executive’s salary and bonuses, nor the rapacious demands of shareholders, sitting on their bottoms, expecting to enrich themselves at my expense by doing nothing.
I seem to do all right. I’m probably just lucky. Good thing there’s no law against being lucky. Feel free to tell me how stupid you think I am, if it makes you feel better. I can take it!
Cheers.
“Im probably just lucky.”
I bet you would one of the first asking for a government hand out if you get flooded out, blown away, burnt out etc. by an extreme weather event.
dr No,
You lose the bet. Of course, being a foolish Warmist, you only bet when you don’t have to pay out.
Send a dollar to your local hurricane relief centre, if you wish.
I’ve lost one house, a few motor vehicles, all the house contents, on one occasion – had looters as well, but that’s another story. I didn’t actively deter the Armed Forced clean up teams – that would be churlish.
I also accepted some building materials, and the offer of a caravan for a short period. I remember signing some papers for that. So I probably applied in theory. I wasn’t scrambling for a Government handout, but why not accept an offer of charity gracefully?
I borrowed money to rebuild, but at a higher interest rate.
I haven’t been flooded out or burnt out, by virtue of living on flattish terrain in an urban area. The only time I’ve been physically blown away is in a foreign country – and I came to earth before I suffered much injury. Just lucky I guess.
I hope it continues, but who knows? Sorry to disappoint you – but you can’t even seem to guess the past. Better luck next time.
Cheers.
You lost your house?
And then rebuilt in the same location?
You ignored the climate change predictions of worse extreme events?
I hope you at least built a stronger house.
Don’t expect any sympathy from me if it gets destroyed by the next extreme event.
“Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling studies, the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall rates will increase in every affected region.”
– IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch14 sec 14.6.3 p.1252
DA,
And your point is?
Or are you just inserting random assertions called projections, in some sort of perverted appeal to self appointed authority?
In many cases, rational people would read words like “projections”, ” . . .either decrease or remain substantially unchanged,”, “low confidence”, and all the rest of the “modelled” gobbledygook as providing precisely zero useful information.
Still no GHE. Climatology may be more useful than astrology, but insufficient information is available to know one way or the other.
Cheers.
Read it.
DA,
And your point is?
Uttering pointless commands will neither make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, nor create a GHE.
I’ll ignore them, as usual.
You can read it twice, if you like. Once for you, and once for me. Maybe you’ll get twice the benefit. Still no GHE, is there?
Cheers.
Mike, don’t read it.
Please don’t.
Don’t you dare read it.
In fact, I forbid you to read it.
It contains disturbing information that only we select few are allowed to see.
I don’t think it is suitable for small minds.
dr No,
David Appell demanded – Read it.
It. Done.
Next stupid and pointless foolish Warmist demand?
What a pack of Wayward Wandering Woeful Witless Warmists!
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. Even the US Government now has doubts – don’t apply for grants using “climate change” in your application. Use something like “natural disasters” instead. You can still claim that CO2 causes natural disasters.
There’s still at least one sucker born every minute, and H L Mencken said “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
The GHE believers seem to have profited mightily. A sheltered workshop for many who can’t or won’t be bothered to do anything scientifically useful. Producing vastly expensive and amateurish computer games of no use to man or beast doesn’t seem to usefully advance science.
Foolish Warmists claim that redefining the scientific method to one of establishing scientific fact through consensus, rather than careful thought supported by experiment, will set things right.
What do you think?
Cheers.
What do I think?
I think you should give up and turn to poetry since i really liked this line from you:
“What a pack of Wayward Wandering Woeful Witless Warmists!”
Next task is to find a word that rhymes (sort of) with “warmists”.
For example, reformist, alarmist, conformist and to construct the second line.
Entries welcome from all. The best entry wins a copy of:
“An inconvenient truth” by Al Gore
Second prize: two copies !
dr No,
I have to admit I rather like your implication that two copies of Al Gore’s propaganda piece are worth less than one copy. Or just worthless, if I want to save a space.
Unfortunately, if you require that all entrants will be forced to accept 100 copies, even if all they have to pay is the postage, then entries a liable to be few.
I’m not sure about poetry, but I don’t mind a bit of alliteration, when poking fun at foolish Warmists. They certainly have their uses. If I come across a joke lacking a butt, invariably a foolish Warmist volunteers – as the butt of the joke, of course.
Maybe you could organise a competition for villages temporarily short of a village idiot. They might not be prepared to accept a foolish Warmist in lieu of a proper idiot. I’m pretty sure even rustics have standards.
I’m happy enough to seek a GHE hypothesis that can be tested against experiment. Haven’t found one yet. Maybe it’s hidden under a pile of Iraqi WMDs.
Cheers.
Salvatore: Remember Typhoon Haiyan? 6500 dead. Until Irma, the longest sustained record winds. Don’t insult them.
Salvatore,
There have been 6 hurricanes in the Pacific this season so far. About average for the time in the season (June 1 to Nov 30).
Increases in intensity for the stronger categories of Pacific hurricanes has increased over time, consistent with AGW projections. Although, this confluence, while a positive indicator of successful prediction, is not yet statistically robust to be definite.
Dr. Roy,
Congratulations! Your e-book was ranked as #1,201 on Kindle and rising while Al Gore’s book ranked #51,031 according to the Daily Caller.
Methinks the general public is fed up with Al Gore’s lousy performance as a prophet. Mother Nature is having so much fun at his expense with the “Gore Effect”, 12 years without a major hurricane in the USA etc etc.
Even though Irma is aimed directly at my house (on the Space Coast) I know it has nothing to do with “Global Warming” and anyone who says otherwise is a snake oil salesman or worse.
Thank you for debunking so many “Sacred Cows”. Sadly, research related to medicine, behavioral research and education (to name a few) is just as corrupt as “Climate Science”. The real problem is that these sciences do not work to “three sigma” which means that the hypothesis has 0.3% probability of being wrong. Two sigma means a 5% probability of being wrong as explained by one of my ex-colleagues here:
https://www.carolinajournal.com/video/dukes-staddon-explains-how-flawed-science-skews-public-policy-debates/
gallopingcamel says:
“Mother Nature is having so much fun at his expense with the Gore Effect, 12 years without a major hurricane in the USA etc etc.”
Totally whacked.
Heard of Harvey?????????
I can’t help anyone with your inability to understand simple statements.
DA…”gallopingcamel says:
Mother Nature is having so much fun at his expense with the Gore Effect, 12 years without a major hurricane in the USA etc etc.
Heard of Harvey?????????”
Oh, oh…were the books in question written after Harvey???
It is amazing how lousy prophets like Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore keep on spouting their nonsense year after year. Have they no shame?
My guess is that when the cash flow is strongly positive you don’t feel the shame.
Perhaps you would change your opinion for money, but most of us would not.
David, that is hardly true, hardly worth arguing.
Most people are for sale, rather cheaply I might add. All that has to happen is to convince them they are right to take the money. Marketing and sales are the exact opposite of this emotional action, but it works the same way.
Many government contracts and subsidies, grants they are called, require this very thing. In order to get the money you have to, as Mike says, write the way they require, tell them what they want to hear in the style they require, and convince yourself you’re telling the truth, but that only in order to assuage your conscience that what you are doing is honorable.
See, that wasn’t so difficult was it.
And who has all the money to offer? The oil companies of course.
Don says:
September 8, 2017 at 8:06 AM
And who has all the money to offer? The oil companies of course.
What the heck you talking about? The Government PRINTS IT!
mile…”Most journalists are required to write as their employers dictate”.
With DA as your employer, that is definitely the case. If DA’s intelligence/insight tried to intervene it would be summarily quashed by his ego-mind.
gallopingcamel,
David is trying for the moral high ground, yet he claims to be a journalist.
Most journalists are required to write as their employers dictate. The editors and sub-editors tend to point out that if want to keep picking up your salary, you better do what you’re told. Even the fashion in which it is written is dictated, usually by means of a style manual.
In the case of Al Gore and his ilk, it might be a case of no brain in concert with no shame. Delusional psychotics believe their delusions absolutely. Some people even believe that CO2 can make thermometers hotter – even though they can never manage to demonstrate this miracle to outsiders.
All part of life’s rich tapestry.
Cheers.
I’m a freelancer. Emphasis on the word “free.”
freeloader
Regards
David,
I can understand why you work for “free”. Nobody except a foolish Warmist would pay you. Or do you mean “free to starve” if nobody wants to pay you for what you write? You can always fall back on your PhD when you get sick of trying to live on nothing.
I wouldn’t mention “climate change” in your application, if you want a job with the US Govt. Your application might go through the shredder on its way to the trash receptacle. Free advice – worth what you pay for it.
An editor once told me the publisher that all news had to be “print to fit”, before presenting me with too many blank column inches too close to deadline. Fun, fun, fun – not.
Good luck with the freelancing – luckily I don’t have to worry about money too much.
Cheers.
As I noted above, the quality of the denialist arguments has hit rock bottom. Nothing left but pathetic insults. Go on, admit you have lost and retire gracefully.
dr No,
I’m not arguing. The GHE doesn’t exist – unless you can experimtally demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the source of heat makes the thermometer hotter.
Argue all you like. Facts are more convincing.
Continue to deny, divert and confuse all you like. Still no GHE
So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Yet again, you completely misrepresent what the greenhouse effect is all about.
Don,
Mike seems incapable of learning, no matter how many times better information has been presented. He always presents the GHE in his bizarrely reversed condition. His description can be fixed something like this:
“… that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the
source ofsink for heat (given the existence of a heat input) makes the thermometer hotter.For the earth, the CO2 also happens to be between the earth’s surface and the sun, but the important factor is that the CO2 is between the earth’s surface and the icy cold expanse of outer space.
Glad you’re back Tim, please stay around!
Tim Folkerts,
Your GHE doesn’t result in heating, does it?
What you have proposed is a description of an insulator, and I agree that an insulator between a hot thermometer, and a colder environment, will result in a slower rate of cooling than if the insulator was not present. As at night, on the Earth.
However, no heating. You have to invent Folkerts’ demon, who removes the insulation when the thermometer and the heat source when present, allows the thermometer to heat, and then replaces the insulation when the heat source is removed.
Or possibly you have invented Folkerts patent one way insulation, which allows more energy through in one direction than the other. This particular type of insulation would ensure that the longer an object insulated in this fashion was exposed to a heat source, the hotter it would become, as a certain amount of heat would be retained per unit time.
The history of the Earth’s surface temperature shows that this has not happened. It has fallen substantially. The observations that temperatures vary widely on Earth, that temperatures change more rapidly, and are more extreme, where GHGs are lowest, and that Winter is generally colder than Summer in a particular location, also give problems.
Sorry Tim, changing the description of the GHE to imply that cooling results in warmer temperatures, doesn’t help.
Still no GHE. increasing the amount of CO2 between the Earth and the Sun, reduces the amount of energy reaching the surface. The maximum temperature of the Moon’s surface is far higher that that of the Earth, because the Sun’s radiation reaches the Moon’s surface unimpeded.
Anybody who looks at radiative transfer equations should rapidly realise that maximum energy transfer occurs in a vacuum. This has been known for more than 100 years, but foolish Warmists insist the usual laws of physics don’t apply to them, which is why they have to invent ridiculous notions such as the GHE.
No GHE. Climate is the average of weather, not the cause.
Cheers.
tim folkerts…”For the earth, the CO2 also happens to be between the earths surface and the sun, but the important factor is that the CO2 is between the earths surface and the icy cold expanse of outer space”.
So what??? That means it could absorb IR in either direction. It can’t do anything else, not in the trace amounts present in the atmosphere.
Tim,
You of all people should know that outer space has no temperature.
You of all people should know that outer space has no temperature.
That’s funny.
Of course outer space has a stone cold temperature, about 2.7 K the temperature of the cosmic background radiation.
You might catch a very big cold and turn from live gone wild to dead gone tamed when just left “in contact” with it and no star close enough to warm you.
This is why I try to avoid getting sucked in ….
“You of all people should know that outer space has no temperature.”
Scientists have gone to great trouble to measure the temperature of outer space. The radiation from the universe lets us measure this temperature quite precisely. Its 2.7 K, with minor variations in different directions.
Beside, EVEN IF you want to say space is empty, then its radiation temperature would be 0 K!
“That means it could absorb IR in either direction. “
Very true. However there is very little 15 um radiation coming in from the sun, but quite a bit leaving. So CO2 is MUCH better at absorbing outgoing energy from the earth than at blocking incoming energy from the sun.
“As at night, on the Earth.”
Insulation doesn’t only work when things are cooling. It works when things are warming too! So on a cold winter day if the furnace is OFF, your house will cool more slowly with more insulation than with less. And on a cold winter day with the furnace ON, your house will warm more quickly with more insulation than with less. With furnaces running intermittently and identically in two houses, the house with more insulation will be warmer than the house without insulation.
No magic. No one-way insulation. No violation of the 2nd Law. This is really basic stuff.
Tim, you are of course technically and scientifically correct. But having pointed out their lack of basic radiative heat transfer knowledge to Mike and Gordon in the past, I realized that their minds are no longer capable of assimilating second year engineering textbook material.
Tim/alpha,
You are confusing electromagnetic radiation with temperature. They are not the same. CMB is just electromagnetic radiation.
Outer space at the TOA has about 1370 W/m2 of radiation. Are you going to say outer space at the TOA has a high temperature associated with 1370 W/m2 as well?
“Scientists have gone to great trouble to measure the temperature of outer space.”
No Tim, scientists have measured cosmic microwave background radiation, not temperature.
“You are confusing electromagnetic radiation with temperature. They are not the same. CMB is just electromagnetic radiation.”
They are more alike than you seem to realize. Read up on “photon gas”. Here’s the intro from wikipedia:
Specifically, the gas of photons has a temperature equal to the blackbody that emitted it.
The photon gas from the sun (the 1370 W/m^2 at the TOA that you mentioned) has a temperature of 5700 K — same as the surface of the sun. The photon gas from deep space has a temperature of 2.7 K — same as deep space. CMB is not “just EM radiation” — it is blackbody radiation from the early universe, red-shifted by the expansion of the universe over the past ~ 14 billion years until it is a gas of photons with a temperature of 2.7 K.
One may add that the concept of temperature is closely related to the concept of (local, at least) thermodynamic equilibrium. With photons (as with molecules and Maxwell Boltzmann) it implies a specific equilibrium distribution of the particles in energy, direction and polarization, the Planck law. That’s essentially the case for the cosmic background radiation and thus outer space.
Moreover it’s actually a bona fide temperature in the sense of thermodynamics exactly as the temperature of an ordinary solid, liquid or gas. Indeed if you put it in thermal contact with a small probe ( a sample of a solid for instance) at a lower (higher) temperature energy flows from outer space to (to outer space from) the probe as required by the second law of thermodynamics.
Mike,
“No brain, no shame”. I like it.
Reminds me of “No pain, no gain”.
BTW:
“Three hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean could all make landfall simultaneously in a weather event scientists say is “unparalleled and totally ridiculous”.
Ah yes, the records of the modern era.
It will be a thousand years before records are not set as much.
Lewis
It hasn’t taken 1000 years for the number of new COLD records to diminish drastically.
Ah yes, the old dismissing of the “records of the modern era” trick.
I think that is one of the last denialist arguments in the barrel.
Predictable, but sad.
dr no …”Three hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean could all make landfall simultaneously in a weather event…”
doc…note ‘weather event’.
Thank you Mr Frog in a beaker of heated water.
You know, deep down, that the warmest team were right.
BTW, I am now happy to also be a member of the alarmist team.
Currently there is a very strong geomagnetic storm.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/swx-overview-small.gif?time=1504849506000
Regarding the question of the “if summer temperatures in the UK are representative of global warming” I do not think we have ever seen the maximum temperature possible in the UK during the summer not even in summer 1976-1977. Summer temperatures go up and down yearly but not because of changes in solar radiation.
It accelerates the jet stream to the north because of the strong geomagnetic storm. Irma will hit central Florida.
Current situation.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00931/qcdjyjv74lmq.png
Hurricane Jose moves along the trail of the Irma.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00931/g3fyoc4mzruf.png
There are signs all around us the world is cooling. Volcanoes and Earth quakes as the crust cools.
Any source to present, Tim Wells?
Volcanoes and earthquakes rather are known in context with a warming, expanding crust.
But of course I wouldn’t link that phenomenon to ‘global warming’ of whatever origin.
Dark Winter John L Casey.
Oh no! Why not adding Valentina Zharkova?
That would make it sooo perfect.
Bindidon,
The crust is cooling, according to geophysicists.
From “The Heat-Flow through Oceanic and Continental-Crust and the Heat-Loss of the Earth”
“Reflecting the preponderance of Precambrian crust, two of these provinces cover the Archean to the middle Proterozoic, and the third covers the late Proterozoic to the Mesozoic. The mean heat flow decreases from a value of 1.84 cal/cm s (77 mW/m) for the youngest province to a constant value of 1.1 cal/cm s (46 mW/m) after 800 Ma. The nonradiogenic component of the surface heat flow decays to a constant value of between 0.65 and 0.5 cal/cm s (25 and 21 mW/m) within 200400 Ma.”
I tossed this in just in case you didn’t believe the Wikipedia reference –
“Estimates of the total heat flow from Earths interior to surface span a range of 43 to 49 terawatt (TW), or 1012 watt.[9] One recent estimate is 47 TW,[1] equivalent to an average heat flux of 91.6 mW/m2, and is based on more than 38,000 measurements. The respective mean heat flows of continental and oceanic crust are 70.9 and 105.4 mW/m2.[1]”
Measurement supports this figure.
As the crust cooled from presumably 5000 K or so (certainly molten), it shrank of necessity, as the molten rock is less dense than the solid. It shrinks, which leads to buckling, cracking, scraps, rift valleys and so on. This also causes enormous compression on the underlying fluid interior. A similar method can be used to create diamonds by allowing a red hot iron ball to chill under controlled conditions.
Any wonder why from time to time the crust shakes, the mid ocean ridges continuously exude magma, and volcanoes can eject large amounts of material with awesome ferocity!
So no crustal warming due to GHGs – certainly none beyond the influence of the Sun (maybe 10 metres or so), and of course even that varies with the Earths orbit around the Sun. The surface cools at night, as you can establish by placing a pot of boiling water on the surface before sunset, and measuring its temperature just before sunrise.
Fact, not fantasy. It’s call real science. Verifiable by proper experiment, and supported by useful theory.
Cheers.
binny…”Any source to present, Tim Wells?”
Two, actually.
The planet has cooled about 0.5C since February 2016. Source = UAH graph on this site.
The planet may have cooled 0.05C between 1998 – 2012. Source = IPCC. That is, using the -0.05C indicated in their error bars.
Gee, it is even worse than that. I have just experienced a drop in daily maximum temperate of 5 degrees over two days. Help!, the ice age is coming!
So you are saying you don’t trust Roy’s data then?
Trough seems to be lifting over eastern U.S.A. I wonder if the W.N.W course might stay intact longer for IRMA?
Irma also threatens Alabama. Especially when a large temperature difference in the north and south.
Ren could it miss Florida? Maybe?
No. But it is not known where exactly it will hit.
thx
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/11L/flash-vis-long.html
Jetstream to the south of the US is weakening.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/atlantic/winds/wg8vor1.GIF
The hurricane covers almost all of Cuba. The thunderstorms in Florida will soon start.
http://www.weatherplaza.com/en-US/sat/?region=southeast.ir
The burst in solar activity should be ending.
Things are looking good for colder global temperatures moving forward.
With no El NINO maybe La Nina , very low solar conditions likely and overall sea surface temperatures likely to continue to cool.
Overall sea surface temp. +.286c last check this metric I am watching closely.
Earthquake solar connection ? I say yes but can not prove it. 8.1 mag earthquake /severe geo magnetic storm/proton storm.
Always seems to happen more often then not but not all the time.
Here is the concisest prediction you’ve made, Salvatore.
I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.
[Similar here]
We can put a number on that.
The 30-year mean temperature for 1980-2010 (that’s actually 31 tears, but lets use them all) is…
-0.001 C
Let’s call it 0.0 C.
Now, I think you’re predicting weather, not climate. A 3-month prediction is not about climate. Might as well predict an el Nino or la Nina, which last longer.
You’ve described predicting ENSO events as “pathetic.”
Yet you are betting the farm that there will not be an el Nino next summer, which would surely keep temps above the zero line.
So, you are forecasting the state of ENSO next year. You’re saying definitely no el Nino.
Not much of a climate prediction.
But I’ll be taking note of temps out of interest. Far as I’m concerned, we’ll learn nothing about AGW from how hot or cold next summer is, but I’ll be very curious to see what you say should temps be warmer.
I’ll expect you to say that AGW is likely a real phenomena.
And I’ll be joining David and others in the merry band that post past failed predictions, should that occur and you fail to adjust your views.
Good luck.
I said due to low solar/ENSO global cooling is going to set in.
If your side can use ENSO for touting global warming ,I can use it for global cooling.
Why does global warming depend so much on ENSO ,that is what AGW has hidden behind.
I said by the summer of year 2018 global temperatures will be at or below 30 year means and will be going toward those values.
I also said this prediction is based on my low average value solar parameters being present.
I also said the most important item to watch is overall sea surface temperatures.
I also said if temperatures are still this high by next summer and my low average value solar parameters are in place that I will be wrong.
I note ENSO has been favorable for global warming over recent past years ,and if AGW is so real why does it need the aid of a favorable ESNO environment.
If AGW is real why can’t global temperatures maintain themselves, on the high side if ENSO is neutral much less in an La Nina state.
Reason is because it is ENSO /OVERALL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES which have determined the climate not AGW.
Be patient Salvatore…
https://futurism.com/the-sun-just-erupted-the-biggest-solar-flare-in-12-years-and-it-has-affected-earth/
I think the Sun reads your comments since a while, and is a bit crazy about them.
TEMPORARY
I just tested your reflexes, seem to work.
LOL
Why is CO2 taking so long to get over .400 ppm? If mankind is burning a million years of fossil fuel accumulation per year, (hard to believe) shouldn’t it be rising fast? Or as the “divergence problem” since 1980 suggests, could it be cooling thus offsetting CO2, which follows warming?
Darwin Wyatt on September 8, 2017 at 10:41 AM
Why is CO2 taking so long to get over .400 ppm?
So long?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
What in the world do you mean with that?
binny…”Why is CO2 taking so long to get over .400 ppm?”
“What in the world do you mean with that?”
binny…do you know what 400 PARTS per MILLION means?
Do you really think any instrumentation could distinguish between 350 ppmv and 400 ppmv?
Think of 100,000 people at a soccer game dressed in black with 40 people dressed in white. Now multiply both by 10.
One of the main CO2 measuring instruments is parked on the edge of an active volcano above warm tropical water. The maximal out-gassing of CO2 is in the warmest water. And what do volcanoes out-gas?
Why do you believe everything you read? There’s no way to state truthfully whether the atmosphere has 400 ppmv, it would be hard enough to measure that in a lab never mind a dynamic atmosphere with air molecules swirling everywhere.
Was it Mike who pointed out that Feynman gave up on trying to calculate parameters in a swirling fluid? Planck claimed you can’t do it as well. He ended up averaging and that must be what they do when measuring CO2 density in the atmosphere.
Besides, CO2 density changes with the seasons.
Gordon,
You’re right – I did mention Feynman.
Gavin Schmidt once claimed that CO2 was well mixed within the atmosphere, but then linked to a simulation which showed wide variations in CO2 around the globe. Satellite pictures using sensors sensitive to frequencies strongly absorbed and emitted by CO2 show the same thing. Maybe foolish Warmists wish to have it both ways, so they can’t be proved wrong.
Many people don’t agree, but more CO2, rather than less, seems to be a good thing to me. All photosynthesis depends on available CO2, and it doesn’t seem rational to purposely try to reduce your food supply because James Hansen doesn’t like coal trains, or as he refers to them “trains of death”.
Nobody has produced a GHE or a unicorn for scientific enquiry, so I’ll press on as though both are as real as the Tooth Fairy. So far, so good.
Still no CO2 heating.
Cheers.
What a stupid analogy.
I have been at a contest with close to 100,000 spectators packed into stadium.
I bet I could easily find at least one of the 40 dressed all in white.
Its now bordering on crazy if you must desperately resort to querying the CO2 record.
You obviously know zero, zilch, nada about science.
dr No,
I’m sure a 7 year old child could do as well you with discerning white from black.
The 7 year old child might be even better at understanding Gordon’s analogy as presented. Whether you have limited comprehension of English, or you suffer from a cognitive deficit of some sort, I do not know.
Unlike you and other foolish Warmists, I don’t claim to be able to read people’s minds, nor peer into the future.
I won’t tell you what you obviously know or don’t know, because I can’t read your mind. I leave claims of mind reading and similar claims of ESP to people such as you.
You might care to let me know if you suffer from a cognitive defect, if you wish. I’m reduced to guessing otherwise. Oh well.
Cheers.
dr no…”What a stupid analogy.
I have been at a contest with close to 100,000 spectators packed into stadium.
I bet I could easily find at least one of the 40 dressed all in white”.
doc…do you ever try to look at analogy from a perspective other than the first one that pops into your mind?
I was trying to demonstrate how much CO2 is out-numbered in a density of 400 ppmv. Why should 400 particles of CO2 swamped by 999,600 particles of mainly nitrogen and oxygen have any effect at all?
I was also trying to demonstrate there is no way to specify a density of 400 ppmv in our dynamic atmosphere to any degree of accuracy. In fact, I’ll go so far as to state that no one knows the density of CO2 in the atmosphere, and to whether it is increasing, to any degree of accuracy.
darwin…”Why is CO2 taking so long to get over .400 ppm? If mankind is burning a million years of fossil fuel accumulation per year, (hard to believe) shouldnt it be rising fast?”
It depends on your propaganda quotient. If you want to scare people you spread the word that it’s rising fast. No one states why it is rising fast, they just throw the propaganda out there and hope it sticks.
Here in Canada, a federal minister claimed it does not matter if AGW theory is correct. She claimed they are doing the right thing by trying to control CO2 via carbon taxes and the likes. It’s for the environment, don’t ya know.
How positively Big-Brotherish and politically-correct.
That’s what we’re dealing with: anal, control freaks bent on establishing a world order.
BTW, that political correctness is not limited to socialists and left-wingers. There are as many capitalist, right-wingers at it in Canada. They are bonded by their need to control and sticking their noses into the business of others.
The other day, our Prime Minister, an uber-climate alarmist, was lecturing us on Islamophobia. That’s a news buzzword in Canada introduced by a politician who is…wait for it…Muslim. Never mind that extreme Muslims are slaughtering people in the Middle East and setting off bombs randomly, we Canadians are not allowed to mention such terrorist activities any more because it’s hateful.
Bad Canadians for telling the truth!!
Get the connection? Political-correctness knows no bounds. The AGW theory is political-correctness of the scientific kind.
“Thats what were dealing with: anal, control freaks bent on establishing a world order.”
Yes, here we go. The desperate lashing out by somebody who can see their world view collapsing and doesn’t know how to cope.
Yes, everyone is out to get you! To enslave you! To torture you!To take your money! Everywhere you look you can see them! The scientists, the media, the leftists, the teachers, the young, the Pope!, the Democrats, the scientists!! etc etc.
Check under your bed tonight!
Paranoia is fun, isn’t it?
dr No,
And still no GHE to be found. Just foolish Warmists attempting to deny, divert, and confuse.
Good luck with that.
Cheers.
A diversion –
dr No –
“You lost your house?
And then rebuilt in the same location?
You ignored the climate change predictions of worse extreme events?
I hope you at least built a stronger house.
Dont expect any sympathy from me if it gets destroyed by the next extreme event.”
My answers –
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
I could care less about what dr No thinks, but not much. Foolish Warmists cannot understand why people ignore their admonitions, and go about their lives using their own best judgement.
As for me, so far so good. Every decision I make seems right at the time. I’d hardly make one I thought to be wrong, would I?
But I digress, as they say. I make decisions based on the non-existence of the GHE, unicorns, or tigers in the near vicinity.
I don’t seem to have suffered unduly to date. Others can feel free to panic on my behalf, if they wish.
Cheers.
Mike,
I don’t understand your aversion to unicorns. They exist. Be aware, be very aware. Don’t trample their food stock, don’t get in their way.
lewis,
Thanks for the warnings. I’ll be afraid, very afraid. I won’t have time to worry too much about the GHE, unfortunately!
What a pity!
Cheers.
Nobody’s asking you to panic.
Democracy allows you to believe whatever you like.
Even fools.
I seem to recall a children’s story about 3 little pigs.
2 were fools, the third survived.
dr No,
Foolish Warmists believe in children’s stories and brightly coloured pictures. The sort put about by NASA, Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt and all the rest.
Reality is different, in my view. Believe your children’s stories, fairy tales, and the GHE. You might even choose to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, rather than an undistinguished mathematician, or that Michael Mann doesn’t fit the clinical picture of a delusional psychotic by most criteria.
And still you can’t produce the GHE. Maybe it’s like WMD – you know it exists, but it’s always somewhere else! Keep looking – maybe it’s beside Trenberth’s missing Heat, after Caloric, but before Luminiferous Ether. Phlogiston and Unicorns are further along.
Cheers.
Yada, yada, yada.
“NASA, Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt and all the rest.”
Sore loser. These guys will be remembered and revered long after you (and I).
In fact, as far as team warmist is concerned, they are amongst our best players.
dr No,
More mind reading attempts? I hope you’re not wagering on your ability to read minds. You’ve lost again.
I agree with you about people being remembered.
Trenberth for “we can’t find the missing heat and it’s a travesty”. You can’t find what isn’t there – a bit like the GHE.
Mike Mann for his “Nature trick”, or the “Hockey stick” or his touching delusional belief in being able to divine past temperatures from communing with pieces of wood. Obviously obsessed with the idea that the future can be predicted by examining the entrails of the past.
Gavin Schmidt for his posing as a scientist, in spite of not being one. Also for his breathless proclamation that 2014 was “The hottest year EVAH!”, and subsequent admission that the likelihood of this occurrence (having already become fact), was only 38% (0.38 probability). In Schmidt’s mind, odds of nearly two to one against count as probabilistic certainty!
If these are your best players, I might as well wish you luck. You’ll need it. There doesn’t seem to be a first class mind amongst them – they resemble nothing more than a bunch of second raters, unable or unwilling to attempt real science, pretending instead that endlessly reanalysing a series of numbers of doubtful provenance is a “science”.
Press on. Keep the faith. Maybe it’s some sort of cosmic test, do you think, and only the believers will be saved? I’m a GHE non-believer, and I feel fine – not a worry in the world, at present.
Cheers.
“There doesnt seem to be a first class mind amongst them they resemble nothing more than a bunch of second raters, unable or unwilling to attempt real science, pretending instead that endlessly reanalysing a series of numbers of doubtful provenance is a science.”
Please tell us who you think, out of all the denialists out there, you could nominate as a “first class mind”.
Please do not nominate yourself.
dr No,
Nobody I know denies that the weather, and hence the climate, changes.
You have posed a poorly thought out, and quite silly “gotcha” in my opinion, but of course always feel free to convince me otherwise.
In any case, science is not a popularity contest. I have pointed out that none of the people I mentioned could be considered to be first raters by any reasonable person.
You are free to proclaim otherwise. Even Mann’s false claim in a court document that he was a Nobel Laureate wouldn’t preclude him having a first class intellect, but alas!, he’s delusional.
Keep playing the appeals to fake authority. It doesn’t seem as persuasive as in the past.
Cheers.
Just as I thought!
Nobody comes to mind except you and your friends.
Sorry, that is unacceptable.
Go and take up brain surgery if you think you are exceptional.
Dr. Benjamin Carson “took up” brain surgery. He performed medical operations that were thought to be impossible.
He’s a skeptic.
We DO remember these clowns:
“Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I dont have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Cheers, Phil”
Climate pseudo-scientists in action.
D.R. Tucker and Betsy Rosenberg conducted an interview AGW believer Dr. Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley in August of 2012. This is what he had to say about Mann and his ilk, and the hockey stick:
Interviewer: now that you have validated the information that was in dispute, supposedly, in the Climategate matter, is it fair to say, once and for all, that that is a settled matter, that should be all be [inaudible] and set aside?
Prof Richard Muller: No, no, no. Just the opposite. Actually, thats not really accurate at all. The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that. What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence. [at minute 13:00 in the interview]
Further in the interview at time 14:30:
Richard Muller: Whats wrong is what they said. The conclusions that Michael Mann drew, that its the warmest its been in a thousand years I was on an international academy review panel that looked at that. Our conclusion was: he could not draw those conclusions.
Dr. No has selective memory, especially in regards to Trenberth.
On October 21, 2004, Trenberth participated in a news conference at the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School entitled, Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity. Chris Landsea, then at NOAA, was one of the worlds leading expert on hurricanes and had helped write the section on observations of hurricane activity for both the Second and Third IPCC Assessment Reports. He was slated to perform the same function for the then upcoming AR4 report. Landsea warned Trenberth prior to and also the day of the news conference that the current scientific understanding was that there was little to no link between global warming and hurricanes.
On November 5th, 2004, Landsea sends a scathing email [0890.txt, Climategate email] to a host of people, including R. Pachauri himself, with a CC to Trenberth. He concludes the email as follows:
I did try to caution both Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Linda Mearns before the media event (email included below) and provided a summary of the consensus within the hurricane research community. Dr. Mearns decided not to participate in the panel perhaps as a result of my email correspondence. I sincerely wish Dr. Trenberth had made the same decision. Dr. Trenberth wrote back to me that he hoped that this press conference would not go out of control. I would suggest that it was out of control the minute that he and his fellow panel members decided to forego the peer review scientific process and abuse science in pursuit of a political agenda.
Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC AR4 process after the news conference due to Trenberth’s abuse of science, the last portion of his resignation letter stating:
“Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.
While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation—though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements—would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.”
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
Yes. We DO remember Trenberth, and it is not out of reverence.
dr no…”NASA, Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt and all the rest.
Sore loser. These guys will be remembered and revered long after you (and I)”.
Or they’ll all be in jail.
On October 21, 2004, Trenberth participated in a news conference at the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School entitled, Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity
I don’t believe you. Link please.
Barry,
This site is not allowing me to post links at the moment. Just google “Chris Landsea resignation letter”.
I’ll try post some links later.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
Full transcript of press conference:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/record/transcripts/hurricanes102104.shtml
This is where Trenberth diverts from the truth:
Abhi Raghunathan, Naples Daily News: Hi, this is Abhi Raghunathan at the Naples Daily News in Florida. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has publicly stated that global warming and climate change have had insignificant to no impact on this year’s hurricane season. Were they one of the groups you were referring to earlier when you said that some of the quotes you read in papers came from those with limited perspective?
McCarthy: This is Jim McCarthy. I presume you’re directing that to me. No, I’m not aware of the NOAA statement. Kevin referred earlier to a publication that has been influential in the kind of discussion we’re having right now which came from NOAA scientists, but I was referring to pieces that had come my way, largely op-ed pieces in newspapers throughout the East Coast, where either from the direct effect or the aftermath of these recent storms these opinions have been voiced. Kevin, you might want to comment on the NOAA piece if you’re familiar with it. I’m not.
Trenberth: I have not been aware of any official NOAA statement on this position one way or another.
OMG! Trenberth had been warned numerous times prior to the news conference by Chris Landsea of the NOAA that there was insignificant to no impact regarding the link between global warming and hurricanes. Even the reporter knew.
Trenberth should have been fired.
I read the transcript of the news conference. What do you think of this quote by Trenberth?
There are several factors that go into making hurricanes. They’re really a collective of thunderstorms and they need a disturbance that hangs together. And we are not able to say what global warming is likely to do to that, and so there could be a trade off between individual thunderstorms versus actual hurricanes. It also requiresthis actually requires a favorable atmospheric circulation. This relates to things like whether the wind will blow it apart or wind shear will cause it to collapse before the hurricane actually forms. And we can’t say anything really about the tracks which make the hurricanes hit the U.S. or miss the U.S.whether they [make] landfall or not. What we can say is that the high sea surface temperatures of water vapor make for more intense storms and so this is consistent with the evidence that we’re seeing.
I agree with Landsea that at other points in the interview he tied hurricane activity to global warming without proper caveats and uncertainty. For example:
Let me focus then on the science of climate change and the physical aspects of the climate change that are going on….
At the same time, water vapor amounts have increased and the empirical evidence suggests that water vapor in the atmosphere goes up about 10% [7% overall] for every degree Celsiusor say about 2 degrees Fahrenheitincrease in sea surface temperature in the atmosphere. And of course this is the fuel for the hurricanes and it also means that the hurricanes end up dropping a lot more precipitation and rainfall as a result. And so the environment in which these hurricanes form is changing and it’s changing in ways that provide more fuel for them through the water vapor and the changes in sea surface temperature.
And another example aside from the ones over near Japan is that on late March 2004 there was a hurricane in the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil. This was the first of its kind and it’s clear evidence that things are changing.
That last comment is definitely out of order.
But a little later he says the opposite:
Now as I mentioned before, there is a lot of natural variability and decadal variability in hurricanes, and as Matthias mentioned it’s impossible in fact for researchers to tie an individual hurricane or even four hurricanes to global warming as such.
SGW,
Trenberth may not have been aware of a NOAA ‘public statement’ about hurricanes. A phone call from Landsea is not an official NOAA announcement, either.
I agree he went too far in the conference, but as he contraicted himself. But spoken word interviews are not as well-formalised as written ones. Here, for example is a more formalised version of his views from the same year (2004).
http://severe.worldweather.wmo.int/TCFW/RAI_Training/Stage-OMM-Oct13_4_ROUX.pdf
Barry,
Trenberth should not have conducted the press conference. Here is a link that explains the statement that was distributed at the press conference:
https://www2.ucar.edu/news/record/hurricanes-natural-variability-and-global-warming
The last sentence of the statement says:
“But the evidence strongly suggests more intense storms and risk of greater flooding events, so that the North Atlantic hurricane season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future.”
This was 2004, and the above statement did not agree at all with the consensus of hurricane experts, as explained by Chris Landsea. That is why the reporter asked the question at the news conference.
So I don’t know why Dr. No should hold Trenberth in “reverence”.
And as a side note, Trenberth STILL claims he shared the Nobel Peace prize with the IPCC, which is a total lie.
After reading Mike Flynn’s many contributions, I think he has one unacknowledged virtue. He makes Gordon Robertson seem sane.
I do however have a more sinister interpretation. Mike Flynn could well be a “false flag” operative, whose real role is to totally discredit the climate change denial movement with his disarmingly stupid comments. Until now I think he has succeeded admirably, but he have may have overdone the nonsense.
Sorry Mike to blow your cover but you still have Gordon to hold the fort.
MikeR,
Thank you for your support.
Unfortunately, your mind reading ability is on a par with that of the average foolish Warmist. Zero.
Only foolish Warmists are concerned with interpretations, conspiracies and consensus, to the exclusion of facts and the scientific method.
I am not aware of anybody at all who is unaware that weather changes. I don’t believe anybody has ever managed to document two days on which the weather was identical. You may have facts to the contrary of course, but choose to keep them secret.
Climate, being strictly the average of weather, must therefore change as a consequence. Maybe your bizarre claims of some “climate change denial movement” result from some form of conspiracy ideation.
Can you name just one person not certifiably insane, or brain dead, who believes the weather, and hence the climate, to be constant and unchanging? I don’t believe you can – that’s my assumption anyway.
Still no GHE. Maybe you could provide a reproducible experiment which supports the theory explaining this so far undefined phenomena, but of course none such exists.
Carry on hoping – maybe the power of your concentrated mind can heat something through the magical powers of CO2. Or maybe not.
What do you think?
Cheers.
MikeR…”After reading Mike Flynns many contributions, I think he has one unacknowledged virtue. He makes Gordon Robertson seem sane”.
I note, Mike, that you offer no scientific rebuttal. How then, would you have a clue what I’m talking about?
MikeR, it is intriguing. The endless repetition can not be very fun, but it’s not just blind pasting. Knowledge of journalism were indicated here https://tinyurl.com/ybn2vupl and here https://tinyurl.com/ycnyh2qu. Is this a second job?
Mike, I think it would be a great idea to collaborate with Gordon, G*e*…. etc and rewrite from scratch thermodynamic physics and radiative physics on both classical and quantum basis. If you guys are correct and can disprove GHE both theoretically and with accompanying replicated experiments then the world will be eternally grateful.
Business can go on as usual and you can collect your own Nobel Prizes after they repossess those of Einstein, Gibbs, Planck, Nernst etc..
Mike Flynn,
I should also say that I appreciate your kind words, but you need to lift your game. It is still obvious your arguments can only be construed as attempts to discredit those who believe that GHE does not exist. The evidence is clear, firstly with your arguments with straw men regarding changing weather and climate and secondly with your feigned ignorance of the scientific method. In particular your request for experimental replication in such an inappropriate context where a repeat of experiments on a global scale are obviously not possible. The best we can do, without the time and effort of creating a control earth, is by techniques such as computational modelling.
it’s a new normal, so for the next decade until the next big x-ninyo that’s where mean temperature would stay
The eye of Irma comes to Cuba.
I want to know when we top the death valley record? Anyone got any predictions? I say 2210. 🙂 Should have happened already no?
Regretfully, I think Lewis is right. Aka: beware of the scientific elite. Don’t get in the way of their money train. That’s why I’m surprised some honest purveyors (Barry, Des) refuse to acknowledge the obvious: that co2 is a long term problem, if that. Even Appell with his legendary brain ( just ask him) must know this? My God, co2 is the least of our problems! Tonight, I’m thankful for reagan and his patriots, gps and the Internet. And the few interceptors we got for our $20 trillion. God bless him. My prayers are with Florida. Hopegully some houses built with stone.
“Tonight, Im thankful for reagan and his patriots, gps and the Internet.”
Really?
I know he was a bit brain addled at the end, but I didn’t know that he helped develop GPS and the Internet! He must have been a giant of a genius. Maybe thats why he took up acting.
dr No,
I’m aware that you appear to suffer from a cognitive defect, but commas often serve the purpose of separating phrases. Gps and the Internet, are separate from Reagan as far as I can see.
I believe Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s disease in his later years, but obviously foolish Warmists cannot pass up the chance to be discourteous and oafish about someone suffering from a debilitating mental disease.
I would expect no less of you. Well done.
I’m not sure what “a giant of a genius” is, but I believe he was elected President. I’m guessing that makes him smarter than Hillary Rodham Clinton, who didn’t manage to be elected President.
I suppose Al Gore would be annoyed if he thought Reagan was taking credit for Al Gore’s invention.
Here are Al Gore’s recorded words “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. . . .” I always thought it was Tim Berners-Lee, but I suppose a giant genius like Gore would say “Nah, that was only the World Wide Web.” I believe Gore’s latest propaganda is not attracting as much money from the faithful as before. Pity.
If you want any help with sarcasm, just let me know. You certainly appear to need some! Remember, I’m here to help. Non discriminatory, that’s me. Always willing to lend a helping hand to those less fortunate than myself.
Still no GHE, though.
Cheers,
Mike,
You have volunteered for yeoman’s work, educating true believers, in your terms “foolish Warmers”. Your attempts will be in vain. Until instructed by their betters, they will continue their pilgrimage.
They refuse to understand the difference between weather and climate, between the benefits of warm and horrors of cold. They believe by following their religion that all natural catastrophes; hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, floods, ice storms, blizzards, some earth quakes and probably, for the truly true believers, volcanoes, will be controlled under the lash of PC.
Luckily for all of your ilk, the left, and their acolytes, the Antifa, have not directed their ire at you. There are a few who sputter and spit, and are rather entertaining in their efforts, but not in their writing.
Keep up the good work, it must be rewarding in itself, the true believers will remain in-repentant – they must.
Darwin may have not meant it. But I take the words:
“Tonight, Im thankful for reagan and his patriots, gps and the Internet. And the few interceptors we got for our $20 trillion. God bless him.”
to indicate Ronald was responsible. Forgive me if I am wrong – but that is the implication.
BTW: Nothing wrong with Alzheimers disease, some of my best friends and foes have it.
How are you feeling today by the way?
“Im not sure what a giant of a genius is, but I believe he was elected President. Im guessing that makes him smarter than Hillary Rodham Clinton, who didnt manage to be elected President.”
If being elected president is a sign of “smartness”, what is Donald doing in the White House?
drano, you would be surprised how many Alarmists believe the recent record earthquake in Mexico was cased by CO2.
Or, maybe you wouldn’t….
Hmmm “roughly zero”? Unless you have data that suggests a significant number of people believe such an impossibility.
https://www.livescience.com/7366-global-warming-spur-earthquakes-volcanoes.html
AH! I see your misunderstanding! The article is about changes in ICE SHEETS causing changes in PRESSURE on the underlying rock formations, which could help trigger geological effects.
.
So it is not CO2 per se that impacts geological formations. To the extent that CO2 helps warm the earth, it is an indirect contributor, but clearly not the direct cause.
In any case, there was no ice to melt in southern Mexico, so this whole article (and your whole point) is not germane here.
Here are two more you can put the “Tim spin” on.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/28/scientists-say-global-warming-will-cause-deadly-earthquakes/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/16/climate-change-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanoes
Did you read these? or just google something and hope it supports your position???
“Warming ice sheets and flooding are changing the weight load of the planet and putting stress on seismic faults like the one in the Himalayas, scientists say.”
“He thinks that the erosion of landslides caused by the torrential rains acts to reduce the weight on any fault below, allowing it to move more easily.”
Both of these are making basically the same point as the first — changes in weight of the overlying layers affects faults in the underlying areas. Neither supports your specific statement “many Alarmists believe the recent record earthquake in Mexico was cased by CO2”.
I am not ‘spinning’ — I am just ‘de-spinning’ your inaccurately spun statement.
Well Tim, if you want to deny that the articles try to link earthquakes to CO2, go right ahead.
Tim Folkerts:
?? “roughly zero” we have people who blame the close approach of asteroids to the earth on global warming. We have people blaming the tsunami in Japan on global warming. We have people believing that Global Warming caused Harvey and Irma.
I think the # is a lot bigger than roughly zero.
Well G, if you want to argue that the articles try to link earthquakes to CO2, go right ahead. Find a quote that supports that anyone is claiming that “the recent record earthquake in Mexico was cased by CO2” (which is what you originally claimed).
http://www.pacificpundit.com/2017/09/08/leftists-now-claiming-mexico-earthquake-is-climate-change/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/272
darwin…”Tonight, Im thankful for reagan and his patriots, gps and the Internet. And the few interceptors we got for our $20 trillion”.
We can thank the Reagan administration for laying on the world the pseudo-science around HIV/AIDS.
Circa 1983, there were many homosexual males dying mysteriously of an affliction that no one could identify. Those dying were carrying on in the steam baths of New York and San Francisco with multiple partners while doing up to six designer drugs. One of them amyl nitrate, has now been positively associated with the lung infections endured by these generally young men with AIDS.
There was pressure put on the admin by the homosexual lobbyists to find a solution. Meantime, a cancer researcher, Robert Gallo, had been hypothesizing that cancer was caused by a virus. He was proved wrong but just about then, opportunity knocked.
The Reagan admin was desperate for a cause of the aforementioned affliction of homosexual men and they jumped at Gallo’s suggestion it was ‘likely’ a virus. Why would no one suspect lifestyle, other than it being politically incorrect? Conveniently, Gallo was set up with a lab full of virus research equipment and Reagan et al adopted his ‘theory’ carte blanche, with no peer review.
Are you listening DA…no peer review???!!!
Suddenly, according to the Reagan admin we had the answer. The affliction was caused by a mysterious virus no one had isolated, purified, or seen on an electron microscope, as required by the protocol for identifying a virus. It was just ‘there’ and it behaved like no known virus. It could lay dormant in the human system for 15 years or more then suddenly destroy an immune system for no apparent reason.
Fast forward 30 years or more. The scientist who actually discovered HIV, Dr, Luc Montagnier, and who was skeptical that HIV could act alone, has recently acknowledged that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system. He admitted further that he did not isolate HIV, he did not purify it, and he did not see it on an electron microscope. He inferred the virus based on RNA fragments found in a specimen from a male with AIDS.
Reagan et al could have asked for peer review, or conferred with Montagnier himself. Not good, old Ronny. He had the answer he needed which served him well politically.
IMHO, Reagan destroyed the financial world with his deregulation nonsense. Deregulation for the financial community is equivalent to asking a fox to watch the chickens.
The hurricane eye is now moving along the north coast of Cuba.
Jose will also move west.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Dr no,
Pretty sure the Internet was a tank battlefield communication system “launched” during Reagan. For Eastern Europe. Star Wars (geo positioning satellites) and patriots followed. Endless shuttle missions. Had to be born I guess.
Correction: not that it matters but GPS stands for global positioning satellite. I wrote geo positioning satellite. Oops.
darwin…”…GPS stands for global positioning satellite”
Actually, it means global position system. In the system there are land stations which are just as important as the sats.
“Pretty sure the Internet was a tank battlefield communication system launched during Reagan”.
The Internet began as intra-cummunications systems between universities. Some kind souls decided to allow the public access then businesses had to get in on the act and there went the neighbourhood.
“Natures gone crazy, mused Jeff Masters, meteorology director at the private service Weather Underground. Welcome to the future. Extreme weather like this is going to be occurring simultaneously more often because of global warming.
Was the 10-12 years without a major hurricane making landfall on US an extreme climate event? I say “climate” Because a decade seems like more than weather.
How does this guy say stuff like this and maintain his credibility? Did he have to take statistics to get his credentials? Does he remember any of that?
In my business, I often have to explain to landowners what the 100 year flood plain means, those people having not seen their land flooded in their 50 year lifetime. I’d venture a guess, that on average someplace on the entire Earth is confronted with a 500 year flood in most years, but I’d just be guessing.
Maybe I should assume that Masters is just guessing , too.
You would be foolish in the extreme if you base your return period calculations on past data.
Get yourself some good legal advice if you do because the past is well and truly in the past.
dr No,
I’ll just point out that the concept of the “return period” is useless in this case. Two occurrences assigned a very long “return period” can happen in quick succession. Take floods in a particular location, for example. After suffering a 1 in 100 year flood, within months (even weeks between recurrences have been documented), a location can suffer another event of similarly unlikely recurrence.
The problem is that the frequency guesses are useless. What is needed is a useful prediction of timing and intensity – vague nonsense such as “we haven’t had a severe hurricane for 10 years, but the average is one per year, so it’s overdue” is just pointless.
I am glad you agree that the past is well and truly in the past. With a fair coin, what has happened in the past does not enable you to predict the result of the next toss. You may complain that using physics and mathematics enables you to confidently predict the future.
Not at all. Even the IPCC admits that prediction of future climate states (the average), is not possible, let alone the events which result in the average.
To give you a very simple example, you cannot predict the next term of the “logistic equation” which is very simple, in iterative form. I don’t know how to write subscripts here, but it’s easy to look up if you’re interested. The point is, for an infinitely large number of values, every iteration gives an unpredictable value. Unfortunately, there are infinitely large numbers of values which don’t. You cannot even tell, except by experience or running the iteration, whether a particular number will result in chaotic, stable, or repetitive behaviour.
And that’s for an extremely simple equation – no complex numbers. The equation which generates the Mandelbrot set, z=z^2 + c, generates chaos as well, but involves complex numbers.
Your admonition to “get some good legal advice” might be useful to yourself, if you intend to claim to be able to predict the future any better than a twelve year old.
Press on with the advice. It’s presumably worth what you paid for it.
Cheers.
“The problem is that the frequency guesses are useless. What is needed is a useful prediction of timing and intensity vague nonsense such as we havent had a severe hurricane for 10 years, but the average is one per year, so its overdue is just pointless.”
So, I take it you pay no attention to the flood record – only the flood forecasts.
You would be happy to build next to a river if the weather forecast was fine today and ignore the frequency with which it floods?
What foolishness is that?
Are you Irish?
martinitony…”Jeff Masters, meteorology director at the private service Weather Underground. Welcome to the future. Extreme weather like this is going to be occurring simultaneously more often because of global warming”.
Chris Landsea, a hurricane expert with NOAA, has claimed extreme warming will increase the intensity of hurricanes 1% to 2%.
Landsea has also pointed out the obvious. We have no records with which to compare hurricane frequency. It has only been very recently that we have been able to record them using satellites, etc. There could have been major storms in the Atlantic or Pacific that did not touch land and no one would have been the wiser till recently.
Irma’s eye is approaching Santa Clara in Cuba.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00931/u0zbytcqurd4.png
Ren my more westerly track thought yesterday seems to be correct thus far.
I am told a record cold occurred in the piedmont of North Carolina, USA Thursday.
Another example, well publicized, for the true believers.
What did you want to explain, lewis?
Record-breaking hot days currently outnumber cold record-breakers by about 4 to 1.
http://tinyurl.com/lqs6wcz
That’s the data for the entire US.
Similar for the UK:
http://www.marklynas.org/2014/12/have-we-been-breaking-more-and-more-weather-records/
Globally, record hot days greatly outnumber cold record-breakers. Here’s the data since 2002:
http://www.mherrera.org/records.htm
http://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm
Global results in numbers:
2002 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 204
Minimum 22
2003 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 394
Minimum 20
2004 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 113
Minimum 13
2005 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 120
Minimum 29
2006 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 145
Minimum 20
2007 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 297
Minimum 17
2008 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 90
Minimum 32
2009 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 138
Minimum 21
2010 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 505
Minimum 44
2011 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 169
Minimum 39
2012 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 296
Minimum 16
2013 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 405
Minimum 16
2014 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 217
Minimum 19
2015 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 328
Minimum 14
2016 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 323
Minimum 21
For this period (2002-2016) total record breaking local temps
Maximum 3745
Minimum 343
Hot record-breaking days have outnumbered cold record-breaking days by:
10 to 1
In order to compensate exponentially increasing troll output, a bit of info (outside of warmista nonsense).
1. About volcanoes and CO2 concentration measurements
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
It is especially interesting to discover the mesurement similarity for different sites (Barrow, Mauna, Samoa, South Pole):
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/files/2010/03/baseline_CO2_stations.png
2. CO2 concentration measurements viewed by satellite OCO-2
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4514
All data is public, but… it is not as simple as is e.g. the UAH anomaly file:
http://tinyurl.com/yat6d696
Be sure I won’t go into that stuff! But maybe one day I discover some useful ASCII text data.
*
I just caught a few words from a site somewhere:
If you’re a climate change denier, you’re a moron. If you think the environment is going to be wrecked forever because of humans, you’re a fool.
Yes! Coolistas are exactly as dumb as are warmistas.
Hint: typical troll replies will be silently discarded.
Yes Bin, anecdotes are accepted evidence, in pseudoscience.
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“Hint: typical troll replies will be silently discarded”
I’m not sure why you are unable to say what what you mean. Has someone threatened you? What is the point of your “hint”?
I presume you’re trying to say you will ignore any response which you don’t like – self censorship which would apparently affect only yourself.
Or do you have some super-secret foolish Warmist idea that can only be hinted at?
Very mysterious. If wish to express yourself in plain English, feel free.
Cheers.
binny…”If youre a climate change denier, youre a moron. If you think the environment is going to be wrecked forever because of humans, youre a fool”.
You not only butt-kiss to authority you are willing to absorb nonsense like that above.
What is a climate change denier?
By accident I rediscovered Roy Spencer’s paper I had read last year:
‘The warm Earth: Greenhous effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?’
But in a corner where I really wouldn’t have expected it:
http://co2coalition.org/2016/07/30/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
This was, it can’t be repeated often enough, an excellent contribution to the understanding of the problem. Only denialists and clowns (or those being both in one) can have a different meaning about it.
I believe in the GHG effect but I think it is a result of the climate/environment not the cause.
Dr. Roy is correct when he implies that gravity is not warming the atmosphere. Many are confused because increasing the pressure of a confined gas DOES raise the temperature of the system. But the atmosphere is already pressurized. So gravity is not supplying any additional pressure.
But, unfortunately, he gets confused when he states:
“The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.”
Of course the atmosphere emits IR towards the surface. And that single phenomenon does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. But, that does not imply that IR then causes any warming.
As Dr. Roy stated: “…the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.” So, since the atmosphere is at a temperature lower than the surface, the NET flow of energy must be from the surface (“higher”) to the atmosphere (“lower”). Consequently the atmosphere does NOT warm the surface!
but it slows down cooling.
but it speeds up cooling as much as it slows down cooling, so the net effect is zero.
Nope! There is a definite net effect.
And, a definite net effect is sometimes zero.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“Nope! There is a definite net effect.”
This might appear to be the usual unquantified, pointless hand waving foolish Warmist statement, except that it can be quantified somewhat by observed fact.
The net effect is that the Earth has cooled. Almost none of the Earth’s surface remains molten.
Any physicist, space shuttle designer, refrigeration engineer, or fireman, knows that keeping temperatures low often requires extremely good insulation. Without the insulating properties of the atmosphere, water exposed normal to the Sun would boil, temperatures at night would drop to -100 C or so in the same location, and so on.
Life as we know it would be impossible.
No heating due to CO2. It’s the stuff of life, and more is preferable to less.
Cheers,
<"Without the insulating properties of the atmosphere, water exposed normal to the Sun would boil, temperatures at night would drop to -100 C or so in the same location, and so on."
True enough. And if you go on further with these thoughts and calculations, you would find that the average temperature of the earth under these circumstances would would be much LOWER than it is now. Hmmmm … maybe CO2 *does* cause warming!
CO2 is indeed the stuff of life. That does not stop it from warming the earth, too.
More is preferable (everything else being constant) if you are growing plants. That doesn’t stop it from impacting the “everything else” (in ways that might not be preferable).
Tim says: “Hmmmm maybe CO2 *does* cause warming!”
Sorry Tim, CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. It can NOT “cause warming”.
But please keep trying. Your desperation is amusing.
CO2 “causes warming” in the same way a dam “causes a lake”.
No, CO2 is not the original source of the terminal energy — just like a dam is not the source of the water molecules. But any reasonable person can understand that the water that was already flowing past was impeded by the dam, causing the water level to rise. Any reasonable person understands what is meant by “a dam causes a lake”.
Similarly, any reasonable person should be able to understand that the thermal energy that was already flowing past was impeded by the CO2, causing the temperature level to rise. Any reasonable person understands what is meant by “CO2 causes warming”.
Tim, if you believe atmospheric CO2 is analogous to a river dam, you need to ask for a full refund for any physics “education” you have paid for.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Only the IR close to visible light moves electrons to different energy levels. The IR emitted by CO2 does not cause electrons to move to higher energy levels. It is a molecular energy change. The atoms of the molecule have charge differences (polar atoms within the molecule) and the shifting atomic positions within the molecule cause the disturbance that emits IR.”
I’m not sure what you mean.
Do you mean that CO2 and ice at the same temperature can be distinguished by the type of IR they emit? What about a shiny silver ball and an oxidised black ball? Could you tell me what would happen if the shiny ball, the black ball, and CO2 bubbles were all frozen in ice at -5 C?
Would they all be at the same temperature, do you think? If not, which one would would be hotter according to GHE principles?
Only funning you! Believe it or not, all objects at the same temperature have the same temperature. By definition.
Just as matter of interest, both CO2 and a monatomic gas – say one of the noble gases, can both emit exactly the same wavelength of IR – particularly if they’re the same temperature. You can even calculate the peak wavelength if you know the temperature.
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating effect.
Cheers.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“And if you go on further with these thoughts and calculations, you would find that the average temperature of the earth under these circumstances would would be much LOWER than it is now. Hmmmm maybe CO2 *does* cause warming!”
No it doesn’t. Foolish Warmists take refuge in all sorts of bizarre “deny, divert and confuse” tactics.
First you admit that you can’t find fault with my facts, so you just deny them by making an unverifiable assertion, and confuse the issue by adding another pointless assertion masquerading as a question.
I said what I said. If I err in fact, I appreciate correction. You assumptions and unquantified statements aren’t as persuasive as fact.
You present the “average temperature of the earth” as though it is somehow meaningful. You quite possibly meant to say the Earth’s surface, but even that’s not what is endlessly reanalysed by the sorry lot who describe themselves as “climatologists”.
Or do you mean temperature as per Gavin Schmidt’s proclamation of “Hottest year EVAH!” – of course with a probability of 0.38 – after the event allegedly occurred, which meant that it demonstrated a probability of 1.0. It happened. Even NOAA was a little put off – they increased the probability to 0.48, roughly a coin toss – maybe, maybe not.
Complete nonsense. Whether it’s anomalies or averages, they indicate nothing to do with CO2. There’s no physical basis, nor any real correlation with CO2 levels. There isn’t even a disprovable hypothesis relating to the alleged heating properties of CO2, however expressed.
Maybe you could produce the missing hypothesis just like Donald Rumsfeld produced the missing WMDs in Iraq. Maybe someone hid the hypothesis under a hidden WMD!
There’s a thought. eh?
Cheers.
“Do you mean that CO2 and ice at the same temperature can be distinguished by the type of IR they emit? What about a shiny silver ball and an oxidised black ball “
Of course they can be distinguished. That is why even half-way decent IR thermometers have a setting for emissivity to get an accurate temperature. Different materials emit IR differently, even if they are all at the same temperature.
Tim Folkerts,
You may be confused. Infrared “thermometers” are not actually measuring temperature.
You claim that items with the same temperatures can be distinguished by an IR thermometer individually by the process of adjusting for emissivity. I’m not sure how you would assess the emissivity of an unknown object, or why you would want to. If you have to guess the physical properties of an object, it more or less defeats the object of obtaining its temperature.
Just for fun, I’ve read the temperatures of three different items with seemingly different emissivities. The IR thermometer gave readings between 5.6 and 5.7 C – just a cheap uncalibrated domestic unit.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that a shiny aluminium soda can, a jar of pickles, and a muffin in a diffuse translucent container all appear to have the same emissivity. I’m even a bit surprised myself!
Why should I adjust emissivity to make the temperatures appear different? What do I gain?How would that work for a thermal imaging device?
But anyway. From NPL (National Physical Laboratory) –
‘Radiation emitted from an object depends not only on its temperature but also on the surface properties, i.e. on its emissivity.”
You might notice that temperature is not related to emissivity per se. Just knowing that a body is radiating at say 300 W/m2 is insufficient to tell you its temperature.
For example a Leslie cube filled with boiling water, is emitting different radiation intensities from its faces – all of which are indisputably at the same temperature. Even from Wikipedia –
“Leslie’s cube is a device used in the measurement or demonstration of the variations in thermal radiation emitted from different surfaces at the same temperature.”
Others can decide for themselves whether your dismissive was accurate and appropriate.
Cheers.
“Similarly, any reasonable person should be able to understand that the thermal energy that was already flowing past was impeded by the CO2, causing the temperature level to rise. Any reasonable person understands what is meant by CO2 causes warming.
However, a scientifically literate person would not fall for dumbass analogies but examine the claim with respect to the laws of thermodynamics and radiant heat flow equations, and conclude that CO2 does not cause warming.
Tim Folkerts says, September 9, 2017 at 5:54 PM:
CO2 doesn’t “warm the earth”, Tim. It helps cool the atmosphere.
Tim Folkerts says, September 9, 2017 at 8:00 PM:
No, it doesn’t. CO2 doesn’t “cause warming”.
No, CO2 does not impede heat transfer. It enables heat transfer.
Kristian
This is off topic, but I’ve found a clear way of explaining what I always meant by velocity versus rate of flow. It uses your water tank analogy.
Water enters the tank from the bottom at a constant rate. It eventually drains out the top at the same rate it enters. When measuring this rate:
“Volumetric flow rates can be measured in various units such as: liters/sec (lps) cubic feet/sec (cfs) gallons/min (gpm)”
Now increase the diameter of the tank and do the same experiment. Water will move up the tank and exit at the same rate of flow (volumetric flow rate) as before, but the VELOCITY it moves up the tank will be slower. Therefore, water entering the
tank will “linger” longer than before and more water will accumulate.
Please note that although water requires extra space in order to accumulate, this is not true of heat. Things can get hotter in the existing space.
Mike, you keep misunderstanding.
“You claim that items with the same temperatures can be distinguished by an IR thermometer individually by the process of adjusting for emissivity. “
No. I claimed that items with the same temperature emit different IR. Like your “Leslie cube”. To compensate, you can change the emissivity setting of an IR thermometer.
“Just for fun, Ive read the temperatures of three different items with seemingly different emissivities. The IR thermometer gave readings between 5.6 and 5.7 C just a cheap uncalibrated domestic unit.
Maybe Im wrong, but it seems that a shiny aluminium soda can, a jar of pickles, and a muffin in a diffuse translucent container all appear to have the same emissivity. Im even a bit surprised myself! “
If you had a little deeper knowledge, you should not be so surprised! The radiation coming from a surface is a combination of the radiation it emits itself and the radiation it reflects. Consider the shiny metal. It will emit radiation poorly, but it will reflect radiation from the surrounding surfaces in the fridge quite well. The reflected radiation is ALSO comes from ~ 5.6 C surfaces.
Indeed, this is the basis for cavity radiation being the same as blackbody radiation — but that might be a bit much atm.
Kristina says: “No, CO2 does not impede heat transfer. It enables heat transfer.”
In what sense? With no CO2, a warm surface will emit IR directly to space at a large rate = large heat loss. With CO2, the same surface will emit radiation to the atmosphere at a smaller rate = smaller heat loss.
SGW says: “However, a scientifically literate person would not fall for dumbass analogies but examine the claim with respect to the laws of thermodynamics and radiant heat flow equations, and conclude that CO2 does not cause warming.”
Let me fix that for you.
A scientifically literate person would look for the kernal of truth within analogies. A scientifically literate person would examine the claim with respect to the laws of thermodynamics and radiant heat flow equations, and conclude that CO2 does indeed cause warming (in conjunction with the input of energy from the sun).
Mike Flynn
If you make up your own physics you can conclude anything you want.
You Posted this made up physics: “Just as matter of interest, both CO2 and a monatomic gas say one of the noble gases, can both emit exactly the same wavelength of IR particularly if theyre the same temperature. You can even calculate the peak wavelength if you know the temperature.”
No this is not correct at all. You have just made it. I guess in you fantasy world you are god, you make up whatever you want and present it as if it were a fact.
Site evidence to support you incorrect claim. You will not be able since you just made it up.
You asked for evidence that you post false and incorrect information and that is definitely one of them.
Tim Folkerts says, September 10, 2017 at 7:57 AM:
The smaller radiative heat loss rate from the surface is a result of:
1) the atmosphere reducing the heat INPUT from the sun to the surface greatly,
2) the atmosphere being much warmer than space (much smaller temperature difference), and
3) other heat loss mechanisms beside the radiative one taking care of a substantial portion of the total heat loss from the surface (in earth’s case, ~68% of it).
CO2 helps enabling the atmosphere to affect the surface thermally even after a state of dynamic equilibrium has been reached, connecting the two systems thermodynamically, simply allowing heat to flow through the atmosphere.
It does NOT impede heat transfer. It also doesn’t CAUSE surface warming.
Kristian
I posted a comment to you that landed in the wrong spot. Upthread about 5 posts.
–The smaller radiative heat loss rate from the surface is a result of:
1) the atmosphere reducing the heat INPUT from the sun to the surface greatly,
{so, notes: atmosphere reflects and clouds reflect sunlight
which largely responsible for Earth only absorbing 240 watt or 340 watts [[Averaged]] that it could absorb otherwise. Or it’s all the N2 and O2 plus water droplets/ice particles of clouds}
2) the atmosphere being much warmer than space (much smaller temperature difference),
[space has no temperature- and thermosphere is hotter than than lower than it (Earth surface) [not that this should matter at all]]
and
3) other heat loss mechanisms beside the radiative one taking care of a substantial portion of the total heat loss from the surface (in earths case, ~68% of it).
[So you mean evaporation and convection and clouds radiating into space. And heat transported poleward, making this region of world warmer and thereby having more surface area can emit at higher temperature- still looking for the bit about CO2}
–CO2 helps enabling the atmosphere to affect the surface thermally even after a state of dynamic equilibrium has been reached, connecting the two systems thermodynamically, simply allowing heat to flow through the atmosphere.–
I would say the condescend H20 molecule does this rather than CO2 moilecule.
–It does NOT impede heat transfer. It also doesnt CAUSE surface warming.–
Well I don’t think CO2 does much warming of the actual surface or surface air temperature. And I don’t think CO2 does much in terms of impeding or insulating the heat loss from the surface.
But one could say I am waiting for this to be quantified- or if Co2 has any effect upon temperature, it seems to me has to be a small effect.
And idea that CO2 is a control knob would be the obvious part of the pseudo science of the Greenhouse Effect theory- or is as wacky as idea of “the science being settled”.
I cite Roy Spencer:
…that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right? So, the colder object does effect the energy budget (and thus temperature) of the warmer objectbecause energy LOSS is just as important as energy gain when determining temperature.
If the cooler atmosphere contains any substances able to absorb IR > 4 micron (mainly H2O) and hence to partly reemit it back to surface, the energy loss is smaller than it would be in the absence of the absorbing (and hence reemitting) substances.
I hope to have understood Roy Spencer right: only the radiation difference between warmer surface and that part of the reemission back to surface by the cooler atmosphere will reach outer space.
*
I am all but physicist or chemist either.
Is it possible that, beginning with a certain level of IR absorbing substances in the lower atmosphere, energy loss due to the increase of collisions might supersede that due to reemission back to surface?
No idea!
Is it possible that, beginning with a certain level of IR absorbing substances in the lower atmosphere, energy loss due to the increase of collisions might supersede that due to reemission back to surface?
Nonsense. Backtrack!
But Roy Spencer’s words do not mean that the atmosphere warms the surface: it forces it to radiate less. That is imo completely different.
One way to cause the surface to radiate less would be to cool it.
Another way would be to warm the atmosphere.
Bin
You probably understand this, but only an INCREASE in the rate of IR from atmosphere to surface will cause the surface to radiate less. The surface will then warm until it radiates the same as before.
Bin
I need to backtrack as well. When I said “radiates less”, I should have said “the net flow of IR from surface to atmosphere is less”. In other words, the surface initially cools at a slower rate.
Given constant heat from the sun, slower cooling means surface temperature will increase. Higher temperature increases rate of cooling until back to where it started.
Thanks for the hilarious pseudoscience, snake.
g*e*r*
I need to correct my comment to you as well: warming the atmosphere wouldn’t cause the surface to radiate less, it would just cause it to cool more slowly.
Bindidon,
You might wish to consider two things.
The first is that in places with little H2O overlaying the surface, such as arid tropical deserts, the surface cools rapidly at night – to below freezing, in the right conditions.
The second relates to low level temperature inversions, once again, more pronounced in dry cold conditions such as those previously mentioned.
The following is from Penn State, which I believe is the employer of one Mike (Hockey stick) Mann.
“The ground routinely starts to cool after the sun sets because it emits more radiation than it gains from the atmosphere. In other words, the temperature of the ground starts to lower because it runs a radiation deficit (more losses than gains). In turn, a thin layer of air next to the ground starts to cool by conduction as a transfer of heat energy takes place from the initially warmer air to the cooler ground. This downward transfer of heat energy serves only to slightly slow down the cooling rate of the ground, which continues to lose more radiation than it receives.”
The net result may lead to –
“Given the structure of a nocturnal inversion (cold air in contact with the ground “separates” from warmer air above the ground), it is quite feasible that the air temperature at grass-blade level falls below 32 degrees while the air temperature at Stevensen-Screen level bottoms out at 36 degrees.”
That is, frost can form when official temperatures are well above freezing. Climatologists love official temperatures – showing that the surface is not frosty in spite of the fact that it is, perhaps?
Actually temperature inversions (air temperature increasing with height) can be surprisingly large.
All readily explicable with normal radiative physics.
No GHE needed. Which is good, because no disprovable hypothesis relating to a GHE which provides an explanation for any observed Natural phenomena unexplainable by current physics, exists.
Maybe you could try.
Cheers.
snape…”You probably understand this, but only an INCREASE in the rate of IR from atmosphere to surface will cause the surface to radiate less. The surface will then warm until it radiates the same as before”.
In other words, if you reduce the temperature differential between the atmosphere and the surface, the surface won’t radiate as much.
What’s wrong with this scenario? Firstly, you cannot increase the “rate of IR” because it’s not a rate. At a highly theoretical atomic level, if an electron in a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of energy from the surface, the molecule warms. Then it has to radiate that energy if it is in a region of space that is cooler than the CO2 molecule.
How do you measure the rate at which CO2 absorbs/radiates EM?
Absorp.tion/emission in atoms is not about a rate it’s about a temperature differential, which means a difference in thermal energy intensity. The notion of slowing down surface emission is misguided. During the day it’s highly influenced by solar energy.
Secondly, if the CO2 is at a cooler temperature than the surface, why should the surface absorb it’s IR? That is corroborated by the 2nd law which makes it clear that heat cannot be transferred from a colder mass to a warming mass.
Thirdly, the only phenomenon that will warm the surface is solar energy. There is nothing else in the atmosphere capable of warming the surface. Remove the Sun and the surface will cool till near absolute zero.
As Mike has pointed out, the inferno at the core will likely keep the surface warmer. We have detected the ice ages caused by solar variation.
Gordon
I messed up that comment to bin. Tried to fix it here:
“I need to backtrack as well. When I said radiates less, I should have said the net flow of IR from surface to atmosphere is less. In other words, the surface initially cools at a slower rate.
Given constant heat from the sun, slower cooling means surface temperature will increase. Higher temperature increases rate of cooling until back to where it started.”
Snape,
I know there’s a silly NASA graphic showing a ridiculous “energy balance” fantasy, which shows the Sun shining on all parts of the Earth’s surface at once.
Of course this is garbage.
You wrote –
“Given constant heat from the sun, slower cooling means surface temperature will increase.”
Except that it hasn’t, obviously, for the last four and a half billion years. Maybe you got something wrong? Maybe slow cooling, or fast cooling, is, by definition, a reduction in temperature. Not an increase – that would be warming, or heating.
Put a rock outside. It should warm up when the Sun shines, cool when it doesn’t. Probably colder in Winter, too. Wait for one full orbit of the Earth. Take the temperature of the rock. Might be hotter, might be colder. Model the physics with a large computer. How does the model compare with the reality?
No problem. Just wait for a little bit, and you can probably measure a temperature agreeing with the desired result. It’s called “best climatological practice”, or “data massaging”, practiced throughout the world by the finest Government meteorological agencies.
A vacuum flask insulates extremely well – just with a vacuum and a couple of reflective surfaces. Total back radiation, you might think, but it doesn’t stop the contents from reaching thermal equilibrium with the environment beyond the insulator. It might not even happen overnight, but it will happen.
The R value of CO2 is minuscule compared with a well constructed vacuum flask. You might be surprised that the 400 ppm of CO2 in an atmosphere provides less insulation than the other 999,600 ppm of the N2, O2 etc. Don’t forget the vast amount of particulate matter perpetually suspended due to Brownian motion, as well.
No GHE. None.
Cheers.
Flynn
You wrote, “Maybe slow cooling, or fast cooling, is, by definition, a reduction in temperature. Not an increase that would be warming, or heating.”
I was using the word “cooling” figuratively – as in “slowing the rate of heat loss”. Taken literally, then yes, you just scored a gotcha!
It’s very simple, Mike. If the Earth’s surface rids itself of heat more slowly than the rate of input from the sun, it will get warmer. As it gets warmer, it will also shed heat faster. Eventually the rate of output (to the atmosphere) will be the same as rate of input (from the sun). Temperature will then be steady.
binny…”that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right?”
Unfortunately, Roy has bought into this alarmist net flow of IR nonsense. There is no net flow of IR, each body emits IR isotropically and independently of the other.
The governing factor is the temperature of the bodies. Heat transfer has absolutely nothing to do with the hypothetical net energy flow.
Bodies have different temperature due to the energy level at which the atom’s electrons reside. The higher the temperature, the higher the energy levels, and the higher the kinetic energy of the atom.
When an electron drops down one energy level it emits a photon of energy equivalent in intensity to the difference in energy between levels. Same with absorp.tion, the absorbed energy must be the specific difference in energy levels.
When a mass of atoms emits a flux field of IR, that IR does not care about any bodies in the vicinity, all it cares about is the immediate temperature in it vicinity. If you keep the air around a mass at 25 C and the body is 25C, the mass will not emit anything.
You could also keep the mass at the same or higher temperature by radiating it with IR from a hotter mass but you cannot place a cooler mass in its vicinity and expect IR from the cooler mass to maintain or warm the temperature of the hotter mass.
That, in a nutshell, is what the 2nd law is about. It has nothing to do with IR, only temperature differential.
You surprise me in a positive way G*e*r*a*n, I didn’t know you had so many things right!
g*r…”The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.
Don’t know where this quote came from but it is wrong. The 2nd law does not state anywhere that the NET flow of energy must be from higher to lower temperatures. The notion of net energy flow is pseudo-science that comes generally from alarmists.
The 2nd law was written by Clausius and he said nothing about IR, net or otherwise. He made it clear he was talking about the properties of atoms and their associated kinetic energy. In fact, Clausius defined the 2nd law, in words, basically as the obvious: that heat cannot be transferred by it’s own means from a colder mass to a warmer mass.
The rest of it, associating heat transfer with entropy and IR is nothing more than assumptions added by modern science students, many of whom fail to understand the import of the 2nd law.
Clausius introduced the concept of entropy along with the 2nd law. He explained why he introduced the concept of entropy, as a means to keep tract of the direction of energy transfer in a process. If the process is reversible, the sum of the heat transferred is zero, otherwise it is positive.
The 2nd law applies to heat only, NOT to EM. The 2nd law defines the possible directions of heat transfer and claiming a net energy flow of IR supports the 2nd law is nonsense.
Even in a radiative transfer of heat, IR is the messenger only. It can deliver EM energy that causes heating in a cooler mass when EM is converted to thermal energy but the heating takes place in the electrons of the atoms in the absorbing mass. No heat gets transferred through space, the transfer occurs locally as one body cools and the other warms.
Furthermore, the EM from a cooler body cannot cause the temperature in a warmer body to rise. The only way that could arise is if the temperatures of two bodies are very close and atoms in the warmer body were below the average temperature of the warmer body. After all, temperature is an averaging of thermal kinetic energies.
ps. if anyone is confused about heat being transferred between bodies with no heat being physically transferred, think of the case of acoustical energy transfers between a TV station studio and a home.
In a TV studio, a person speaks into a microphone. The acoustical energy is transduced to an electrical signal in the mic. That signal gets amplified and applied to an antenna where it is converted to electromagnetic energy. The EM travels through space and is absorbed by the antenna in a home.
In the home receiver the EM received by an antenna (or cable) is converted to an electrical signal and at the TV speakers it gets converted back to acoustical energy.
Acoustical energy is created when a sound pressure wave is created in something like human vocal cords. The varying pressure causes a variation in air molecules. That acoustical energy cannot travel through space any more than a short distance.
The process just described is very similar to what happens when heat is transferred via EM. The EM, or IR, is not heat, just as it was not acoustical energy in the TV studio. No acoustical energy is transferred physically through space just as no heat is transferred through space via EM.
Gordon, the quote came from Dr. Roy. See here:
http://co2coalition.org/2016/07/30/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
You suffer by getting to the discussion late.
☺
Gordon,
I hope you don’t mind if I post here as a reply. It’s not really in response to,anything you posted. Just convenience.
Maybe people overlook the relationship between radiation wavelength, and temperature. Longer wavelengths, say in the IR are associated with lower temperatures (and energies, but that’s another story). Shorter wavelengths, say visible light, are related to higher temperatures physically, hence the term “colour temperature”.
Some people say “Well, why can’t photons of lower “temperature” be absorbed by matter at a higher “temperature”. They are energy, after all. Just like little bullets, or billiard balls. Well, they aren’t.
While you are sitting there, untold numbers of photons (light) are passing through you without a care. They’re too “cold” compared to you. They don’t interact with the electrons in your “warmer” body. Radio waves pass right through you. Your cellular phone will work sandwiched between your hand and your head – although capacitative and inductive resonance may affect it!
Try something else. Place a cup full of water in your microwave oven, apply the power, and pretty soon the water’s boiling. However, the cup itself will not heat anywhere near as much, even if subjected to as much radiation as will obviously raise a far greater mass to boiling point. You can probably hold it in your bare hand – it’s much cooler than the boiling water it contains.
If you think water’s pretty good at interacting with photons, don’t use containers or plates with gold leaf under the glaze, or even objects made with certain pigments or glazes! They’re even better! The results can be spectacularly destructive. Unless the atoms have particular properties, the radiation simply passes through them without effect. This can be figured out if you heat water in a totally enclosed container. The microwaves pass through the container unaffected, but heat the water within.
I guess this is why it’s not such a good idea to heat a whole egg in a microwave oven. The insides get hotter than the shell, expand rapidly, and you’re left with a mess.
The interaction between light (all wavelengths, no matter what climatologists claim), and matter, follows well described patterns, definitely not requiring a GHE.
The interaction between an object, and an insulator around it, is very complicated in the detail. That may explain the vast array of different insulators for different purposes. The properties of CO2 as an insulator have been well described, and contribute a negligible amount to the total insulation effect of the atmosphere, keeping us cool during the day, so we don’t roast, toast, burn, or boil too much.
Generally, inserting yet more insulation – a parasol, hat, or insulated roof between the Sun and ourselves, will suffice even in the tropic noon-day Sun.
Simple, but of course, the devil can reside in the detail.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I know this is a waste of my time responding to you. I only hope to counter the ignorance you spew when you post so that maybe people who are not adept at science will not fall for the ideas you profess with great vigor.
You are not able to accept reality that does not conform to your limited and small minded view of science but here goes.
You keep it up, the idea that CO2 would insulated the Earth’s surface by absorbing IR in Sunlight.
Please try to see you are not at all correct with your thoughts. They are actually wrong but you keep right on proclaiming them over and over. Now that I will show you that they are wrong, if you wish to continue peddling the incorrect information it will make you a liar and a dishonest human. If you learn from your errors, that would be great! I would really enjoy seeing that!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
Norman,
You wrote –
“I know this is a waste of my time responding to you.”
You then go on to say why you did it.
You haven’t provided a single instance of where I erred in fact. If you wrote merely to give others your opinion, that’s fine, but maybe others might like some particular instances supporting your opinion.
Just blathering about textbooks (there are quite few, after all), doesn’t impart much useful information.
You also wrote –
“You keep it up, the idea that CO2 would insulated the Earths surface by absorbing IR in Sunlight.”
Thank you. I will, until shown that CO2 is totally transparent to IR from the Sun, and that the Sun does not emit IR (over 50% of all its radiation is IR or longer).
Maybe you could state the experimentally disprovable GHE hypothesis, so people understand what’s being discussed?
Cheers.
Mike says: “While you are sitting there, untold numbers of photons (light) are passing through you without a care. Theyre too cold compared to you.”
How does this hypothesis explain that glass will let through “cold” radiowaves, but also let through “hot” sunlight? How does this hypothesis explain that water absorbs those microwaves that are “too cold” compared to the water?
It’s not related to the temperature of the absorbing material, but to the properties of the absorbing material. Its not related to the temperature of the source of the photons, it is related to the specific wavelenghts.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“How does this hypothesis explain that glass will let through cold radiowaves, but also let through hot sunlight? How does this hypothesis explain that water absorbs those microwaves that are too cold compared to the water?”
I know, (or at least I’m assuming, )that you are are not asking questions seeking knowledge, but rather attempting “gotchas”.
What particular statements of mine are you disagreeing with?
As to hypotheses, I believe the relationship between wavelength and temperature is called Wiens Displacement Law. If you wish to be picky, you will need to be more precise. I have pointed out that photons will not necessarily interact with matter causing a rise in temperature.
I said what I said. If you quote the statement where you believed I erred, feel free to provide the correct facts (unverified assertions that current physical Laws are irrelevant or incorrect, or that quantum mechanics is bunk, don’t count as facts with me).
If you can show that you can raise the temperature of a hotter body by exposing it to the radiation of a colder body, that would be fine. Of course, other than in your imagination, with one way insulators, gaily coloured bouncing balls, and the rest of the foolish Warmist claptrap.
Maybe you could harness the vast heat energy contained in the Antarctic ice-cap with a magical energy concentrator, and keep a teapot warm. Surely concentrating the radiation of the sub-zero ice cap (at least 300W/m2 – how many squillons of Watts would that be?) will heat up a cooling teapot? How hard could it be? I’m sure you can devise a thought experiment, and have your imaginary teapot heated in a trice, using the imaginary heat energy from colder ice-cap! It is still nonsense. It won’t work – at least until you can demonstrate otherwise with a repeatable experiment.
Cheers.
Michael, you keep missing the point — or keep missing some basic physics. You start with one thing (“If you can show that you can raise the temperature of a hotter body by exposing it to the radiation of a colder body, that would be fine.”), then incorrectly equate it to something quite different (“Maybe you could harness the vast heat energy contained in the Antarctic ice-cap with a magical energy concentrator, and keep a teapot warm. “)
The first is quite easy. The second is quite impossible. The fact that you seem to equate them shows you are missing some very fundamental ideas.
For the first case, take a tea pot (with a built-in, constant power heater) outside on a cold day (say -20 C). See how warm it gets — perhaps 50 C. Then take it inside and “expose it to the radiation of a colder body” — the 20 C walls of the house are colder than that 50 C teapot. It should be obvious that the tea pot will warm above 50 C. (There would also be conductive warming in this case, but we could find ways to take that into account or to eliminate it).
Mike Flynn
Yes you are a most dishonest person. I have given you factual evidence showing your opinion is false and you will still spread your false and untrue information to deceive those who do not understand physics.
The amount of IR from the Sun that is absorbed by CO2 is considerably less than the amount of IR that is emitted by the Earth’s surface that is absorbed by CO2. You need a zero amount, then you are an idiot. Which is obvious since you do not understand what average means or why science uses it and you don’t believe science has any ability to predict future events.
Right, watt of radiate energy do not all warm the same.
300 watts of sunlight could be used to power a city.
It also matters whether sunlight is direct or indirect sunlight.
300 watts of direct sunlight could power a city.
Or 300 watts of direct sunlight from a star like our sun
could power a city.
Of course if one only has 300 watts of direct sunlight from the sun for 6 hours, one can only power the city for 6 hours of 24 hour day- so that would be pretty useless.
[[Or 300 watts of sunlight for 12 hours as a general rule more useful than 600 watts for 6 hours AND 300 watts fro 24 hours of every 24 hour day is a lot better than any sunlight we get on Earth surface- or that could economically power a city.]]
Whether 300 watts of indirect sunlight could power a city is unclear to me. A disadvantage of indirect sunlight is that I am unaware of how one could magnify it.
Or with direct sunlight one can magnify 300 watts of direct sunlight so it heat something to say, 3000 K. And not aware of how one could use 300 watts of indirect sunlight do this- melt bricks.
But I know that indirect sunlight can provide some power to a solar panel and it can cause warming. So if indirect sunlight can generate a watt of electrical power and by using that electrical power one it heat something to very high temperatures [melt a brick].
But could one transform any energy into a more useful kind of energy- so in that sense a watt is a watt. A watt of energy from say falling raindrop could be converted to electrical power- and loosely, poetically, pseudoscienishly, or in the Mad Hatter Village, hydro dams do that.
But the watts of backradiation don’t seem capable of being converted into any kind of useful energy.
The can’t used to power a city, nor warm a planet.
Though most global marming believers will concede that the Greenhouse Effect isn’t like the effect of an actual greenhouse, and that backradiation is sort of like blanket or like insulation.
And a blanket nor insulation can not power a city nor heat a planet.
As Mike Flynn said “That may explain the vast array of different insulators for different purposes.”
It that sense one could talk generally of the effect of the atmosphere being insulator.
A thermos bottle is insulator of heat- it keeps things hot or cold. Same with a house, with insulation one can use less energy to kept it cooler or warmer.
A thermos bottle insulated heat loss and gain, and prevents
conductive heat transfer and convection and radiant heat transfer. And the thermal mass of what in the thermos allows a longer duration of remaining cold or hot. And such things things as latent heat required to melt ice will allow the thermos to stay cooler [below 1 C] for longer period.
And so generally speaking, because a larger thermos can conducts, convects, and radiates more heat, because it hold more thermal mass, it can remain warmer or colder for long periods.
Or if say larger thermos which is 1/10th filled, a smaller thermos which is filled will keep colder or warmer for longer time. So thermal mass is element of insulator.
Earth’s surface and atmosphere has a lot of thermal mass.
The atmosphere has 10 tons of thermal mass per square meter.
A thermos 1 meter and diameter and tall enough to hold 10 tons of liquid would have a lot of thermal mass which would allow it to remain warm or cool for longer duration of time.
And 10 tons of water- 1 square meter 10 meter deep has about 4.1 times more thermal mass than 1 square meter column of atmosphere. And land surface on the other hand effectively has far less thermal mass as compared to the atmosphere above it.
So an atmosphere has insulative properties due to it’s thermal mass.
And one ask, in comparison to any insulative properties of greenhouse gases, how much does the thermal mass insulate vs the trace gases?
–For the first case, take a tea pot (with a built-in, constant power heater) outside on a cold day (say -20 C). See how warm it gets perhaps 50 C. Then take it inside and expose it to the radiation of a colder body the 20 C walls of the house are colder than that 50 C teapot. It should be obvious that the tea pot will warm above 50 C. (There would also be conductive warming in this case, but we could find ways to take that into account or to eliminate it).—
Assuming tea pot has water in it. And when water 50 C an important aspect is how much it evaporates water.
Or it could evaporate more or less outside and likewise could regardless of the air temperature.
Or temperature of walls aren’t going to be much of factor- wind could be significant factor.
Gordon Robertson
Other than your opinion on the subject (and it really does not matter how strongly you believe your own words to be true) do you have any supporting textbooks to confer what you say. What I read does not support you opinions on radiant heat transfer at all. Where are you getting this from?
Also you make this assertion: “Furthermore, the EM from a cooler body cannot cause the temperature in a warmer body to rise.”
This is simply not a true statement according to many textbooks on the subject.
If the warm body has a continuous supply of energy and will be at one temperature with no surrounding objects, it will get warmer with the same energy input if another object with some temperature is moved into the vicinity of the heated object. It is called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
I have attempted many times to educated you on IR radiant energy but you cannot seem to understand the process. Only the IR close to visible light moves electrons to different energy levels. The IR emitted by CO2 does not cause electrons to move to higher energy levels. It is a molecular energy change. The atoms of the molecule have charge differences (polar atoms within the molecule) and the shifting atomic positions within the molecule cause the disturbance that emits IR. The electrons of the atoms do not change levels in these disturbances. I have linked you to sources that explain this yet you fail to understand it and continue peddling your false and incorrect notions of physics propped up by your delusional belief system in your own super brilliance (even though your really do not know much about physics, more like a scrambled version of science thrown into a blender and spitting out a bunch of mush).
Read some real physics for a change, you might even enjoy the experience and you will learn to quit peddling your own incorrect opinions.
Nothing can fix Mike Flynn or g*e*r*a*n. There minds are too far gone in their own deluded versions of reality. With you I am hoping it is not too late to get you back to real physics and not the garbage you are reading on Internet blogs.
Norm, the abnormal con-man returns.
No talent, no science, but he pounds on his keyboard all day.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n,
This is for your own safety. Never, EVER enter an ice cave without an asbestos suit, or you will be burned to a crisp!
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]”
MIT Thermodynamic course notes.
Total bummer.
SkepticsGoneWild
Norman has never claimed that heat can be transferred from a cooler to a warmer body. Either has Dr. Spencer. Figure it out.
Norman’s amazing but true thermodynamic axioms:
1. When you walk into a cold room, the light bulb will burn brighter.
2. When you walk into a cold room, the fire in the fireplace will put out more heat.
3. Throwing a block of ice in a non-lit fireplace will warm you up more.
4. Lighting a candle on earth (during daylight) will cause the sun to warm.
4a. Norman breathing (hot air) will cause the sun to warm.
Snape,
I have figured it out. I don’t know about Roy, but Norman states the following is false:
“EM from a cooler body cannot cause the temperature in a warmer body to rise.”
Only thing is, the above statement is true. The above is simply an expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore Norman believes EM from a cooler body CAN cause the temperature in a warmer body to rise.
SkepticsGoneWild
You need to figure out how a coat can keep a person warm without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
This goes for Gordon, g*e*r*a*n, Flynn and many others.
SGW warns: “Never, EVER enter an ice cave without an asbestos suit…”
I even use extreme caution when opening the freezer.
snape
It is odd that even if a concept is described in detail it is still radically misunderstood and distorted.
SkepticGoneWild
You make the claim you studied physics but I do not see any evidence of this. You sound as ignorant as g*e*r*a*n.
Do you know how to use the radiant heat transfer equation or what it means?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
The link will demonstrate you do not understand physics or the 2nd Law but pretend to. If you take the time to learn the science and get away from stating your opinions (regardless of how strongly you hold onto to them) it would be most beneficial to your own thought process. I know g*e*r*a*n cannot understand science and he believes textbook physics is pseudoscience. Hopefully you are not so deep in cult programming that you are unable to break out and learn real physics.
Quote from the link: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
Please read it a few times and let real science break your false notions.
Norm,
I read your silly link. They redefine the Second Law as usual, and confuse the terms “energy” and “heat”. That’s all I need to know.
SkepticGoneWild
Would you care to share your actual sources of information that refute what was claimed in the link? Will you be one of those that offer endless opinions with no backing? Gordon Robertson, g*e*r*a*n, and Mike Flynn only offer opinions no facts, no data, no rigor.
They confuse nothing. They do not define the 2nd Law incorrectly, only you do not understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics but you think you do and are unwilling or unable to learn what is actually said.
I have given you a link to an actual textbook on Heat Transfer above, I gave you the page and figure to look at. What do you offer? Nothing but your misguided and incorrect opinions. Over and over, opinion, opinion and belief. Never, ever any physics. Why?
SGW, what is your objection to the following description of heat?
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. ”
SGW, what is your objection to the following equivalent statements of the 2nd Law?
“It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W .”
“It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. ”
“In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same. “
Norman,
Your link states the following:
“Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
That’s a new concept. I should add it to your axiom list.
SkepticGoneWild
So that people like you would not get the wrong idea by what they stated they went on to explain what they meant by “energy”. They are talking about NET energy in that statement and they go on to explain it for you. It is like you have to hold on to your opinions so tightly that you grasp at anything for support even though the very point your make is explained to you and you don’t want to hear the words.
Norman
I just posted this upthread (directed at SGW). Very simple and usually shuts them up.
“You need to figure out how a coat can keep a person warm without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
This goes for Gordon, g*e*r*a*n, Flynn and many others.”
Snape
Thanks. I have seen this example used before. Mike Flynn is only capable of one-dimensional thought process. He can grasp that insulation can keep a human cooler (wearing a hat to keep the Sun off the skin or thick clothing in hot desert), but he will not understand insulation will slow the amount of energy loss by the body and hence allow it to keep a steady temperature with less internal energy used to maintain the temperature.
I will see if the others respond and explain your point. I think you are correct. They do not like to answer any direct question.
Norm always mentions me in his rambling comments. (Free advertising!) He’s always funny, as he tries to claim that he understands physics.
What he fails to point out is that he has no meaningful science education. So he must project his lack of understanding on others. He attacks Mike Flynn, Gordon, SGW, Kristian, and many others that have tried to offer help.
He has a long history of science fails. Once he tried to claim that “Energy leaves the system, but energy does not leave the system”! A clear violation of the 1st Law.
In its simplest application, the 1st Law is basic accounting–all energy must be accounted for. Energy can not be “made” or “lost”.
Norm is trying to clam that he can take money from his bank account, but the balance remains the same!
He’s hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You’re right, heat is not really lost when, for instance, it moves to space. It just gets really hard to find.
BTY, wearing a coat doesn’t create or lose heat. The first law is safe!
snake, you didn’t have to demonstrate that you don’t understand heat transfer. We were already aware of that.
g*e*r*a*n
The coat in your closet is much cooler than the human body….maybe it has magic powers?
snake, I usually don’t respond to 12 year-old nonsense, so this must be your lucky day.
When did you stop eating dead skunks?
g*e*r*a*n
My question is not that difficult. You’re such a chicken!
g*e*r*a*n
Believe what you will about me. You are too stuck in your own mind to think outside your opinions. I have a BA in Chemistry from Midland College. Believe it or not, really does not matter. Truth is a weakness to your beliefs.
YOU: “He attacks Mike Flynn, Gordon, SGW, Kristian, and many others that have tried to offer help.”
I have asked each of you to show evidence to support your beliefs. I think SGW is the only one to date that has even attempted it. You do not nor does Mike Flynn, Gordon or Kristian. All offer opinions. None are willing to support them with valid documentation.
You go on with your usual lies and distortions of things I have posted.
Then you provide a false equivalency.
YOU: “Norm is trying to clam that he can take money from his bank account, but the balance remains the same!”
No I am not making such claims. If you are constantly adding money to a bank account at a certain rate and withdrawing at the same rate, the balance remains the same. If you do not change what you are adding but decrease the amount you withdraw the balance will increase. If you want to represent my position (which is identical to textbook science) then at least attempt to describe it correctly.
Norm, you somehow forgot to mention that you have never had even one course in thermo, heat transfer, or quantum physics. You have ZERO qualifications to judge others.
You just pound on your keyboard all day, hoping to get the support of others equally as unqualified.
More please.
The coat example is BS. The human body is not a blackbody. CO2 is not insulation. Always lame analogies, no real science.
SkepticsGoneWild
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to a blackbody? Love the nutty way you guys try to dodge answering this simple question.
Did you know that a about a year ago i asked Flynn the same thing? His response, (Paraphrasing) “coats can’t keep people warm, insulation is only useful for keeping things cold).
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, you somehow forgot to mention that you have never had even one course in thermo, heat transfer, or quantum physics. You have ZERO qualifications to judge others.”
And yet I am still able to read and have been doing so with actual textbooks on the topic and linking you and others to the very pages I am getting my information from. So far you have not linked to any actual scientific material. You just make stuff up and call it good. When challenged to verify your statements you divert to some unrelated comment, usually something derogatory. It keeps your ignorance going.
If you believe I have zero qualifications than have a reasonable debate and show verified evidence of what you think I have wrong (which you will not do as it would expose you for a fraud).
At this time it is obvious I am much more qualified than you are in the correct understanding of physics of heat transfer.
Snake,
You need to let go of these dumbass analogies that aren’t even analogous to the question at hand.
SkepticsGoneWild
“how a can a coat keep a person warm without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?”
This is not a metaphor, it’s a simple question. The coat in your closet is much cooler than a person’s body, right?
You don’t know the answer because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Norm rambles: “If you believe I have zero qualifications than have a reasonable debate and show verified evidence of what you think I have wrong”
Con-man, every time I try to correct your pseudoscience, you whine about wanting to see “textbook evidence”. There is no textbook that exactly says “Norm is wrong”. That’s all you could understand. You do not have enough technical background to understand the issues. You get frustrated and then try to insult me.
How many examples do need to see?
g*e*r*a*n
One big problem with your so called corrections is you call textbook science pseudoscience. You do not correct real science with valid science. You attempt to correct textbook physics with your own made up physics where reality can be anything you want it to be. Like two objects made of the same material. One will absorb IR the other will absorb none. You have the strangest made up physics to date. I guess you should write your own book, physics by G*e*r*a*n and you can say anything you want.
Fake physics is all you peddle. Get over you own self and read some real physics for a change. It might help you out.
Con-man, every sentence you pounded out was inaccurate.
SkepticGoneWild,
In “thermodynamic axioms” you listed above, you need to clarify that the fireplace is colder than the block of ice in 3), don’t you?
The others are obviously true because they shift the radiation balance towards the warm side.
SkepticGoneWild says: “The human body is not a blackbody.”
But “THE HUMAN SKIN AS A BLACK-BODY RADIATOR” at
https://tinyurl.com/yd8u8nsy says:
“Tests of the emission curve of the human skin show: (1) that it radiates like black-body irrespective of its visible color; (2) that the energy distribution in the spectrum is similar to that of an artificial black-body radiator;
(3) that the presence of water vapor and CO. in the layers of air next to the skin do not appreciably affect the radiation from the surface.”
The “thermodynamic axioms” were given here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262159
— g*e*r*a*n says:
September 9, 2017 at 11:59 AM
Dr. Roy is correct when he implies that gravity is not warming the atmosphere. Many are confused because increasing the pressure of a confined gas DOES raise the temperature of the system. But the atmosphere is already pressurized. So gravity is not supplying any additional pressure.–
Gravity doesn’t warm the atmosphere. Gravity doesn’t add additional pressure, but the pressure of atmosphere is caused by gravity. Or without gravity, gas is no bound to the planet and you have no atmosphere of a planet. Or don’t atmosphere which can have an air temperature.
What pressure does is make more molecules of gas to be in certain volume of space.
Air temperature is average velocity of gas molecules and the number of gas molecule in a certain volume space.
Or the temperature of gas is the mass of gas molecules and the average velocity.
And follows formula of Kinetic Energy = Mass 1/2 times velocity squared.
What pressure does is add more mass in a given volume of space. Or if density of gas is 1 kg per cubic mater and the pressure is increased so the density is 2 kg per cubic meter, it’s doubling the mass or Mass 1/2 times velocity squared [times 2}.
So if add pressure to it’s twice the gas density you increase the kinetic energy of the gas and thereby increased the temperature of the gas.
So gravity is adding or increasing the pressure, but having higher gravity make gas become more dense with gas molecules have same average velocity as compared to planet with less gravity.
But what also allow higher density at same average velocity of gas molecule is greater mass of the atmosphere.
Or 1 atm with earth gravity become 1/2 atm [in terms pressure] in world with 1/2 of Earth’s gravity. Or with 1/2 of earth gravity one needs twice as much atmosphere to get 1 atm of pressure.
So atmosphere with Earth gravity which has twice atmospheric mass as Earth will have twice the density if gas molecules if have same average velocity as gas does on Earth- and the denser atmosphere will be warmer [or twice the amount of kinetic energy per some volume of gas.
The gravity isn’t a heat source- or obviously, the sun is heat source.
Or one could have two planets, with one having twice gravity or twice atmosphere [either having twice the pressure] and have both these planets be the same distance from the sun, and the one with twice the pressure of air [at sea level] could have a cooler air temperature. And if it had a cooler air temperature it would mean it had a lower average velocity of gas. And since it had lower average velocity of gas it’s atmosphere would denser at sea level as compared to it being warmer. But regardless of air temperature it would have 2 atm of pressure.
It should noted that if one had 2 atm world and it had a lower air temperature it’s average temperature could be higher.
Or if Earth had twice the amount of atmosphere, I think it would be cooler. Or earth can get 50 C air temperature.
Earth can get 50 C air temperature because it’s land surface can heat up to about 70 C. And with twice as much atmosphere the earth surface could warm to 70 C. Or couldn’t warm to 70 C when there was 2 atmosphere between the surface and the sun [when sun was at zenith]. Or if on mountain where there was only 1 atm of atmosphere between the surface and the sun
the surface might warm to 70 C.
Now with Earth, it’s covered with oceans [70% ocean and 30% land] that one can have land surface air temperature reaching 50 C is not important in terms of Earth’s average temperature. So with world with 70% of surface covered with ocean and having twice Earth atmosphere, the issue is how does having twice the air pressure affect ocean temperatures. And I would tend to think it would decrease the amount of sunlight absorbed by the ocean and therefore have lower average temperature- though poles and night time would less difference in temperature as compared to tropics and daytime [which increases the average temperature]. Or it could warmer in Canada and Russia by a couple degrees in terms of average temperature].
binny…”But in a corner where I really wouldnt have expected it:
http://co2coalition.org/2016/07/30/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/ ”
From what I can see in Roy’s article he confirms that temperature varies with altitude. He adds to that, however, that there are other processes at work like hot air rising and other convective process. Still, the pressure gradient from surface to space is a constant caused by gravity.
That does not negate the Ideal Gas Law, which states clearly that temperature varies with pressure when volume and mass are constant.
Without convective processes, gravity would still set up a pressure gradient, and the Ideal Gas Law tells us that temperature varies with pressure. If the pressure gradient diminishes with altitude, it stands to reason that temperature should decrease with altitude, which it does.
The convective processes work on top of that gradient, adding to it and subtracting from it. They do not negate it.
This is confirmed at the atomic level. With higher pressures, the atoms collide more and the collisions cause temperatures to rise. At higher altitudes there are less air molecules to collide and the pressure and temperature are both lower.
Not rocket science.
The percent of oxygen at the top of Everest (~30,000 feet) is 1/3 of what it is at sea level. I presume it’s the same for nitrogen, therefore the air pressure, which is 99%+ N2/O2, should be 1/3 that of sea level. The static temperature at the top of Everest is also generally much lower than what it is at sea level.
Gordon,
If I might add, a compressed gas will not stay hot in a colder environment. A cylinder of gas at 100 bar will be the same temperature as at 1 bar, after cooling.
The effect of gravity on heating is zip. As an example, any isothermal mass is subject to gravity. It has mass. At absolute zero, it will not spontaneously warm up. Otherwise, you will have to accept the notion of a perpetual motion machine, depending on a “gravitothermal” effect. Alas, even though patents have been issued for such devices under different names, they remain fantasies. They simply don’t work.
The Earth has gravity. The atmosphere is denser at lower altitudes in general. It is not isothermal, but possesses a temperature gradient from the temperature at the base to the outer limits – say 3 K or so.
The Earth is a fiery furnace of sorts, spherical, and surrounded by atmosphere at all points. This obviously provides enough heat to keep the atmosphere gaseous – gravity not required. Temperature gradients are noted in a space station atmosphere, where there is no gravity differential.
Another example of the gravito thermal effect becoming invisible, is that of the deep oceans. The pressure is enormous at 10 km, but temperatures are far less than the surface in most cases – around 2 C. No gravito thermal effect to be found.
On the other hand, around 10 km beneath the surface of the lithosphere, temperatures will be around 250 C or more. No gravito thermal effect, just the temperature gradient as heat proceeds from the fiery furnace to space through the crust, the oceans, and the atmosphere.
Cheers.
mike…”The Earth has gravity. The atmosphere is denser at lower altitudes in general. It is not isothermal, but possesses a temperature gradient from the temperature at the base to the outer limits say 3 K or so”.
Mike….remember, I’m on your side, not trying to engage in a p***ing contest. This is about learning, not as the alarmists think, a contest to be right and to push their propaganda. I’ll present my findings, let’s keep this civil.
I don’t give a damn about being right, my interest is in science and learning.
Don’t understand where you get the ‘3K or so’. the top of Everest, at 30,000 feet approx., has temperatures at night well below -20C in summer. At the same time, nearby Katmandu, at about 7000 feet can have summer temps near 30C at night.
During the day, at the top of Everest, direct solar radiation can warm you but you won’t find anyone at the top of Everest on a summer’s day, wearing a T-shirt and shorts. When the Sun disappears over the horizon, temps drop dramatically to well below -20C in summer.
How can anyone possibly explain that temperature differential other than the air pressure at the top of Everest being 1/3 what it is at sea level?
Lapse Rate…from UCAR…”As you climb a mountain, you can expect the air temperature to decrease by 6.5 degrees C for every 1000 meters you gain. This is called the standard (average) lapse rate”.
https://scied.ucar.edu/webweather/weather-ingredients/change-atmosphere-altitude
BTW…Everest is 8848 metres. At 6.5 C/1000 metres, that works out to 8848m(6.5C/1000m) = 57.5C.
As I said, during a summer’s day solar radiation will warm you on Everest, however, at night, you can freeze to death very easily, even when wearing proper thermal survival gear. If there’s an appreciable wind blowing, forget it.
That proves conclusively that warming due to CO2 is trivial. It’s the Sun.
mike…”The effect of gravity on heating is zip. As an example, any isothermal mass is subject to gravity”.
Mike….we’re not talking about an isothermal mass, we are talking about a highly compressible, non-isothermal mass.
Would you agree that the Ideal Gas Law applies, and if you don’t, please explain why not? The atmosphere behaves no differently than any gas in a container of constant volume. In a lab, of course, the effect of gravity is not going to be an issue due to the lack of a significant gravitational pressure gradient.
Make no doubt about it, if you weighed that gas at sea level in a container in a lab, it would have weight. Why? Gravitational force.
The atmosphere is thankfully held tightly to the surface by gravitational force, otherwise we’d be in serious trouble. At our latitude here in Vancouver, Canada, a person standing on the surface is moving at over 800 miles an hour, were the atmosphere not tightly bound to the surface, as well as the person, by gravity, we’d be facing winds of up to 800 miles an our as the surface moved under the air mass.
In fact, were the atmosphere not bound tightly to the surface, we’d lose it altogether. Each air molecule is accelerated to the surface, near the surface, at 9.8 m/s^2. There are other forces affecting that air molecule, often buoyant, upward forces, as well as lateral forces, but gravity compresses the air mass above it so much so that the pressure near the surface is much higher than it is at 30,000 feet.
Sorry, I cannot accept the fact that molecules tightly compressed near the surface do not collide more than sparser molecules at 30,000 feet, hence producing the warming predicted by the Ideal Gas Law.
Furthermore, as one moves vertically, away from the surface, the gravitational force lessens, and the pressure reduces. Again, the Ideal Gas Law predicts a drop in temperature due to fewer collisions of air molecules.
How else can you explain the drop in static temperatures as the altitude increases? Convection does not explain that at all and there are no other forces at work. If anything, vertical convection is going to warm the upper atmosphere and that only happens in certain, variable locations. The overall negative pressure gradient from the surface vertically into the atmosphere has to affect the temperature.
Nothing else makes sense.
IRMA – I would say the models have been off. Irma further west and south and intensity has dropped.
Not to say it will not pick up again in intensity but early yesterday morning when looking at all the upper air charts I was thinking further west. I posted that yesterday morning on this site.
It is somawhat out of topic, but I would like to correct a manifestly deliberate misinterpretation.
I’m by no means a supporter of Al Gore.
But it is a fact that he has been a major instigator of a bill intended to stronly enhance electronic communication structures within the society on the base of what at that time was not much more than the thin ARPANET.
Gore and some of his colleagues were contacted at the end of the 1980’s by a researcher, Dr Leonard Kleinrock, who was one of the designers and engineers of ARPANET.
One of the first documents shows what Kleinrock & alii presented at that time:
https://www.nap.edu/read/10334/chapter/1
Bill preparation at the Congress
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/5501
At the Senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991
https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/272
Bin, with “non-supporters” like you , Gore doesn’t need any more “supporters”.
☺
binny…”Im by no means a supporter of Al Gore.
But it is a fact that he has been a major instigator of a bill intended to stronly enhance electronic communication structures….”
Gore also backed former GISS leader James Hansen and got himself in legal hot water for claiming the late Dr. Roger Revelle, the former professor at Harvard who taught Gore climate science, was senile, and that Revelle’s friend Fred Singer had taken advantage of him.
At least, Revelle taught his views and Gore received them in an alternate reality. Later, in a paper with Fred Singer, Revelle claimed people should not read too much into projected CO2 warming. Gore reacted to the paper by claiming Revelle was senile and that Fred Singer had taken advantage of him. Singer sued and won.
When Gore could have been doing something about climate change propaganda, as Vice President for 8 years, he was too busy with his wife Tipper investigating alleged demonic messages in rock songs.
The pressure of the jet stream in the north may push Irma to the Gulf of Mexico.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Dziekuje ren!
Grrr… no spec chars!
Irma slowly moves in the direction of Havana.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00931/4vlpwt6xrxtb.png
Yes:
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
ren…”The pressure of the jet stream in the north may push Irma to the Gulf of Mexico”.
Looking that way. They did not expect it on the west coast of Florida.
The cone (track uncertainty) a few days ago covered all of Florida. Now that it’s closer, the cone has narrowed centring more over the West coast.
Evacuation warnings were given for low-lying parts of Tampa (West Coast) a few days before the recent track update.
You don’t wait for the storm to hit you before before deciding what the risk is.
barry…”You dont wait for the storm to hit you before before deciding what the risk is”.
No problem agreeing with that. Now it seems the eye may be over the Gulf and become re-energized.
This is why people do not evacuate. The forecast are not good enough. All those people that evacuated Eastern Florida did so for nothing due to a wrong forecast.
They did it because of a likelihood, not a definite.
It was risk-management. You don’t wait for a storm that big to hit you to determine if you should leave.
That’s why Tampa, which is the new target, ordered evacuations days before the update in the storm track. Those people won’t be sorry they heeded the advice.
They were all so positive that the models would be correct and fail to think for themselves .Completely dependent on models with no human insights. 100% sure it will cut right through Eastern middle Florida..
The climate models are worse because they are predicting global warming when the opposite is likely to happen.
Completely dependent on models with no human insights. 100% sure it will cut right through Eastern middle Florida
This is BS. The projected storm track uncertainty a couple of days ago covered all of Florida, but no one was sure if it would fall more East or West or right down the middle, so they evacuated some places places on both coasts. Tampa (West Coast) evacuation orders for low-lying areas were given days before the storm track update, for example.
https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2017/09/06/buckhorn-issues-hurricane-irma-warning-you-will.html
You’re making up history.
Why are people revising history? 2 days ago the uncertainty of Hurricane Irma’s track covered all of Florida, East to West. It was thought the centre was more likely to move up the East coast.
http://www.nj.com/weather/index.ssf/2017/09/hurricane_irma_latest_update_track_path_category_5.html
Now it’s closer, the cone of uncertainty has narrowed and shifted to the West coast. That possibility was always included in the tracking projections from a few days ago.
barry,
You wrote –
” . . .the cone of uncertainty has narrowed and shifted to the West coast. That possibility was always included in the tracking projections from a few days ago.”
The problem with possibilities and uncertainties is that there are so many of the darned things!
I can’t peer into the future, so I’d probably prepare for the worst as best I could, and hope for the best. I certainly wouldn’t be prepared to bet my life on someone else’s guess – educated or not. I base my guess on the information available. If it turns out later that the expert was right, and I was wrong – so be it. I’ve been lucky, much to the annoyance of some. Many people have allowed their lives to be ruined by allowing others to dictate their lives – failed investments based on expert advice spring to mind.
Advice is not even worth what you pay for it, on many occasions.
As to wisdom after the event, it was said of one economic adviser “He was brilliant. Predicted all seven of the last two recessions.” Even medical specialists advise seeking a “second opinion”. Opinion? Don’t they know what they’re doing, or are they just suffering from low self esteem?
Having obtained two or three or more opinions, what then? You still have to make up your own mind! Just as people who might be affected by Irma. Look at the available information – trust, don’t trust, do what you think is best. It’s probably as good as anything else.
Cheers.
I’m talking about false claims now about what predictions were on Irma’s storm track a few days ago.
It was suppose to be a direct hit on Miami a few days back.
Everything I read said, “probable.” You’re saying it was all “definite.” You’re wrong.
Tuesday Sept 5:
“…the outer bands will reach the Florida Keys by Saturday. Beyond that, its tough to predict where the storm will go, but South Florida especially the Keys are more and more likely to be in its path.”
Wednesday Sept 6:
“Heres the current long range forecast for Miami, according to the National Weather Service. This could change as the hurricanes path becomes more predictable.”
Thurs Sept 7
“As of yesterday, it was unclear even which side of the state Irma would land on. It seemed equally likely the storm could make landfall anywhere from Miami to Tampa. This morning, models shifted east and some hoped predictions would continue shuffling that way and the storm would miss the Florida coastline.”
Friday September 8
“To be sure, Irmas track remained highly uncertain, and forecasters say its course would not become clear until virtually the last hour Saturday.”
Saturday September 9:
“Where Irma ultimately makes landfall on the mainland remains uncertain because of the storms angle to the coast, National Hurricane Center forecasters said in their early Saturday update. But Irmas fierce center could near Tampa Bay”
Unless you’ve been reading tabloids, the press have generally gotten the uncertainty on storm-tracking right.
Salvatore, this idea that experts or even the mainstream media were saying Miami or the East coast of Florida was definitely where the storm would track….
Is pure BS. It’s simply not true.
The Express reporting was more sensational, but low-brow rags like that commonly sensationalize stuff and get things wrong.
Maybe you’re reading too much tabloid news.
barry,
It seems that predictions are difficult, not only if the future is nvolved, but also the past.
Quick! Call a climatologist!
Cheers.
The Gulf Stream is now the second power source for Irma.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Snape,
You wrote –
“I was using the word cooling figuratively as in slowing the rate of heat loss. Taken literally, then yes, you just scored a gotcha!
Its very simple, Mike. If the Earths surface rids itself of heat more slowly than the rate of input from the sun, it will get warmer. As it gets warmer, it will also shed heat faster. Eventually the rate of output (to the atmosphere) will be the same as rate of input (from the sun). Temperature will then be steady.”
Slowing the rate of heat loss from an externally heated body, still results in cooling.
Now it is evident that the “the rate of input from the Sun” as you put it, for the last four and a half billion years, has been insufficient to prevent the Earth from cooling.
The large deposits of fossil fuels indicates that there vast amounts of CO2 available – otherwise no fossil fuels. Additionally, it seems that oxygen breathing life exhaled CO2 as well.
None of this CO2, nor the input from the Sun, nor the previously far greater sources of radiogenic heat (obvious, given the fact that the shorter half life isotopes are almost totally gone), has prevented the Earth from cooling.
This means your qualifying “if” carries as much weight as “if my bicycle had three wheels, it would be tricycle”, or one I particularly like – “if I had some ham, I could make a ham sandwich, if I had some bread”.
Still no GHE. Not even an experimentally disprovable hypothesis, unless you’re hiding it somewhere, which I doubt. Keep trying if you wish. Cooling is not heating. As the internal heat of the Earth is slowly reducing, you can treat the Earth as externally heated by a distant heat source, which by itself, can’t even keep the Earth’s surface from dropping to -90 C or so in places.
Maybe you have some secret climatological insights? I’d appreciate it, if you could bring yourself to pass them on. Geophysicists seem to be generally agreed that the Earth is currently cooling at the rate of 1 to 3 millionths of a K per annum. Only consensus, I know, but at least it’s based on real science rather than unverifiable Cargo Cult Scientism!
Cheers.
Jetstream cuts off the loop in the north.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
https://www.iceagenow.info/september-temperatures-plummeted-past-120-years/
Excellent paper from Dr. John Christy’s (UAH) testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology (2 February 2016).
Debunks a lot of nonsense such as the idiocy proposed by the likes of alarmist David Appell that there are problems with satellite data related to sign issues and orbital issue. Also, DA’s quaint notion that satellites don’t measure temperature.
Seriously, where do these idiotic ideas come from?
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
Roy Spencer said in that testimony the problems were all fixed 10-20 years ago.
Really? Then why such a big change between UAH version 5.6 and 6 a couple of years ago?
http://tinyurl.com/yb3vxzvh
For comparison, this is a bigger ‘adjustment’ than the revision between the Met Office record between versions 3 and 4.
Comparison UAH and Met Office revisions, 1979-2014 trends (Had3 data ended in 2014).
http://tinyurl.com/y92n3e8k
Here are the numbers for the trend differences in C/decade:
HAD 0.14 > 0.16
UAH 0.14 > 0.11
The UAH revision produced a larger change.
The main reason for the trend change is that Had4 had more global coverage.
UAH coverage was exactly the same between revisions, so why does it have the largest trend revision post 1979 of all data sets?
Now let’s look at a period popular with Gordon Robertson – 1998 to 2012 – and see what a difference the revisions made.
The UAH revision is a much bigger change – twice as much – for that period.
UAH revision changed a warming trend into a strongly cooling one.
If all the problems were ‘fixed’ 10-20 years ago, how the hell did this massive change come about?
No, Gordon, Roy is over-selling past improvements to UAH.
And you’re drinking the Cool-Aid.
barry…”No, Gordon, Roy is over-selling past improvements to UAH.
And youre drinking the Cool-Aid”.
Hate to rain on your parade but the link above is to John Christy’s testimony.
Tired of your perpetual whine about how the sats are not accurate but surface stations fudged by NOAA and NASA GISS are just fine. Are you still good with confidence levels of 48% and 37% used to claim record warming years? Talk about me drinking the Kool Aid.
I happen to have worked in electronics and communications for decades and I understand the telemetry used in sats. I have expertise on computers as well. I’ll take the sat telemetry any day over thermometers set at a prescribed height above the surface, spaced up to 1200 miles apart. That’s over land, I have no faith whatsoever in data from the oceans.
As John points out, the SST’s vary in ocean depth. Why do they measure the water temp and not the air above the ocean, as is done on land? The equivalent surface measurement would be a thermometer popped in a hole in the ground. It’s absurd.
And did you see the outright corruption in the NOAA SST fudging?
Let’s face it, surface stations are a joke. Sats cover 95% of the surface and their scanning of O2 molecules is comprehensive. You get a massive number of data points in one sweep of the scanner in a stationary position that can be averaged to a far more accurate degree than 2 a day thermometer readings.
The adjustments to UAH data sets was a 10th C at best. They still show a flat trend 1998 – 2015 well below models and significantly below surface data sets.
barry…”Roy Spencer said in that testimony the problems were all fixed 10-20 years ago.
Really? Then why such a big change between UAH version 5.6 and 6 a couple of years ago?”
Why don’t you ask him? Of course, no matter what Roy tells you, you’ll run off to realclimate or skepticalscience to get their version.
My mistake. John Christy.
Can you explain, Gordon, how UAH change from v5.6 to 6 was so large when problems had been “fixed” 10-20 years ago?
It was larger than any single post-1979 adjustment in any temp record.
The adjustments to UAH data sets was a 10th C at best. They still show a flat trend 1998 2015
Trend change for that period before and after revision.
http://tinyurl.com/yb3vxzvh
The numbers.
UAH5.6: 0.09 C/deacde
UAH6.0: -0.01 C/decade
Yep, a 10th of a C, from warming to slight cooling in one revision. At that time, UAHv5.6 was much closer to the instrumental records than version 6. And the UAH revision was a bigger change for that period than for UK Meto Office, GISS, NOAA, etc.
I ask again, how come the change is so big if the satellite problems were supposedly fixed 10 years earlier?
I’m asking you, because you claim UAH has no problems, and basing it on the proposition that these were fixed 10-20 years ago (Christy’s testimony).
Why dont you ask him?
I’ve already read the paper, and am familiar with the issues facing the satellite records.
Issues you flatly deny.
I think you bury your head in the sand about them because you want UAH to be the greatest temp record out there. It’s got the coldest trend, you like that, and so you pretend to yourself that UAH is perfect.
barry…”Ive already read the paper, and am familiar with the issues facing the satellite records. Issues you flatly deny”.
There’s nothing to deny, there were very minor errors and they were fixed. Case closed. You make it sound like the entire UAH sat record is worthless. If that’s the case why did NASA and the American Meteorological Society award medals for excellence to Roy and John Christy. Why did the AMS induct John as a ‘fellow’?
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Theres nothing to deny, there were very minor errors and they were fixed.
That’s your delusion. That the improvements are complete fixes.
UAH will change again, as they have done, often significantly, for the last 15 years. So will the others. They’re all estimates. You have no idea whatsoever of the soundness of each revision.
You would have said when UAHv5 came out that the issues were fixed. you would have been wrong, then, too.
You make it sound like the entire UAH sat record is worthless.
I’ve written in bold and not-bold that I have no problem with UAH. I just don’t have a hierarchy of preferred data set.
You can rid yourself of this delusion right now. I esteem Christy and Spencer for the work they do. I know their traits are ‘skeptic’, and that they seem over-confident in their revision papers (since 1990), but that does not impugn their work on the UAH data set in my eyes. I’m not tribal about their work.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you could not understand that way of thinking.
Here’s the graph for 1998-2012, before and after revision to UAH and the Met Office temp record.
http://tinyurl.com/yc9fb7h8
Clear as crystal – the UAH revision has by far the largest change.
How can this be if the problems were all fixed a decade or more ago, and this revision was only 2 years ago?
Barry…”Heres the graph for 1998-2012, before and after revision to UAH and the Met Office temp record”.
Let me get this straight. You’re talking about the same Met office whose leader, Phil Jones, was caught in the Climategate emails brag.ging how he and Kevin would see to it that certain skeptical papers would not get into IPCC reviews. Then he brag.ged about using Mann’s trick to hide the decline.
When Steve McIntyre asked him for Had-crut data for independent verification he refused to release it. In the Climategate emails he is seen instructing his cron.ies not to cooperate with a subsequent FOI request for the data submitted by McIntyre to the UK government.
Jones has admitted to adjusting the Had-crut record and losing the originals. Where does anyone get the abject ignorance and arrogance to do such a thing, to think they know netter what temperatures were 50 years ago than the people taking the measurements?
I wish you would get it straight and respond directly to what I said, not some other song and dance.
UAH made a bigger adjustment to post-1979 temps and trends than any other made by UK Met Office, NOAA, GISS. I personally don’t see that as a problem, but you seem to be blind to it.
Why won’t you just admit that the problems were not “fixed”, and that UAH underwent a significant revision 2 years ago?
Why is that so hard for you?
Gordon R: For how long shall the mention of “Climategate,” be the answer for every climate related question You can’t answer.
emeretus…”Gordon R: For how long shall the mention of Climategate, be the answer for every climate related question You cant answer”.
For as long as it takes for the general public to get it that catastrophic warming/climate change is a fabrication of charlatans and cheaters.
Watch out Doc. An unwelcome visitor coming your way. Keep safe.
Another inhumane climate ghoul tries to profit from misery.
Alarmists everywhere cheer.
Science be damned.
Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood me (and understood the alarmists).
BARRY – as they say the moment of truth is coming starting this year and for the next several years.
TEST
Let us first sea how AGW holds up when overall sea surface temperatures do not cooperate.
Let us see how low overall sea surface temperatures become going forward. According to AGW they should not go lower, is not CO2 heating the oceans.
Let us see how low global temperatures get due to very low solar/overall ocean cooling combined. Again should not happen according to AGW theory since CO2 and only CO2 drives the climate.
Again by summer of 2018 global temperatures will be at or below 30 year means my prediction.
It could be in a step like fashion.
quaint notion that satellites dont measure temperature
They don’t measure the temps we see in the data directly. There are various factors to compensate for, such as emissivity from other components of the atmosphere that interfere with measurements, changes in the viewing angle etc. Temperatures are inferred through radiative transmission theory and confounding factors are compensated for.
IOW, MSUs don’t simply point the instrument at the atmosphere and produce the temperature you see as anomalies. There are many intervening calculations. This is aside for compensations due to instrument drift and decay.
Contrary to what Chrsity said in the testimony you cited, the recent revision included yet another diurnal drift correction. This wasn’t ‘fixed’ 10 years ago. It’s an ongoing issue.
And don’t forget the Cadillac calibration. I once owned a Cadillac. I would not trust that technology to even decide the cooking time of my potatoes.
emeretis…”And dont forget the Cadillac calibration. I once owned a Cadillac. I would not trust that technology to even decide the cooking time of my potatoes”.
Potatoes…so your Irish. I was reading in the Dublin Gazette the other day that they found a skeleton up a tree in the south end of Dublin. Turned out to be the Irish hide-and-seek champion.
What the heck does instrumentation in a Cadillac have to do with satellite AMSU units? You would rather trust NOAA, who slashes 75% of their database and uses less than 25% of the database in a climate model to synthesize the slashed temperatures???
Glory be, NOAA finds warming where no one else finds it, especially when they cut the confidence level low enough (48%) to move 2014 into first place while UAH has it rated at least 0.6C behind either 1998 or 2016. Heck 2014 was half the warmth of 2010.
Why don’t you alarmists get this scientific misconduct? Why are you so bent on butt-kissing to authority? Relax…walk across a red light, or drive through one at 3 am when the streets are deserted….after looking both ways, mind you.
Do something illegal. Get over your mindless efforts trying to please authority figures.
Again, the satellite temperatures are a better match to the CO2 rate of change proxy.
Satellite data is much better then thermometer data which is not objective, not put in proper locations, much less missing over most of the globe and being estimated.
barry…”They dont measure the temps we see in the data directly. There are various factors to compensate for, such as emissivity from other components of the atmosphere that interfere with measurements, changes in the viewing angle etc. Temperatures are inferred through radiative transmission theory and confounding factors are compensated for”.
So, if an AMSU scanner is scanning a swath of O2 molecules, averaging their temperature, while pointed at the surface, we have to worry about spurious microwave radiation at the same frequency.
Where the heck would that spurious radiation come from and what other factor affect what the instrument is measuring? Orbital issues do not affect what the instrument is measuring instantaneously, they affect the reading SLIGHTLY over the entire orbit. When UAH had to adjust for orbital errors decades ago, the error was within the stated error margin and the effect was only in the Tropics, where there never has been any significant warming.
Why are you alarmists so desperate to discredit perfectly good scientific instrumentation while supporting chicanery of the highest order with surface data acquisition?
Gordon,
Where the heck would that spurious radiation come from and what other factor affect what the instrument is measuring?
I suggest you read one of the foundational papers by Spencer and Christy).
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1990)003%3C1111%3AGATMWS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
“…the MSU channel 2 Tb measurement cannot be ascribed totally to oxygen thermal emission, as some contributions from clouds, water vapour and the surface exist.”
These require compensation, in the form of radiative transfer equations to derive a temperature of the target swathe of atmosphere, especially that of the lower troposphere.
what other factor affect what the instrument is measuring?
As I said, the change in viewing angle of the instrument also has to be compensated for. When the instrument passes nadir (vertical measurement), the emission path length gets longer (this is mentioned in the paper), and this has to be compensated for.
Orbital decay and drift, as well as different instruments flying on different satellites over the period of the MSU record need to be compensated and intercalibrated. Despite Christy saying these problems had been fixed a decade and more ago, the revision two years ago included yet another drift adjustment.
The issues are ongoing.
As I’ve said many times, I respect the work of Spencer and Christy. I have no problem with UAH.
What I am saying is that you have an unreasonable – and patently deluded – bias toward this data set.
You raise its status above the others based on misconceptions about how it is formulated. You deny that the latest revision is significant, while at the same time denigrating surface data sets which have undergone smaller revisions post 1979 than UAH.
All temp data sets have to deal with confounding factors. None are perfect, all are estimates.
I’m challenging your delusion, not discrediting UAH.
It is you suffering the delusion, Barry. Either that, or you have an agenda.
We have the keepers of the surface data, in tangible e-mail records, colluding to remove features that go against the dogma. We have a continuing series of dubious “adjustments” with very weak rationales which all happen to support the dogma.
It’s no contest. The surface data are inferior in terms of siting and coverage, and they have been transparently “adjusted” to support a preconceived outlook. When you defend them, and throw up all this chaff about the satellite records, it just makes you accessory to the con.
Well stated, Bart.
“The surface data are inferior in terms of siting and coverage, and they have been transparently adjusted to support a preconceived outlook.”
Ask yourself this simple question: if so much time and effort supposedly went into fiddling the temperature records, why wouldn’t the same “forces of darkness” fiddle the satellite records? What makes satellite data so “pure” and incorruptible?
You see, your argument holds no water. They represent the pathetic attempts by scoundrels to deny facts.
dr No says, September 11, 2017 at 6:20 AM:
But they ARE “fiddling the satellite records”! RSSv3.3 => RSSv4.0:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/rssv3-3-vs-giss.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/rss_v4-0_-_v3-3.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/rssv4-vs-giss.png
I’m sure Gavin Schmidt is very happy with Mears and Wentz latest “fiddling”, don’t you agree?
We have a continuing series of dubious “adjustments” with very weak rationales which all happen to support the dogma.
You are right now spouting dogma. No analysis, no mention of what the reasons and methods are. Nothing substantial, just rhetoric and “climategate.”
Same old bull.
I’m fair-minded. I know that Spencer and Christy are “skeptics” – they wade into the political arena in blog posts and in Congress. But I can still read their papers and acknowledge that, despite their political biases they are doing the best work they can.
Whereas you embrace the talking points and buy the conspiracy.
UAH makes the largest changes to temps and trends in recent decades and that’s fine with you. You don’t check the methods, you apply no skepticism. You like the result, so UAH is great.
Smaller changes are made over the same period by the surface records, and you know nothing of their methods and reasoning, but still assume any adjustment is a fudge.
Dogma drives you, not me.
But they ARE fiddling the satellite records! RSSv3.3 => RSSv4.0:
Why is that fiddling?
But this not fiddling?
UAHv5.6 –> UAHv6.0
We all know the politics:
RSS are ‘warmists’, and UAH are ‘skeptics’.
So what’s the verifiable proof that one particular group overcomes their biases and produces sound science?
Leaving aside sheer rhetoric, if you can.
dr No @ September 11, 2017 at 6:20 AM
“What makes satellite data so pure and incorruptible?”
Our host. He truly is a hero.
barry @ September 11, 2017 at 9:38 AM
“Whereas you embrace the talking points and buy the conspiracy.”
Have you read the emails? It’s not a conspiracy theory anymore when the conspiracy has been unmasked.
“UAH makes the largest changes to temps and trends in recent decades and thats fine with you.”
Because they pass the smell test. They go both ways, and they are based on solid theory, not e.g., kluges like blanket adjustments to sea temps that introduce spurious trends just by the fact of increasing numbers of ARGO floats.
Because they pass the smell test.
Rhetoric.
I’ve read a lot of the papers on temp global construction and the to and fro in the literature. Here’s what I discovered.
1. Spencer and Christy rarely give much weight to uncertainty in their revision papers. The others detail the uncertainties, often giving a titled section to them. You can read the last two revision papers for UAH and RSS and see this.
2. Spencer and Christy vigorously reject criticism. Christy wrote a 1994 paper rejecting criticism on UAH, particularly drift. Then in 2005 Spencer and Christy made a major revision based on their miscalculations of drift.
The ‘smell test’ for me is that Spencer and Christy don’t like to admit they are wrong, and only self-audit when the evidence from others is too profound to ignore. Their political views are unrestrained, so the agenda is clear. They are not neutral.
Regardless, I don’t think they are deliberately fudging the data.
They go both ways
So do the others. The latest revision to ERSST (v5) lowered recent trends.
and they are based on solid theory, not e.g., kluges like blanket adjustments to sea temps that introduce spurious trends just by the fact of increasing numbers of ARGO floats.
I don’t think you are up on what happened here. And I think this misunderstanding comes from reading blogs rather than source material.
You’ve embraced the talking points and you buy the conspiracy.
That’s why your post is all rhetoric.
Here’s a recent example. Christy in Washington states that problems with orbital decay and drift have been fixed 10 to 20 years ago.
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
But Spencer and Christy describe brand new correction procedures for orbital decay and drift effects in their most recent revision.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
As an added bonus, we have some numbers stated:
A 0.03 C/decade reduction in the global LT trend from the Version 5.6 product is partly due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT to land surface skin temperature (est. 0.01 C/decade), with the remainder of the reduction (0.02 C/decade) due to the new diurnal drift adjustment, the more robust method of LT calculation, and other changes in processing procedures.
This is what the changes look like:
http://tinyurl.com/ydzdub4m
The big change in trend from 1998…
http://tinyurl.com/yb3vxzvh
…is largely a result of new diurnal drift corrections that Christy said had been dealt with 10 years ago.
Note: I am not impugning their methodology here. But if you want to apply ‘smell tests’, that cuts both ways. It’s not as if Christy and Spencer are shy about their ‘skeptic’ views, and the latest revision could pad such a rhetorical case (not that I’m making it).
I don’t buy that there’s skulduggery on any ‘side’. And I certainly don’t buy the rhetorical skeptical narrative on it. No skeptic ever troubles to actually address the methods and reasons in any substantive way. It’s all rhetorical inference and conspiracy theories. That’s the MO for skeptics on this topic.
“The latest revision to ERSST (v5) lowered recent trends.”
That’s always the excuse, and I guess it means something to those who think trend lines contain all the information one needs.
They are erasing features that show that the data are not well correlated with CO2. And, they are doing it on purpose.
“And I think this misunderstanding comes from reading blogs rather than source material.”
Nope. I read the originals. Awful stuff. I expect it is you who are getting your info from tendentious sources.
“But Spencer and Christy describe brand new correction procedures for orbital decay and drift effects in their most recent revision.”
These are not the same corrections.
“The big change in trend from 1998”
What “big” change? The change only looks big because the entire spread is so small. You are quibbling over nothing of any significance.
I do so hate the trend line cultists. It is so utterly benighted. These data series are not linear, and the trend lines have little to no meaning. If you pick the end points differently, you will get different results.
Nope. I read the originals.
Then go ahead and speak substantively – not rhetorically – about why you think the corrections are spurious. It would make an interesting change from the usual dross.
What “big” change? The change only looks big because the entire spread is so small. You are quibbling over nothing of any significance.
Then why do you quibble over even smaller changes to recent trends in the surface data sets?
Correlation to CO2: that’s the lamest conspiracy theory out there. One step lower than “they’re trying to match to models.”
Here’s an alternative view:
The corrections are sound science, which is why the Japanese construction (they do their own SSTs) matches more closely all the surface records and RSS. UAH is the odd man out, therefore most suspect.
That’s more rhetoric of course, but you’re making the claims, so you need to substantiate. scientifically, not from gossip.
Thats always the excuse
No, it’s a direct rebuttal to your comment:
They [UAH] go both ways
This is evidence for you that UAH do sound science. Well, the latest revision to ERSSTv5 lowers recent anomalies (and therefore trends).
The ship/bucket correction lowered long-term trends.
These are facts, not excuses, and they fly in the face of what you’re trying to argue. Trying to filter these out as ‘excuses’ tells me you have filters.
I do so hate the trend line cultists. It is so utterly benighted. These data series are not linear, and the trend lines have little to no meaning. If you pick the end points differently, you will get different results.
Yes, that is the case with short-term data, as I’ve pointed out many times to the benighted skeptics who apply trends to short-term data to make claims about global warming. Good to know you eschew this kind of guff.
That’s why long-term trends should be used. A change in a year or two endpoint makes little difference over 30 years of temp data.
Eg,
http://tinyurl.com/ybsobf3j [last 30 years]
Trend difference highest to lowest: 0.03 C/decade.
But for short-term data, especially if you pick it just right,
http://tinyurl.com/y8q3klcl [from 1998]
Trend difference highest to lowest: 0.09 C/decade.
Side note: You consider the difference between UAHv6.5 and 6.0 to be “insignificant” for the period from 1998.
But that’s a larger change (0.1C /decade) than either mentioned above from changing the endpoints by a couple of years.
And the visual change is striking, too. The eyeball-ometer –
your preferred filter – certainly notices a big difference.
http://tinyurl.com/yb3vxzvh
Even without trend lines it’s a big change.
http://tinyurl.com/ydh5llgz
“Then go ahead and speak substantively not rhetorically about why you think the corrections are spurious.”
I already gave an example. The sea temperature data were “corrected” such that the mere fact that more ARGO floats were coming online ensured there would be a spurious trend introduced. Do your homework. Look it up.
“No, its a direct rebuttal to your comment:”
It’s a meaningless toss away.
You keep arguing trend lines. Tell me, what do you think these lines represent? Is there some underlying linear function in these data? How does it come about? What is the autocorrelation and expectation of the deviation from it?
You don’t know, do you? It’s just an arbitrary metric that, if you shuffle the data just so, you can claim is consistent with your belief.
“The ship/bucket correction lowered long-term trends.”
That was the price they paid for illegitimately fudging out the pause. They can live to fight another day with lowered sensitivity. But, the pause kills their hypothesis. Something had to be done.
“These are facts, not excuses…”
All you’re offering are excuses, hand waving, and red herrings. We have the culprits in print conspiring to smooth out the mid-century warming:
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0034.txt
and do away with the MWP
http://di2.nu/foia/1098472400.txt
http://di2.nu/foia/1054736277.txt
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0466.txt
http://di2.nu/foia/1206628118.txt
and all you do is change the subject, and trot out insignificant revisions to the satellite records in an effort to draw an equivalence. There is no equivalence. The surface data have been fudged to the point of virtual irrelevance, and the only reliable data we have are the satellite data.
“A change in a year or two endpoint makes little difference over 30 years of temp data.”
That does not make it right. Past data clearly show a ~65 year cycle in the data. Thirty years is just about the worst timeline upon which to base a trend estimate under those circumstances.
“Even without trend lines its a big change.”
Less than 0.1 deg in 20 years is not a big change.
I already gave an example. The sea temperature data were “corrected” such that the mere fact that more ARGO floats were coming online ensured there would be a spurious trend introduced.
No, that was a sound adjustment. More data is beter, and there is no reason to think more data won’t change things.
See what I did there? You said nothing substantive. Didn’t cite what paper, which specific adjustment.
You get the answer you deserve.
Do better.
And this:
a spurious trend introduced
Why are you talking about trends?
I do so hate the trend line cultists. It is so utterly benighted. These data series are not linear, and the trend lines have little to no meaning. If you pick the end points differently, you will get different results.
Make up your mind, Bart. Do you want to talk about trends or not?
Tell me, what do you think these lines represent?
They represent tests of a null hypothesis (no trend) based on linear regression.
Enough data (30 yr+) will give you a fairly good estimate (with uncertainty) of the overall change from the beginning to the end of the period.
That’s all they do.
Less than 0.1 deg in 20 years is not a big change.
You’re hilarious. You impugn other data sets for much smaller changes.
So many inconsistencies and one constant. You like the lowest data set because it’s lowest (and maybe because the makers are in your tribe). Just be honest about it and quit the meta flim-flammery.
That was the price they paid for illegitimately fudging out the pause. They can live to fight another day with lowered sensitivity. But, the pause kills their hypothesis. Something had to be done.
Hahahaha. This is creative writing.
The bucket adjustment was done in 2003, you silly goose, long before the ‘pause’ became a talking point.
You really need to come up with more plausible conspiracy theories.
Me: “These are facts, not excuses”
You: All youre offering are excuses, hand waving, and red herrings
Gainsaying what I say is not argument, Bart. You familiar with Monty Python?
and all you do is change the subject…
Did I swerve to the MWP just now, or did you?
Let me think…. you did. Pardon me for not going along with your subject change. And please stop projecting.
and trot out insignificant revisions to the satellite records in an effort to draw an equivalence
The satellite revisions – both UAH and RSS – are larger than the combined surface revisions for the last decade or so.
So that makes the surface revisions insignificant, doesn’t it?
Nope, not if you’ve got an axe to grind.
The point I was rebutting was your tacit argument that only UAH make revisions that change the trend in both directions, and this therefore validates the superiority of that data set.
The surface data sets also make revisions that change trends in both directions. So your implied argument is rebutted on its face.
And when pointed out you try to wave away this simple fact and change the subject.
I honestly believe you’re better than this. You have been a good debater and properly skeptical in the past, but this is plain old contrarianism.
“More data is be[t]ter, and there is no reason to think more data wont change things.”
More data is not necessarily better if it is biased data.
“Why are you talking about trends?”
Because that is how they try to sway minds, knowing the people who want to believe are unduly susceptible to trend analysis.
“Enough data (30 yr+) will give you a fairly good estimate (with uncertainty) of the overall change from the beginning to the end of the period.”
Oh yeah? Give me the trend of sin((2*pi/T)*t) for t running from 0 to T/2. What does this trend tell us about the direction of the series going forward?
“You impugn other data sets for much smaller changes.”
No, I impugn them for transparently trying to shift perceptions in their favor based upon dubious rationales.
“The bucket adjustment was done in 2003, you silly goose, long before the pause became a talking point.”
Nope. Karlization was done in 2015.
“The satellite revisions both UAH and RSS are larger than the combined surface revisions for the last decade or so.”
Based upon what metric? Which revisions are based upon sound science, and which are kluges? Which preserve the notable characteristics, and which eliminate them?
“The surface data sets also make revisions that change trends in both directions.”
Again with the trends. Useless.
More data is not necessarily better if it is biased data.
Are you inching towards saying something substantive?
Me: “Why are you talking about trends?”
Thee: Because that is how they try to sway minds…
Contrarian babble. And bull. You drop the word in when it suits, castigate usage when someone else does. You’re all over the shop.
What does this trend tell us about the direction of the series going forward?
The trends we’re talking about tell us little about what will happen, only what has happened.
I impugn [trends] for transparently trying to shift perceptions in their favor based upon dubious rationales.
Rationales you are determined not to detail or discuss. Contrarianism 101.
Me: The bucket adjustment was done in 2003, you silly goose, long before the pause became a talking point.
Thee: Nope. Karlization was done in 2015.
It has become patently obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. The original sip/bucket adjustment that significantly lowered to long-term trend in SSTs was done in 2002, which NOAA applied to their SST record in 2003 (ERSSTv1).
Here’s the graph – you’ll recognize the profile:
http://tinyurl.com/y9vt4rkn
From this paper:
http://tinyurl.com/y8b73vjx>Smith and Reynolds 2002
Karl extended the bucket reconstruction, but the pre-1941 upwards adjustment that lowered the long-term trend was done 13 years earlier. The main flap over Karl 2015 was the sip/buoy adjustment. You may have been confused by a graph in Karl’s paper that shows data with and without corrections (no bucket adjustment), but the graph above it compares his adjustments with the previous adjusted data)
So, no, the bucket adjustment was not a jimmy to eradicate any ‘pause,’ you silly goose, because that correction happened years before the ‘pause.’
Which revisions are based upon sound science, and which are kluges? Which preserve the notable characteristics, and which eliminate them?
The “kluges” you refuse to discuss, and the one which you got completely wrong?
When are you going to move beyond announcements and rhetorical questions? I think we both know you are not ever going to have a serious discussion about methods and rationales in any substantive way. And I’m certainly not going to do that for you.
Me: The surface data sets also make revisions that change trends in both directions.
Thee: Again with the trends. Useless.
So the trends don’t matter to you. Thanks for clarifying. Then let me put it in a way you may accept.
The changes in anomalies are larger in the satellite data sets – RSS and UAH – than in any other revision of the last 10 years in the surface data sets for the satellite period.
You reckon UAH changes are insignificant – as in small. It must follow that changes in the surface data sets are even less significant.
Smith and Reynolds 2002 was badly formatted in my post. Here it is, the original ship intake/bucket adjustment paper.
http://tinyurl.com/y8b73vjx
You can see the ship/bucket adjustment graph in Fig 10. This one.
http://tinyurl.com/y9vt4rkn
The correction was applied in ERSSTv1, in 2003. Years before the ‘pause’ became a thing.
You got that way wrong, bucko.
Seeing as I’ve linked a paper for you on an adjustment you think is a “kluge,” perhaps you can reference Smith and Reynolds 2002 and start a discussion on what you think is wrong with the ship intake/bucket adjustment.
Perhaps you will finally substantiate something.
“The trends were talking about tell us little about what will happen, only what has happened.”
It doesn’t even do that. All it tells you is that, this is the line that minimizes the sum of squares of distances to all the points. It doesn’t even necessarily tell you if the data are currently rising or falling, just what the preponderance was based on a least squares criterion over a specific period.
Straight lines don’t tell you much of anything that allows you to correlate causative agents. In our case, we have a long term rise which predated significant CO2 production, with an ~65 year cyclical term superimposed on top. Those features correlate with other phenomena, but not CO2.
“The original sip/bucket adjustment that significantly lowered to long-term trend in SSTs was done in 2002, which NOAA applied to their SST record in 2003 (ERSSTv1).”
I don’t know what flight of fancy you are off on, but I am specifically talking about the recent manipulations that smoothed out the readily apparent turnaround of the ~65 year cycle.
You are looking for different things than I am. You are looking for useless trend lines. I am looking for identifying characteristics.
“The kluges you refuse to discuss, and the one which you got completely wrong?”
I discussed one. I was/am completely right. You were off arguing some other point.
“The changes in anomalies are larger in the satellite data sets RSS and UAH than in any other revision of the last 10 years in the surface data sets for the satellite period.”
Again, based upon solid theory for known errors, and not on kluges.
“It must follow that changes in the surface data sets are even less significant.”
They have altered the character of the data, smoothing out features that give clues to underlying causes.
You don’t get what it is I am arguing about. Your counterarguments are simply not germane. I don’t know what I can do to rectify the situation.
Again, we have the gatekeepers of the surface data, in print, conspiring to find ways to alter the records to better support the meme.
And, we have the independent proxy of the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, which is a much better match with the satellite data.
Any reasonably educated, intelligent person without an agenda would look at those items and say, yes, the surface data are dodgy, and the satellite data are better.
I know what you are saying, but these declarative statements are only that.
You laud the satellite record and denigrate the surface records based on hugger-mugger and announcements. You criticise because of the optics – (correlation with CO2) but not the underlying methods. This is political bibble babble.
In not one post in all our conversations have you pointed to a particular adjustment and said what is specifically wrong with it.
And you’re wrong about Karl and bucket adjustments, but instead of citing something and detailing your issue, you simply repeat your declarations.
Do you seriously not see that this is your MO? How can you be so blind? It’s all regurgitation of blog conclusions and not one whit of any analysis.
Again, based upon solid theory for known errors, and not on kluges.</i.
Here again, an empty, pure declaration. No reference to anything particular, no analysis of what is wrong with the methods.
You're convincing no one but yourself.
Let's get the bucket thing right at least. A quick walk through our statements on it, in order to focus:
Me: “The ship/bucket correction lowered long-term trends.”
Thee: That was the price they paid for illegitimately fudging out the pause.
Karl et al 2015 did not lower long-term trends.
Karl et al 2015 raised the long-term trend by 0.03C (1900-2014) compared to NOAA’s official data set.
You do not know what you are talking about.
The ship/bucket adjustment that significantly lowered long-term trends was applied to NOAA’s SST record in 2003.
Long before the ‘pause’ became an issue.
I’ve provided the links and the proof. Karl’s adjustment made virtually no difference to NOAA’s pre-1940 record – the major revision had already been done. You were given the references and links to graphs. You didn’t check them out.
This is worse than contrarianism. It’s straight denial. Sand. Head. Bury.
Another example of you getting it completely wrong.
Me: “The bucket adjustment was done in 2003, you silly goose, long before the pause became a talking point.”
Thee Nope. Karlization was done in 2015.
Karl et al did no original work on temp records. They made no bucket adjustments. The paper took data recently corrected by other peopleother people and included a couple more years based on other peoples’ adjustments.
You say you’ve read these papers? Doubtful, and certainly not for comprehension.
But ‘Karlization’ is a nifty bit of personality-based, rhetorical BS. That’s what you’ve learned, if anything. From blogs.
I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing with your obfuscation and petty quibbling, but we seem to be getting nowhere. The satellite data are objectively superior. That’s all there is to it. If you are intent on fooling yourself, I cannot stop you.
We’re getting nowhere because all you do is repeat things and get things wrong.
We’d progress, maybe, if you’d admit you were wrong on the bucket adjustment.
But as we know, you don’t admit when you’re wrong. You just blow more hot air. Finis.
Barry,
Bart: ‘The satellite data are objectively superior. Thats all there is to it.’
This is how arguing with Bart always ends in my experience.
You can present facts, logical arguments and valid criticisms of his assertions, but in the end he always comes back to belief.
And he doesnt seem to understand why, without factual support, others dont just believe his beliefs.
As I’ve said to him, this is how religion works, not how science works.
It is certainly not how scientists properly argue and come to consensus.
BTW
The satellite measurements are objectively inferior in the following ways.
1. They are measuring the temperature of the troposphere, which contains a miniscule fraction of the thermal energy of the whole climate system (land-ocean-atm).
2. The variation of temperature due to climate noise (ENSO, volcanoes) is much larger in the satellite data than in the surface data.
3. The track record shows much larger adjustments in the satellite data than the surface data.
4. The disagreement in trends between sets analyzed by different research groups is much larger for the satellite data than for the surface sets, because subjective choices must be made in modeling corrections.
“You can present facts, logical arguments and valid criticisms of his assertions…”
Then, why don’t you?
“…in the end he always comes back to ….”
… acknowledging that arguing with religion is futile.
“1. They are measuring the temperature of the troposphere, which contains a miniscule fraction of the thermal energy of the whole climate system (land-ocean-atm).”
Ridiculous. Every data set relies on extrapolation to the whole. None of them measure the entire thermal energy of the Earth.
“2. The variation of temperature due to climate noise (ENSO, volcanoes) is much larger in the satellite data than in the surface data.”
Strange argument that better coverage resulting in more sensitive results is worse than some sparse melange that fails to pick up major impacts.
“3. The track record shows much larger adjustments in the satellite data than the surface data.”
Again, based on hard science, and not hand-waving kluges.
“4. The disagreement in trends between sets analyzed by different research groups is much larger for the satellite data than for the surface sets, because subjective choices must be made in modeling corrections.”
Another strange argument that groupthink resulting in homogeneous results is somehow better than data subject to active competition.
Your response shows you have no interest in objectivity. These are actual problems that make researchers reluctant to rely on the satellite data.
As of a year ago, it was 1.8C over the full UAH record. This year, it is now 0.95 C over the same period. Huh? What is a researcher that needs to know the warming rate of the Arctic to make of this?
‘that better coverage resulting in more sensitive results is worse than some sparse melange…’
It is nothing to with better coverage leading to higher sensitivity.
The sensitivity for determining long-term trends (what is of primary interest to most) is reduced because of enhanced climate noise.
You really think larger ENSO peaks is a better reflection of reality? ENSO clearly impacts the troposphere differently than it does the surface.
Sparceness is not a big problem. As Barry has shown, 1/10 as many points does almost as well.
Here’s
‘As of a year ago, it was 1.8C over the full UAH record. This year, it is now 0.95 C over the same period.’
This was referring to the Arctic only.
‘strange argument that groupthink resulting in homogeneous results is somehow better than data subject to active competition.’
What you call groupthink is called reproducibility by scientists. Multiple independent groups reproducing a result is always reassuring. In the case of the surface temps there are > 6 different competing teams.
Lack of agreement is, objectively, not reassuring.
‘3. The track record shows much larger adjustments in the satellite data than the surface data.
‘Again, based on hard science, and not hand-waving kluges.’
You have evidence that one group is practicing ‘hard science’ and the other ‘hand waving’, or are you just showing your bias?
I think both are practicing hard science. Extracting accurate temps from satellite data is objectively harder than measuring with thermometers.
“Your response shows you have no interest in objectivity.”
No, my response shows that you have no counterargument, and are growing frustrated.
“These are actual problems that make researchers reluctant to rely on the satellite data.”
These are quibbles that allow people to duck responsibility for going against the tide of popular opinion.
“What is a researcher that needs to know the warming rate of the Arctic to make of this?”
That the lastest results are the best available, and they will have to incorporate them into their latest analyses.
“The sensitivity for determining long-term trends (what is of primary interest to most) …”
If that is of primary interest to you, then you are a neophyte who really should not pretend to being capable of assessing the data.
“As Barry has shown, 1/10 as many points does almost as well.”
Sure and, in any given dense set, there is a single point that is the exact average. This is the Intermediate Value Theorem. It is always the case. It does not mean you can pick any data point and say it represents the average, and it does not mean you can pick the same point in disjoint sets and claim it represents the average. This is cherry picking, plain and simple.
“Multiple independent groups reproducing a result is always reassuring.”
When they’re drinking from the same pool, it’s not independent.
“Lack of agreement is, objectively, not reassuring.”
180 degrees from the truth.
“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – George S. Patton
“I think both are practicing hard science.”
Adjustments for known impacts of orbital drift are much more reliable than a blanket adjustment to ARGO floats based on arbitrary averages of poor quality bucket data. It’s not even close to being in the same class.
Bart,
Everything you say drips with contempt for one group of scientists, whose results you dislike. The other guys are clearly geniuses. No real objective reasons for this. You clearly read too many agenda driven blogs.
It becomes increasingly difficult to take you seriously.
Any counterfactuals are quibbling. No sometimes a cigar is a cigar.
‘quibble over even smaller changes to recent trends’
A change in trend going from from .5C/decade to 0.24/decade in Arctic is hardly a quibble.
‘If that is of primary interest to you, then you are a neophyte who really should not pretend to being capable of assessing the data.’
Pointless ad-hom
‘It does not mean you can pick any data point and say it represents the average, and it does not mean you can pick the same point in disjoint sets and claim it represents the average. This is cherry picking, plain and simple.’
Nothing like what is done. Read some papers!
Again if many groups find similar results, ‘cherry’ picking points differently, Occams razor says the liklihood they are all wrong is slim.
“A change in trend going from from .5C/decade to 0.24/decade in Arctic is hardly a quibble.”
When it needs to be more like 3 times that amount to be of any concern at all, it’s a quibble. And, again, it is based on known drift characteristics. Hard science. Not some airy-fairy appeal to nebulous might-have-beens.
“Again if many groups find similar results, cherry picking points differently, Occams razor says the liklihood they are all wrong is slim.”
They’re not different. It’s the same data, the same speculative appeals, the same analyses. These are not independent judgments.
I’m just giving my honest opinion, Nate. I have read the climate emails. I’ve seen all the unsupported assertions and kluges. I’ve read the awful papers. I’ve watched numbskulls in the last couple of weeks maunder on about how hurricanes never happened before we started burning fossil fuels, or equivalent nonsense.
It’s all a rush to judgment based on what people want to be true, with barely any foundational support at all. It isn’t science. It’s a travesty.
‘Im just giving my honest opinion, Nate’
Good, fine to have opinions, as I do, but treating them like facts is not cool. They are not equivalent.
You saying ‘objectively’ when it is not at all that, is as annoying as all the people saying ‘literally’.
More so. Because I am right. You will see.
Reminds me of
‘They all laughed at me. But theyll see. Ill show them all!’
They all laughed at Christopher Columbus,
When he said the world was round.
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound.
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother,
When they said that man could fly.
They told Marconi wireless was a phony,
It’s the same old cry.
They laughed at me wanting you,
Said I was reaching for the moon.
But oh, you came through,
Now they’ll have to change their tune.
They all said we never could be happy,
They laughed at us and how!
But ho, ho, ho! Who’s got the last laugh now?
Fred Astaire – They All Laughed
my quote was from classic movie mad scientists, captures your persona well.
Bart,
‘Marconi…Edison…Columbus’
Every year there are
dozens of revolutionaries who have found the flaw in relativity theory…
dozens who proved the uncertainty principle invalid…
hundreds who have found a way to achieve perpetual motion…
hundreds more who have shown that free energy can be obtained from water..
I get emails from some of these people.
I don’t recall their names.
“…dozens of revolutionaries who have found the flaw in relativity theory “
Relativity theory is known to be flawed. It does not mesh with quantum mechanics, which is far more extensively verified and applied. But, it provides useful results on large scales – GPS would not work nearly as well if the signals were not corrected in line with formulas derivable from it.
But, I agree, there are many who cannot wrap their heads around the concepts of non-absolute time and space, and they produce beaucoups of misguided screeds against it based on misunderstandings. I am not one of them.
“…dozens who proved the uncertainty principle invalid”
Up to the moment you check them, they have. And, have not 😉
“…hundreds who have found a way to achieve perpetual motion”
Yes, the belief that water vapor feedback can substantially amplify warming from CO2 induced warming without any countervailing reaction is one.
“…hundreds more who have shown that free energy can be obtained from water..”
And, millions more who think solar and wind power are “free”.
You are right to be wary. But, you can’t dismiss a proposition out of hand based merely on the assumption that it is unlikely. You need to exercise due diligence with your own lump of grey matter, and avoid making conclusions based on fallacious reasoning.
‘You need to exercise due diligence with your own lump of grey matter’
Exactly what I am doing with your ideas.
You ought to welcome the free critiques, but you dont. You dig in heels, come up with hare-brained schemes to explain away flaws that are glaring to others.
Even those revoltionaries you mentioned, most had sounding boards.
Oh, I do actually appreciate some of your inputs. It’s always good to be challenged to refine your case.
But, then you go off into the weeds on some quibble that you seem to think is a major issue, when it’s really just holding stochastic models up to impossible deterministic standards. And, you never demand the same standards of the AGW case.
I sense you have a driving need to deny the obvious. Perhaps you are employed in the field. If so, you should consider getting out in front of things, instead of clinging to the herd. Because the herd is charging for the cliff.
barry…”What I am saying is that you have an unreasonable and patently deluded bias toward this data set”.
Nothing delusional about my interest in the UAH data sets and graph. NASA and the American Meteorological Society awarded UAH medals for excellence for creating it.
The rest are compromised, including RSS.
It’s totally deluded. you think it’s the ‘best’ despite significant revision recently and denial that they have to correct for drift and orbital decay, as well as compensate for spurious emissions artefacts (from surface, clouds, water vapour).
All this you deny, even though I’ve cited Christy and Spencer on it.
That’s why you’re deluded.
The other researchers have won prizes, too. What a preposterous basis for concluding any data set is the best one.
That’s also why you are deluded.
Models performance with Irma I would give a grade of B- to B.
You seem to have no idea about what the models produced about Irma’s storm track. You are basing your opinion on newspaper headlines.
Predictions about the fluctuations in the storm’s intensity have been pretty much bang on. The current track of Irma is still within the envelope of predictions of a few days ago.
This doesn’t mean the model is great – could have been coincidence.
But you should be less desperate to denigrate all modeling when ignorant of what the models say. You make things up in order to bash AGW. You peddle fake news.
For those who missed my post earlier re lapse rate:
Lapse Ratefrom UCARAs you climb a mountain, you can expect the air temperature to decrease by 6.5 degrees C for every 1000 meters you gain. This is called the standard (average) lapse rate.
https://scied.ucar.edu/webweather/weather-ingredients/change-atmosphere-altitude
BTWEverest is 8848 metres. At 6.5 C/1000 metres, that works out to 8848m(6.5C/1000m) = 57.5C.
As I said, during a summers day solar radiation will warm you on Everest, however, at night, you can freeze to death very easily, even when wearing proper thermal survival gear. If theres an appreciable wind blowing, forget it.
That proves conclusively that warming due to CO2 is trivial. Its the Sun.
“That proves conclusively that warming due to CO2 is trivial. Its the Sun.”
Everything you said up to this point was interesting and correct. But this does NOT in anyway refute the greenhouse effect.
Tim, by any chance are you referring to the infamous Arrhenius/CO2/IPCC/AGW greenhouse effect?
That nonsense was debunked decades ago. It only hangs on in pseudoscience.
g*r…”That nonsense was debunked decades ago. It only hangs on in pseudoscience”.
Some people grasp at straws rather than study the real atmosphere. John Christy points out that it is a complex system that scientists don’t yet understand fully. Since the 1800s, in the times of Tyndall and Arrhenius, no one has proved that CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to warming. The conclusion comes back to, “what else could it be”?
Hint: the oceans…ENSO, the PDO, the AMO, etc.
-re AGW…and the Little Ice Age. We are not experiencing warming, we are experiencing rewarming from a mini ice age.
“Tim, by any chance are you referring to the infamous Arrhenius/CO2/IPCC/AGW greenhouse effect?”
I am referring to the ability of a collection of gases (CO2, CH2, H20 …) to absorb thermal IR heading upward from the ground. When less energy can leave from the earth to outer space, then more energy must stay withing the earth system. That is simple conservation of energy. And when mroe thermal energy stays, the system warms.
“That nonsense was debunked decades ago.”
Last I heard, neither the ability of CO2 to absorb IR nor conservation of energy has been debunked.
When less energy can leave from the earth to outer space, then more energy must stay withing the earth system.
This is poorly phrased. In a steady state condition, the same amount leaves as enters, regardless of heat retention at the surface.
What you mean to say is that, if energy in a particular band is impeded, then the energy in other bands must increase to make up the difference to reach steady state. And, that increase in other bands could come about due to increase in surface temperature.
But, not necessarily. Convective currents can carry heat above the filter of the lower atmosphere, where it can be released to space relatively unimpeded. Moreover, IR radiating components in the lower atmosphere can be thermalized by other constituents, providing an avenue for their heat to radiate away, producing a cooling effect.
So no, it is not nearly cut and dried that an incremental increase in a particular GHG concentration will necessarily lead to greater heat retention at the surface.
— Bart says:
September 11, 2017 at 12:24 AM
When less energy can leave from the earth to outer space, then more energy must stay withing the earth system.
This is poorly phrased. In a steady state condition, the same amount leaves as enters, regardless of heat retention at the surface.–
Is earth in a steady state condition?
I seems to me that if Earth is warming or cooling it’s not in
steady state condition.
And Earth is warming or cooling.
It’s warming and cooling in terms of thousands of years. It’s warming and cooling in terms of every 24 hours and it’s warming in cooling in terms seasons [tilt of axis as orbits the sun.
I would say there is relatively constant condition in terms of the amount of sunlight reflected. And roughly the amount of sunlight reflected by Earth as remained about the same for, say last billion years. And likewise for the Moon, Mars, Venus, etc. And during this time Earth average temperature has changed, and wouldn’t be too surprised if Venus and Mars average temperature has changed. I doubt the Moon’s temperature has changed, and btw, does the amount of sunlight reflected from the Moon tell you it’s average temperature?
Anyways amount sunlight reflected indicates an amount absorbed and the amount absorbed will be the amount which is radiated [roughly].
The amount the Earth tropics absorbs doesn’t equal the amount the tropics radiates, which confirms what most have assumed which is that the tropical region warms the rest of the planet.
I wonder how other explain how the tropics has average temperature of about 28 C and the rest of the world has a lower average temperature.
I am particularly curious about the various ideas regarding amount warming done by CO2 in the tropics.
Tim confuses the issue: “And when more thermal energy stays, the system warms.”
The atmosphere does NOT “trap heat”, Tim. A warmer atmosphere just radiates more IR space.
More Tim spin: “Last I heard, neither the ability of CO2 to absorb IR nor conservation of energy has been debunked.”
Tim, no one said “the ability of CO2 to absorb IR or conservation of energy has been debunked”, as you attempt to imply .
Tim Folkerts says, September 10, 2017 at 9:09 PM:
But more thermal energy isn’t staying because “GHGs” absorb more IR, Tim. More thermal energy isn’t staying because of an “enhanced GHE”. More thermal energy stays because the solar heat to the earth system (the ASR, net SW, TSI minus albedo) has increased. The INPUT has increased. The OUTPUT hasn’t decreased. It has increased in correspondence with the temperature, but the temperature hasn’t yet risen enough for the output (the OLR) to catch up with – and thereby balance – the extra solar input. That’s how and why we still have a positive imbalance at the ToA. The Sun, not the “GHE”. Here’s the simple (and quite natural) causal chain:
+ASR => +T => +OLR
A higher rate of heat GAIN leads to higher temps, which in turn lead to a higher rate of heat LOSS.
There’s no use appealing to theory when observations disconfirm your predictions.
A warmer atmosphere just radiates more IR space.
It radiates more in every direction.
“Theres no use appealing to theory when observations disconfirm your predictions.”
Actual data is ALWAYS an EXCELLENT place to start, and does indeed trump theory! Could you point me to the data upon which you base your conclusions?
Tropical region which is 40% of Earth surface area, gets more than 50% of the sunlight which reaches Earth.
The tropics gets more 50% at TOA and gets more than 50% at the surface.
And Tropics absorbs a higher portion of the sunlight as compared to the average areas in the rest of the world.
Or get more than 1/2 of sunlight and absorbs more of this sunlight at it’s surface.
Now the regions just outside the tropics are not much different than the tropics.
Or at 30 degree latitude [outside tropics] is not big difference as compared to being 45 degree latitude.
Or tropics is 40% of area and that 23 1/2 N and S latitude one instead say to region within 30 degrees north and south latitude thereby increase surface area so more than 40% of surface Earth. Or so it’s near 1/2 of the Earth surface, leaving the tow poleward halves above 30 degree latitude each having 25% of total earth area.
Tim Folkerts says, September 11, 2017 at 10:34 AM:
For ASR and OLR: ERBS Ed3_Rev1 and CERES EBAF Ed4. For TLT data, there’s a link on this very site.
Tim F…”I am referring to the ability of a collection of gases (CO2, CH2, H20 ) to absorb thermal IR heading upward from the ground. When less energy can leave from the earth to outer space, then more energy must stay withing the earth system. That is simple conservation of energy. And when mroe thermal energy stays, the system warms”.
You keep specifying energy without explaining which energy you mean. There is no such thing as thermal IR since IR is electromagnetic energy and has nothing in common with thermal energy. Both are products of electrons in atoms.
The surface will radiate IR till it is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. That has nothing to do with GHGs in the atmosphere, the only factor is the temperature of the air above the surface. If the air is cooler the surface will radiate if it’s warmer it will absorb.
Why did you not mention N2/O2 which accounts for 99%+ of the atmosphere? Both absorb thermal energy directly from the surface and transfer it high into the atmosphere. There are no GHGs capable of doing that except for water vapour included with the rising N2/O2.
bart…”This is poorly phrased. In a steady state condition, the same amount leaves as enters, regardless of heat retention at the surface”.
That is the basis of the GHE theory, that infrared emitted from the surface is somehow slowed down. It’s rubbish physics. There is no way to slow down infrared from the surface, it’s emission is due entirely to a difference in temperature between the surface and it’s surroundings.
The inference is that GHGs act as a blanket to trap heat, which is even more rubbish. Where this convoluted theory came from is a mystery. The Earth is warm because we have oceans that tend to retain heat due to the ability of water to store it at depth. That heat is transferred through the oceans by streams of water like the Gulf Stream.
The theoretical calculations that produce a 33C difference between an Earth with no atmosphere and an Earth with an atmosphere completely ignore the Earth with 73% of it’s surface area as oceans.
The average temperature of the Earth is a balance between incoming solar energy, energy emitted from the surface, and particularly, energy transferred from the surface via conduction and convection.
It’s good old thermal energy in = thermal energy out. Slowing, blankets, trapping, not required.
I’m sorry Gordon but, that is just not the case. This part, at least, of the GHE hypothesis is on solid ground. If you put a material between an object and a heat source that lets the source radiation through, but attenuates some of that which leaves, then the object will heat above what it otherwise would have been.
The principle is used every day on hundreds of satellites orbiting the Earth sporting blankets made of these materials.
The key difference between a space vehicle utilizing these blankets and the Earth with its IR absorbing atmospheric gases is, there is no convection of heat between the vehicle body and the MLI in space, and radiative exchange dominates. That is not at all the case on the Earth.
tim f …”But this does NOT in anyway refute the greenhouse effect”.
Why does it need to be refuted, it’s never been proved? It’s a metaphor at best.
It’s called the ‘greenhouse’ effect yet the theory in no way duplicates a greenhouse. It’s the glass in a greenhouse that traps air molecules, allowing them to heat well beyond what they’d heat with convection. The atmosphere is rife with convection.
Also, as I’ve pointed out several times, the so-called glass in the atmosphere, GHGs, represent 1% of the atmosphere on average. That would represent a 100 pane greenhouse with 99 panes removed.
Dr. Spencer, is there evidence that global temperatures fall after major hurricanes? Do they act to release energy from the oceans to the atmosphere? Is their severity tied to El Nio?
I highly doubt it. Hurricanes suck energy up from the ocean. So for that small portion of the world’s oceans a hurricane takes energy from, there is a temperature drop. But now the energy is in the atmosphere, so you could argue that the atmosphere is now warmer.
But I think the energy change would be too small to measure against a global background.
One way to test would be to plot a long-term profile of hurricane activity against global temps. If temps regularly dip in very active seasons, then you may have some correlation. But I think it’s virtually certain you won’t find a relationship there. Might have better luck with a regional rather than global correlation.
barry is correct, here. Hurricanes do “suck up” heat energy from the water. Some of the August UAH global anomaly was due to hurricane Harvey. That energy then moves through the atmosphere to be radiated to space. The end result is cooling.
Same for El Nino.
Some of the August UAH global anomaly was due to hurricane Harvey
Technically yes, but would the influence be noticeable?
Only if one is able to understand the UAH graph at the top.
Enumerate how much energy was transferred from ocean to atmosphere by hurricane Harvey, and what proportion of the 0.1C total global increase from July to August.
If you’re suggesting that Harvey made a noticeable impact on global temps, we should see a larger bump in global temps this month, as Irma was more powerful and traveled longer over the oceans.
What’s your numerical prediction for the September bump up in global temps in the UAH graph at the top?
We don’t have enough solid measurements. There are many calculations, based on assumptions and estimates–it’s called “guessing”.
So you have no idea?
Perhaps you didn’t mean to give the impression that the influence of Harvey on a month’s worth of global temps was something you could pin down by understanding the UAH global temperature plot.
Or perhaps you didn’t think before you typed?
Would you commit to forecasting a bump up in global temps this month due to Irma – which is a more powerful, longer-at-sea hurricane the Harvey?
No?
Then don’t shoot from the hip.
barry, you seem to be incorrectly inferring a lot from my brief comments.
Maybe it you that is shooting from the hip?
You may be right. This comment…
Only if one is able to understand the UAH graph at the top.
… in the context of the conversation was cryptic enough to lead me astray.
Is their severity tied to El Nio?
Potentially, but with different results for different regions.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hurr/enso.rxml
Gordon,
Where the heck would that spurious radiation come from and what other factor affect what the instrument is measuring?
I suggest you read one of the foundational papers by Spencer and Christy.
http://tinyurl.com/ycsaalcz
“…the MSU channel 2 Tb measurement cannot be ascribed totally to oxygen thermal emission, as some contributions from clouds, water vapour and the surface exist.”
These require compensation, in the form of radiative transfer equations to derive a temperature of the target swathe of atmosphere, especially that of the lower troposphere.
what other factor affect what the instrument is measuring?
As I said, the change in viewing angle of the instrument also has to be compensated for. When the instrument passes nadir (vertical measurement), the emission path length gets longer (this is mentioned in the paper), and this has to be compensated for.
Orbital decay and drift, as well as different instruments flying on different satellites over the period of the MSU record need to be compensated and intercalibrated. Despite Christy saying these problems had been fixed a decade and more ago, the revision two years ago included yet another drift adjustment.
The issues are ongoing.
As Ive said many times, I respect the work of Spencer and Christy.
I have no problem with UAH.
What I am saying is that you have an unreasonable and patently deluded bias toward this data set.
You raise its status above the others based on misconceptions about how it is formulated. You deny that the latest revision is significant, while at the same time denigrating surface data sets which have undergone smaller revisions post 1979 than UAH.
All temp data sets have to deal with confounding factors. None are perfect, all are estimates.
Im challenging your delusions about UAH, not discrediting it.
Gordon,
If the Internet was an “intra-cummunications systems between universities” then the Manhattan project must have been a free energy experiment? Pretty sure it was pentagon funded from the get go. Especially under Reagan when most of the top secret telecom stuff went up. Reagan released GPS in 1983 to the general public. If only he had released the Internet at the same time. As for his dereg, the least amount of govt is always best. Millions of mass graves and World history prices that. That being said, glass steagall and dereg of the govt sponsored entities under Clinton, too much if the housing collapse is any judge. if anyone doubts Reagan won the Cold War with the Internet GPS and patriots they might want to ask themselve why the Russians threw such a fit over the planned deployment of Patriots in Poland etc. Recall the reset where Obama cancelled the deployment ” I can be more flexible after the election”? Imagine giving up ground like that? Not since we had the drop on China and North Korea in the 50s. How ironic they now threaten us, with only patriots standing in the way? Thank you Reagan. Btw, Canada is a great country with some of the nicest people in the world (having broken there down there a few times) and crime free). I think we pretty much agree on everything assuming you’re for limited socialism. I’m sure glad you’re on my side as far as the hoax is concerned. I’ve learned so much from your comments. Thank you brah.
Darwin Wyatt…”I think we pretty much agree on everything assuming youre for limited socialism”.
No need to limit socialism, it’s a democratically-based system that has a broad interpretation with regard to capitalism and a market system. It’s really up to what the voters will tolerate.
Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks in Russia stole the name socialism and it has become associated with despotic communism in Russia and China. Maybe that’s what you meant by limited socialism, but the socialism to which I refer originated in democratic countries like Canada, the UK, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
The US has a limited socialism with it’s Medicare and other social programs. Back in the early part of the 20th century the US had pretty strong socialist factions like the Wobblies. The emergence of the Bolshevik era put some serious dampers on that movement, especially after the McCarthy paranoia.
The socialism we have in Canada has absolutely nothing to do with the Bolshevik nightmare. I think we have a pretty good balance of socialism and capitalism.
Irma will remain as low in the southeastern US. Jose has a course to the west.
https://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/archdat/atlantic/winds/ir/20170911.0000.goes-13.ir.wind.cimss.x.jpg
Large temperature difference between Florida and Georgia.
http://images.intellicast.com/WxImages/CurrentTemps/tlh.jpg
Backradian “shines” 24/7. One can therefore perform a backradiation “insolation” type calculation, so to speak:
333 W/m2 times 24 hours = 7,992 Wh/m2/day, or 8.0 kWh/m2/day. That is an enormous amount of energy. Has anyone ever harnessed this energy to perform actual work?? Hmmm? No? Why not?
Now if one lives in the desert of Arizona, I can look up a solar insolation map and find that there is about 7.5 kWh/m2/day of solar energy available for me to harness using solar panels.
Yet Trenberth in his energy balance diagram tells us that 1 W/m2 of solar radiation is equivalent to 1 W/m2 of backradiation.
Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
“Has anyone ever harnessed this energy to perform actual work??
Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
The short answer is that that problem lies in the fundamental limitation of heat engines. Extracting work requires a temperature difference. The sky would be the “hot reservoir” if you wanted to extract work — but it is rather cold already. You would need an even colder “cold reservoir”, and even then you could only hope to extract a small fraction of the ~ 333 W/m^2 potentially available energy.
In physics invoking an energy flux such as the sky back radiation does by no means imply that the relevant energy might ever be “harnessed”. You cannot extract work from sky radiation because your equipment is at a higher temperature as the sky. This is prevented by the second principle of thermodynamics. Yet this does not mean that this flux doesn’t exist. It’s unescapable thermal radiation that satisfies the first principle of thermodynamics and has to be taken into account in order to conserve the energy at the ground, for instance.
“Useful” work is constrained release of energy, that is energy that can only be extracted under restrictive conditions such as, for instance, Carnot was the first to become aware of when the energy in question is in the form of heat. More generally there must systematically be an out of thermodynamic equilibrium situation with sources at different temperatures that could sustain spontaneous (entropy increasing) processes such as heat flow from hot to cold. Only then is it possible to tap a thermal engine on these sources. Or if the energy is in the form of chemical energy such as in living creatures there must be an out of equilibrium situation with available molecules high in free energy capable to enter in spontaneous exergonic reactions that can be coupled to the useful indispensable endergonic reactions that sustain life.
This back radiation thing is simple basics. In physics when one studies the important problem of thermal radiation in equilibrium with an enclosure at temperature T one clearly distinguishes an energy flux drawn from radiation field (or photon gas) to the enclosure in the form of radiation absorbed by the enclosure that, as soon as equilibrium is reached, is exactly balanced by an opposite energy flux of radiation emitted by the enclosure and added to the radiation field (or photon gas). Of course no work can ever be extracted in such a system at thermal equilibrium.
In the case of the troposphere there is similarly an energy flux from troposphere to the ground and an opposite energy flux from ground to the troposphere both in form of thermal IR. Yet they are now not exactly balanced because troposphere and ground are not in thermal equilibrium, the ground being maintained at a somewhat higher temperature than the troposphere by the sun.
If you want to extract work from that you have to use a heat engine and draw heat from ground or sea surface (high temperature source) convert some into work and release the remainder into the troposphere (low temperature source) exactly as convection cells and hurricanes naturally do.
Cold is cheap.
There are tankers of cold liquid being hauled around [perhaps you have notice?]- and the main cost is hauling it around.
Or it’s somewhere around the price of dirt.
And Earth naturally has lot cold stuff- we got a whole continent at -50 C
SkepticGoneWild says, September 11, 2017 at 4:58 AM:
Indeed.
The two are not in any way equivalent fluxes of energy. In fact, the one (the solar flux, the ASR) is an actual incoming heat flux, while the other (the DWLWIR) isn’t a separate macroscopic flux at all, it’s really just derived from temperature calculations, as part of the outgoing heat flux. Yet people walk around believing they are equivalent fluxes. Because of these diagrams, and because “climate science” keeps telling us that they basically work the same way – that you can freely add them together and get a larger incoming heat flux to the surface, directly raising its temperature some more.
Organized stupidity. Willful ignorance.
Nice explanation.
Wikipedia define the term “energy” as “the property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object”
Do you think backradiation is true “energy”, since it does not seem to be able to perform work?
My take on the whole deal is that the only energy you have to warm the earth is what is available from the sun at the TOA. Period. And that amount cannot be multiplied as is shown in the Trenberth energy balance diagram.
“Do you think backradiation is true energy
Certainly backradiation is “true energy”. Just like the vibrations of molecules in cold objects is “true energy”. The fact that these forms of energy cannot easily be extracted for useful purposes does not change that fact. If it weren’t true energy, then all sorts of violations of conservation of energy would occur.
“the only energy you have to warm the earth is what is available from the sun”
OK. (Plus a tiny bit of geothermal energy).
“that amount cannot be multiplied as is shown in the Trenberth energy balance diagram.”
Nothing is being multiplied. It is all carefully added and subtracted to uphold conservation of energy.
The only potentially tricky/confusing/challenging thing on the diagram is the splitting of thermal IR into an ‘upward component’ (396 W/m^2) from the surface and a ‘downward component’ (333 W/m^2) from the atmosphere. Personally I like showing both, but others prefer showing just the net value (63 W/m^2 upward). Both paradigms get you to the same conclusion — that the radiative effects of the atmosphere limit the radiative loses from the surface, which means a higher surface temperature.
Tim Folkerts says, September 11, 2017 at 9:47 AM:
No, Tim. What limits the radiative losses from the surface is:
1) the atmosphere reducing the average heat INPUT from the sun to the surface greatly (from ~295 to ~165 W/m^2), and
2) other heat loss mechanisms beside the radiative one taking care of a substantial portion of the total heat loss from the surface, in earth’s case reducing the radiative portion by ~68%, from a potential ~165 to an actual ~53 W/m^2.
What forces the average surface temperature up as this happens is the fact that the atmosphere is much warmer than space (so there’s a much smaller effective temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings), and because the atmosphere is heavy and viscous (is has molecular density and exerts a pressure).
CO2 simply helps enabling the atmosphere to affect the surface thermally even after a state of dynamic equilibrium has been reached, connecting the two systems thermodynamically, allowing heat to flow through the atmosphere.
It does NOT impede heat transfer. It also doesnt CAUSE surface warming.
“It is all carefully added and subtracted to uphold conservation of energy.”
Sloppy. Watts is not a unit of energy, but of power, of the time flux of energy. Watts do not have to be conserved, only their time integral in a closed system. The concept used is equilibrium, not conservation of energy.
“Both paradigms get you to the same conclusion that the radiative effects of the atmosphere limit the radiative loses from the surface, which means a higher surface temperature.”
They do not tell us the incremental change in Watts required for equilibrium due to an incremental change in GHG concentration, a.k.a., the sensitivity. This is a complex result of many interactions and reactions.
Kristian, why do you insist on EITHER/OR when it is clearly BOTH/AND!
Yes, the atmosphere affects incoming radiation. No one questions this. For example, you can look at the Trenberth Diagram:
* ~ 79 W/m^2 gets reflected/scattered by the atmosphere
* ~ 78 W/m^2 gets absorbed by the atmosphere
* ~ 23 W/m^2 gets reflected by the surface
* ~ 161 W/m^2 finally gets absorbed by the surface
Of course changes to the amount reflected will change the amount absorbed by the surface and hence affect the surface temperature. Removing clouds so that less energy is reflected would have a warming effect.
None of that prevents the atmosphere from ALSO impacting the outgoing radiation. If we could magically make the atmosphere transparent to IR (without changing anything else), then the ~ 290K surface would emit 396 W/m^2 of radiation straight to outer space. Since this is WAY more than the incoming 161 W/m^2, the surface would immediately start to cool. Eventually, it would cool until some mew equilibrium was established.
Sure, other processes (like convection and evaporation and cloud cover) would change as well. The exact final conditions would be difficult to predict due to complex interactions within the system. But the cooling would happen. Even if you simply reduced backradiation rather than entirely eliminated it, the surface would necessarily cool somewhat.
The “backradiation” does impede the lost of surface energy — radiation goes to “warm” atmosphere rather than “cold” outer space.
Tim
You wrote, “The backradiation does impede the lost of surface energy radiation goes to warm atmosphere rather than cold outer space.”
This is why I always bring up the velocity at which energy moves to space, can’t figure out why nobody else does.
Energy leaving the surface joins a warm atmosphere and must therefore move slowly (compared to no atmosphere) to space. The warmer the atmosphere, the slower the upward flow of energy has to be if there is to be an equilibrium of input/output. The cooler the atmosphere, the slower the upward flow has to be. You can’t have the same rate of flow and velocity and expect to maintain a higher temperature.
GHE’s impeding IR, combined with convection, perfectly explains both the higher temperature and slower movement.
Here is an explanation of what I mean by “rate of flow” and velocity:
“Water enters a tank from the bottom at a constant rate. It eventually drains out the top at the same rate it enters. When measuring this rate:
Volumetric flow rates can be measured in various units such as: liters/sec (lps) cubic feet/sec (cfs) gallons/min (gpm)
Now increase the diameter of the tank and do the same experiment. Water will move up the tank and exit at the same rate of flow (volumetric flow rate) as before, but the VELOCITY it moves up the tank will be slower. Therefore, water entering the
tank will linger longer than before and more water will accumulate.”
Please note that although water requires extra space in order to accumulate, this is not true of heat. Things can get hotter in the existing space. The atmosphere doesn’t need to get bigger, like a lake behind a dam or a wider tank, it can just get warmer.
Also note that the velocity of water moving up the wider tank necessarily has to be slower than before in order for the rate of water exiting the tank to maintain equalibrium with inflow.
Whoops! Meant to write, “The cooler the atmosphere, the faster the upward flow has to be.”
A really simple way of putting it – a small accumulation of something (including energy) needs to move faster than a large one if the rate of output is to be equal. The opposite is of coarse true as well.
Bart says: “Sloppy. Watts is not a unit of energy, but of power “
Yes, watts are power, but conservation of energy is still germane. Whether we are considering a whole year or a whole second or an instant, conservation of energy still applies. For any system, we can say both:
* E(in) – E(out) = E(gained)
* d/dt(E(in)) – d/dt(E(out)) = d/dt(E(gained))
This might be a useful clarification to make for some. I guess I saw this as intuitive enough that it did not need to be spelled out.
“They do not tell us the incremental change in Watts required for equilibrium due to an incremental change in GHG concentration, a.k.a., the sensitivity. “
Bart says: “Sloppy. Watts is not a unit of energy, but of power “
Yes, watts are power, but conservation of energy is still germane. Whether we are considering a whole year or a whole second or an instant, conservation of energy still applies. For any system, we can say both:
* E(in) – E(out) = E(gained)
* d/dt(E(in)) – d/dt(E(out)) = d/dt(E(gained))
This might be a useful clarification to make for some. I guess I saw this as intuitive enough that it did not need to be spelled out.
“They do not tell us the incremental change in Watts required for equilibrium due to an incremental change in GHG concentration, a.k.a., the sensitivity. “
HERE I AGREE 100%! “Climate sensitivity” is the $64,000 question. (or the $64 trillion question!) Feedbacks could increase or decrease the impact or CO2 changes. I certainly don’t have an answer for that question. (That is why I try to stick to basic physics principles — they are much easier to deal with!)
Tim Folkerts says, September 11, 2017 at 12:38 PM:
We can’t, Tim. Just as we can’t all of a sudden reduce the temperature of the atmosphere to 2.7K. Or make it isothermal from surface to tropopause. Or make it thin as a sheet of paper. Or make it weightless. Or devoid of gaseous molecules.
You’re starting at the wrong end. The surface has already warmed to its current average temperature. And you don’t know how it got there. You’re confusing cause and effect.
You, just like “Mainstream Climate Science” (fronted by the IPCC), use a circular argument to claim (or at least imply) that it is somehow the magnitude of the DWLWIR from the atmosphere that causes Earth’s surface T_avg to be 289K rather than, say, 255K. But this is merely a simple case of back engineering.
We already KNOW that the surface T_avg is 289K, and so wecan readilycalculatethe sfc BB emission flux,fromknowing this temperature, to be ~398 W/m^2. We then determine the global average surface radiative heat loss (its ‘net LW’). In any particular spot this is a directly measurable/detectable physical quantity, although all individual measurements will have to be averaged into one value in order to find a global mean, just like with temperatures. Anyhow, in this way we estimate the global mean surface net LW value to be ~53 W/m^2 (out of a total surface heat loss of ~165 W/m^2, which is equal to the average surface heat gain from the Sun; the net SW or ASR), and from this it is then a pretty straightforward operation to derive an apparentatm DWLWIR ‘flux’ of [398-53=] 345 W/m^2.
And voil! Subtracting the non-radiative surface losses, [165-53=] 112 W/m^2, from the combined energy inputs from the Sun (ASR: 165 W/m^2) and the atmosphere (DWLWIR: 345 W/m^2), what do we get? 165+345-112 = 398 W/m^2. Which corresponds perfectly, via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, to a surface T_avg of 289K.
And we’ve come full circle …
So what’s the problem with this approach?
Let’s say we ‘know’ the surface T_avg is 255K rather than 289K. Same heat input from the Sun (165 W/m^2), same radiant heat loss (53 W/m^2), same non-radiant heat loss (112 W/m^2). Could we ‘find’ the surface T_avg in this situation also? Of course we could …
UWLWIR: σ 255^4 -> 240 W/m^2
DWLWIR: 240-53= 187 W/m^2
Subtract the non-radiant heat losses from the combined energy input from the Sun and the atmosphere:
165+187-112 = 240 W/m^2, which corresponds to a surface T_avg of 255K.
What if all the surface heat inputs/outputs were different? The heat input from the Sun: 200 W/m^2. The radiant heat loss: 100 W/m^2. The non-radiant heat loss: 100 W/m^2. The surface T_avg kept the same: 255K.
Well,
UWLWIR: σ 255^4 -> 240 W/m^2
DWLWIR: 240-100= 140 W/m^2
200+140-100 = 240 W/m^2 -> 255K.
Do these results surprise anyone? Didn’t think so …
Earth’s own radiation (photon cloud) doesn’t CAUSE earth’s temperature. It is caused BY its temperature. Other physical processes caused its temperature. A photon cloud is the radiative result of temperature. Heat fluxes are what causes changes in temperature. And heat fluxes and their magnitudes/intensities are caused by TEMPERATURE differences.
No, according to your way of seeing this, it doesn’t impede any loss of energy at all – it increases the INPUT of energy to the surface, forcing the energy loss to become LARGER. (Which is ridiculous.)
And it also doesn’t impede heat transfer, because the radiative heat transfer is just what it needs to be, because 1) the solar input to the surface is just 165 W/m^2, and 2) the non-radiative losses (conduction+evaporation) are 112 W/m^2. [165-112=] 53 W/m^2. There’s nothing more to it.
Kristian, you wrote:
“No, according to your way of seeing this, it doesnt impede any loss of energy at all it increases the INPUT of energy to the surface, forcing the energy loss to become LARGER. (Which is ridiculous.)”
When “backradiation” is added to the surface, surface temperature increases and so does it’s radiative output. But the extra input and output will eventually reach an equilibrium. At this point, NET rate of energy loss will be the same as it was initially, but the surface temperature will have increased.
Snape says, September 11, 2017 at 9:21 PM:
This is my whole point, Snape. If you describe the situation like you do here, then you’re in effect arguing that the cool atmosphere transfers HEAT to the warm surface. And such a description violates the 2nd Law.
“Back radiation” isn’t ADDED to the surface, raising its temperature in the process. That’s how the Sun works. And the Sun is the HEAT source of the surface.
The surface only LOSES energy [U] through its specific thermal interaction with the atmosphere (and space) above. In other words, it only COOLS to the atmosphere (and space).
The point is that the UWLWIR and DWLWIR are not separate macroscopic fluxes working on either side of the heat budget, each with their own individual thermodynamic function and effect. Their only function and effect is in making up the surface radiative heat LOSS between them. Always tightly integrated into ONE continuous macroscopic transfer of energy (flux), the Q_out(lw).
Kristian
You’re right, the surface is always losing energy to the atmosphere, even as it’s absorbing “backradiation”. The atmosphere therefore has a cooling effect, not the other way around.
The thing is, the atmosphere, partly because of the backradiation it emitted, was INITIALLY less efficient at cooling than was space. Input from the sun was greater than output, so the earth system warmed. As the atmosphere (included in the earth system) warmed, it was able to shed heat at a faster rate. Output to space eventually matched input from the sun and temperature stabilized.
The atmosphere became as efficient at cooling the surface as space had been……because it warmed up!
Kristian
The same idea is in play when we put on a coat. A coat still removes heat from our body, but not as efficiently as the cold air had done with no coat. ThIs changed when the coat warmed up!
Kristian
Again you post your opinion as if it were factual.
YOU: “The point is that the UWLWIR and DWLWIR are not separate macroscopic fluxes working on either side of the heat budget, each with their own individual thermodynamic function and effect. Their only function and effect is in making up the surface radiative heat LOSS between them. Always tightly integrated into ONE continuous macroscopic transfer of energy (flux), the Q_out(lw).”
You have yet to validate your opinion (I am not saying it is wrong, it just goes against every textbook I have read on radiation heat transfer). If it is so well established is should be very easy for you to provide established science to validate it.
If you keep posting your opinion, I will continue to challenge it until you support it with valid source material.
Kristian says: “We cant, Tim. “
Its called a “thought experiment” or a “gedanken experient” — a time-honored tradition in science.
Tim Folkerts says, September 12, 2017 at 10:56 AM:
I know. Read the rest of my response. Your “thought experiment” doesn’t provide you with the causal evidence that you seem to seek.
Snape says, September 12, 2017 at 1:39 AM:
Yes.
No, NOT “partly because of the backradiation it emitted”, Snape. The “back radiation” is simply an apparent radiative effect of atmospheric temperature. It is not a flux (as in ‘macroscopic transfer’) of energy. It is simply one ‘manifestation’ of the atmospheric photon cloud, the radiative energy associated – and coincident – with the atmosphere and its temperatures. Macroscopically, the atmospheric “photon energy” (which is simply the total and average of the energy of all individual photons of the atmosphere) is just there, moving only whenever and to the extent that there is a temperature gradient/difference.
In other words, the atmosphere initially being less efficient at cooling the surface than space, is rather because of what you say next:
Which is what I have been telling you all along, Snape! This is the buildup phase!
There is only an impedance of heat transfer from the surface during the buildup phase, and it is only ever because the surface and the atmosphere are both still too cold during this phase – they are not yet able to shed enough heat to space so as to balance the heat input from the Sun and thereby halt the buildup of internal energy and the resultant rise in temperatures.
Snape,
The main point of my original post was apparently lost on you.
I’ll repeat it here:
Snape says, September 11, 2017 at 9:21 PM:
This is my whole point, Snape. If you describe the situation like you do here, then you’re in effect arguing that the cool atmosphere transfers HEAT to the warm surface. And such a description violates the 2nd Law.
“Back radiation” isn’t ADDED to the surface, raising its temperature in the process. That’s how the Sun works. And the Sun is the HEAT source of the surface.
Kristian.
You wrote, “This is my whole point, Snape. If you describe the situation like you do here, then youre in effect arguing that the cool atmosphere transfers HEAT to the warm surface. And such a description violates the 2nd Law.”
Of course, this is what Dr. Spencer says:
“The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.”
I’ll go with Roy on this. But as far as I can tell, Kristian, your model works just fine.
Kristian
If I understand you correctly, if there was a room full of objects all the same temperature, then there would be a motionless “radiation cloud” in the room as well. If a cooler object was introduced, the cloud would move towards it. How would the cloud no to do this?
Oops. Know, not no.
“it is then a pretty straightforward operation to derive an apparentatm DWLWIR flux of [398-53=] 345 W/m^2 … And weve come full circle “
This is not the circle you think. The DWLWIR is not SIMPLY the subtraction of UP-NET. The DWLWIR can ALSO be estimated the same way you estimated the UWLWIR. The atmosphere has emissivity and temperature. You can measure these and calculate what the DWLWIR ought to be.
You can’t just subtract and set the DWLWIR to whatever value you need to balance your equations!
“because the radiative heat transfer is just what it needs to be … “
This is the true ‘backwards logic’.
–Snape says:
September 12, 2017 at 4:34 PM
Kristian
If I understand you correctly, if there was a room full of objects all the same temperature, then there would be a motionless radiation cloud in the room as well. If a cooler object was introduced, the cloud would move towards it. How would the cloud no to do this?–
Cloud is going at speed of light.
By putting something cold in the room, one has interrupted the thermodynamic equilibrium and air molecule will warm the colder object bring it up to room temperature [though room temperature will have lowered by some amount]. And once it more or less returns to equilibrium, one more or less gets back an proton cloud, you had before. But most rooms aren’t in a thermodynamic equilibrium- or there is different temperatures all over the place [normally]. And photon gas lacks the power to make a room have a completely uniform temperature.
gbaikie
Kristian has said a radiation cloud will move towards a cooler object, I’m hoping he will explain the mechanism for this.
You said, “The thermal equilibrium has been disturbed”, but that’s just a description of the situation.
Snape,
You posted:
The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.
1. IR is not heat.
2. The Second Law does not talk about net flow of energy.
3. Please explain how “net flow of energy” would apply to conductive heat transfer. Conductive heat transfer obeys the Second Law, so where does this “net flow of energy” apply?
SkepticsGoneWild
1. Yes, IR is not heat, which is why it can move from warm to cold and not break the law. This is pretty straightforward, isn’t it?
2. How well did the authors of the “2nd law” understand quantum physics?
3. Sorry, I know even less about conduction than I do about radiation or convection
Snape,
1. In your post I think you meant IR can move from cold to warm and not break the Second Law.
2. The topic is not quantum physics. I studied classical physics, not modern physics which includes quantum theory. The Clausius statement of the Second Law is still taught at all the major universities. The Second Law is logical. Water does not flow spontaneously uphill, heat does not travel from cold to warm up a an iron pipe (conductive heat transfer), and neither radiatively as well.
3. The reason I brought of conductive heat transfer is because this notion of “net transfer of energy” does not apply to this mode of heat transfer. This idea of “net transfer of energy” in regards to the Second Law is an editorial opinion that’s been added to the Second Law by those who do not agree with the original Clausius statement regarding heat transfer.
SkepticsGoneWild
Yeah, I meant cold to warm.
If quantum physics is relevant to heat transfer, and the authors of the 2nd law of thermodynamics knew nothing about it, why in the world would you expect them to have mentioned it?
I’ve never seen anyone on this blog, or anywhere else, that thinks this law can be violated!
BTY, here’s my take on the question you wouldn’t answer: a coat, being colder, transfers heat away from the person…..but not fast enough to keep up with how fast the person is producing heat. The coat and the person get warmer, and increasing the temperature with the surrounding air. This causes faster cooling. Eventually cooling will keep up with the body’s rate of heat generation and a steady temperature is reached.
Heat never transferred from coat to person, always the other way around, even as the person warmed up.
Meant to write, “The coat and the person get warmer, increasing the temperature gradient with the surrounding air.”
SkepticGoneWild says:
“3. The reason I brought of conductive heat transfer is because this notion of net transfer of energy does not apply to this mode of heat transfer. “
Sure it does! Put a warm object in contact with a cool object. Every second there are innumerable collisions between atoms of the two objects. More than half the time, a specific collision transfers energy from an atom of the warm object to an atom of the cool object. Less than half the time, a specific collision transfers energy from an atom of the cool object to an atom of the warm object.
Microscopically energy moves both ways by atomic collisions, ie by “conduction”. Macroscopically, the net energy always moves from warm to cool by conduction, ie heat moves from warm to cool.
The NET result is exactly what you would expect from summing a large number of transfers both directions.
Tim
Thanks for explaining this.
That is a real stretch Tim. Bottom line, heat does not travel from cold to hot both radiatively and conductively.
Right, that’s the bottom line. It never does.
Tim Folkerts says, September 12, 2017 at 4:28 PM:
Gee, then tell me, Tim: How exactly do you “calculate what the DWLWIR ought to be” from the global atmosphere to the global surface by simply measuring the emissivity and temperature of the global atmosphere? What temperature do you use in your calculation? The atmosphere is not a 2D surface, it’s a 3D volume with a negative temperature gradient moving from the surface to the tropopause.
Of course you can! This is what all the world’s pyrgeometers do on a daily basis, Tim! They measure the temperature of the sensor and calculate the UWLWIR directly from this. At the same time, they detect the radiative heat flux between the sensor and its surroundings. And so they simply subtract the detected heat flux from the calculated radiative temperature expression (the UWLWIR) of the sensor and get a radiative temperature expression of the atmosphere (the DWLWIR), as long as it’s pointed upwards.
Why? Why is this “more” backwards than saying that a 345 W/m^2 “radiative flux” from the cold atmosphere makes sure (CAUSES) the warmer surface is (TO BE) at 289 rather than 255K on average? You’re flailing, Tim?
My point, Tim, is that you’re confusing cause and effect. You see a simple effect of a cause (in our case, temperature) and think that it’s somehow the cause of that cause.
Which is a classic mistake …
— Snape says:
September 12, 2017 at 7:51 PM
gbaikie
Kristian has said a radiation cloud will move towards a cooler object, Im hoping he will explain the mechanism for this.–
Oh, ok.
But since here, I would say “radiation cloud” become nonexistent near colder object. Becomes non-existence in a blink of time.
And has very little warming effect.
Of course depends on size of object. I wasn’t assuming something like very small droplet of water- with say million molecule in it. Or mote of dust. More like a cool brick or something.
“You said, The thermal equilibrium has been disturbed, but thats just a description of the situation.”
Yes, but proton gas with blackbody spectrum requires a thermal equilibrium.
Snape says, September 12, 2017 at 4:24 PM:
But you see, Snape, this is EXACTLY where and how the confusion on this subject arises.
I’ve tried to explain this to you on several earlier occasions. It is wrong to say that “the atmosphere (as a macroscopic system) emits IR toward the surface”, because a macroscopic system would emit a macroscopic flux. And there is no macroscopic flux of IR being emitted from the cool atmosphere to the warm surface. Because a macroscopic flux of radiative energy inside a macroscopic radiation field is simply the NET (the probabilistic/statistical AVERAGE) movement of ALL photons within that radiation field.
We do not follow specific (as in ‘individual’) quanta of light (photons) and their specified quantities of energy in a macroscopic analysis of energy transfer between two thermodynamic systems. We follow “the energy”, a generic term encompassing ALL the energy associated with ALL the photons within the macroscopic transfer. As I’ve told you before: MICROSCOPICALLY you can of course say that the energy carried by an individual photon, if you choose (and are able to) follow its course specifically through the radiation field, is ADDED from a colder system to a warmer system, because microscopically – in the quantum realm – the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply. A single photon is free to move from a cold place to a warm place and to be absorbed in/by the warm place. Because a single photon is not a macroscopic entity and therefore isn’t constrained by macroscopic laws and principles.
But UWLWIR and DWLWIR, W/m^2 fluxes of radiation, “the atmosphere” and “the surface” are all macroscopic phenomena and so ARE constrained by macroscopic laws and principles.
It is distinctly in the mixing together into ONE steamy soup of MICRO (quantum) and MACRO (thermo) phenomena and processes that the confusion about “back radiation” and what it is and does lies.
Snape says, September 12, 2017 at 4:34 PM:
And how does a molecule “know” when to emit a photon?
Stop it with the “how does it know” nonsense! It doesn’t know. It is not a sentient entity. It’s just what happens. It’s the laws of physics. That is just how the universe works. Whenever there is a temperature difference/gradient between regions in “thermal contact”, macroscopic energy (heat) will spontaneously move from the hotter to the colder region. And whenever there ISN’T such a temperature difference/gradient, macroscopic energy (heat) will NOT move. The heat doesn’t KNOW when to move and when not to move, Snape. It is just how things happen.
Kristian
” How would the cloud [know how] to do this?” Sorry, I was sort of mocking your idea here. My point is that there doesn’t seem to be a mechanism forcing this to occur. Your explanation, “it just happens” is plausible, but not convincing.
About your micro/macro problem? I think I’ll let you duke it out with Tim and Norman.
gbaikie says:
September 12, 2017 at 11:33 PM
Snape says:
September 12, 2017 at 7:51 PM
gbaikie
Kristian has said a radiation cloud will move towards a cooler object, Im hoping he will explain the mechanism for this.
It looks like he tried. Meanwhile I tried to find out what you talking about, and found this:
“Macroscopically, the atmospheric photon energy (which is simply the total and average of the energy of all individual photons of the atmosphere) is just there, moving only whenever and to the extent that there is a temperature gradient/difference.”
I think “Moving” could replaced with word, “changes”. I don’t think he means moving to “temperature gradient/difference”.
I would say the photon energy is a “creature” of a thermodynamic equilibrium.
Or model of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Or it’s like a perfect blackbody.
Perfect blackbody don’t exist, but things can be similar to
perfect blackbody which do exist and/or are common.
Similarly a thermodynamic equilibrium don’t exist, one can conditions which close to thermodynamic equilibrium or closer to thermodynamic equilibrium.
So, a “temperature gradient/difference” is not thermodynamic equilibrium. But you have photon energy when there is temperature gradient/difference, but the more of temperature gradient/difference the more it’s further from the model based upon condition dependent upon a thermodynamic equilibrium.
With ideal gas law- you need a container. With Photon gas
you need a container.
Ideal gas law works in regard to our atmosphere, because gas molecule of the troposphere act like they are in container.
Or because there are some many molecule within a volume, they can’t escape the volume [acts like a container].
Loosely speaking a room is a container in terms having thermodynamic equilibrium, so one talk of a room having
Photon gas. But the effects of the photon gas- does not explain or have anything to do with the room’s temperature.
If change the temperature of room- increase increase and have it roughly at thermodynamic equilibrium, you will change the photon gas. Now the photon gas can have real effects, but the photon gas is not the reason, things in the room are roughly the same temperature.
Or if make room 1000 K [and at thermodynamic equilibrium], and room is in a Mars vacuum then photon gas maybe could affect stuff like temperature.
But reason we talking about it, can the “photon gas effect” explain how something can cool less via radiation [act like insulation].
Or I believe that is why.
Or does it effect how much something radiates heat [does it [somehow] reduce heat loss and more importantly, how much.
Kristian, the trick is that you start with “Lets say we know the surface T_avg is 255K …”. When you stay this, you are implicitly also claiming that the temperature is STEADY at 255.
So, yes, if we ASSUME the temperature is steady and assume we know all but one energy flow, then we can calculate the remaining energy flow (DWLWIR in this case) to balance. But temperature can change! There is no a priori reason the energy flows have to balance. They could perfectly well be out of balance and causing a change in temperature.
Tim Folkerts says, September 13, 2017 at 5:29 AM:
Tim, you don’t get my point. Again, we KNOW what Earth’s average global surface temperature is, and we’re pretty sure it’s practically steady. However, we don’t know HOW this temperature came to be. It is YOU who assume, then, that it is specifically because of the 345 W/m^2 “flux” down from the cool atmosphere being ADDED to the warm surface right next to the solar flux of 165 W/m^2.
You’re confusing cause and effect.
You seem to think, Tim, that Earth’s global average surface temperature is what it is (and not much, much lower) in the steady state because the “GHGs” in the atmosphere somehow impeded the heat transfer away from the surface, reducing the surface radiative heat loss from ~296 W/m^2 (the Moon’s global surface radiative balance with the Sun, the global lunar surface being at about 197K on average) down to what it is in the current situation (~53 W/m^2), when this is blatantly not the case …!
Snape says, September 13, 2017 at 1:04 AM:
Really? No mechanism for heat transfer? Weird. Then the only conclusion to draw, I guess, is that heat transfer isn’t a real thing. It doesn’t actually occur in nature. Because someone or something has to tell it to, and you don’t know of any such entity, isn’t that what you’re saying?
I’ll try and make it easier for you:
It is not the photon cloud per se that moves, only the net (macroscopic) movement of radiation/photons through or away from the object/region with which the photon cloud is associated (the object/region constantly creating and maintaining the cloud through its temperature).
Norman!? Don’t make me laugh.
And it isn’t me who have a “problem” with the micro/macro thing. That’s people like Norman. And you, apparently …
Kristian
I was not doubting a mechanism for heat transfer, I was incredulous about your specific explanation of it, the one involving a “radiation cloud”. Thanks.
Through, away from OR in towards.
Kristian
You spend considerable time and effort promoting your opinions. Why can’t you spend even a wee bit of time finding valid support for your opinions.
To date I have not read any textbook material on radiative heat transfer that does not clearly state there are multiple macroscopic flows of energy (as many as there are objects). Each is independent of all the others in the rate they will emit radiant energy away from themselves (a clear and measureable macroscopic flow of energy). Each will absorb energy reaching them in another macroscopic flow of energy that is easily measured.
You do ignore me, fine. But you will not provide one shred of evidence to validate your opinions. Why is that?
If it is so obvious and true then post a link to it. I have posted several links to you from textbooks clearly stating multiple macroscopic energy flows. You have not posted one to refute the links.
If Tim Folkerts is still around, since Kristian is unwilling and unable to provide validation for his opinions, can you help and verify his one way flux as a correct interpretation of radiant heat transfer?
Snape, you like to research. Can you find anything in cyberspace that supports Kristian’s view point?
Kristian,
In a system with feedbacks, there is no simple, one-way “cause and effect” explanation.
A change in “A” causes as change in “B”.
That change in “B” causes a change in “A”
That change in “A” causes a change in “B”
…
For the earth, the sun causes warming of the surface.
The surface causes warming of the atmosphere.
The atmosphere cause further warming of the surface.
The surface then causes further warming of the atmosphere.
…
This is all complicated by changes in albedo, changes in CO2 concentration, changes in land use, etc.
In any case, CO2 DOES impede energy and DOES help warm the surface. Consider 15 um IR energy in particular.
* CASE A: Without any CO2, some amount of 15 um IR energy would leave the surface (heading directly to T=3K space).
* CASE B: With CO2, less 15 um IR energy would leave the surface since it now radiates to the warmish atmosphere instead of to 3K space.
In CASE B, less total 15 um IR escapes from the surface and less total 15 um IR escapes to space. More total energy remains that the surface. CASE B will be warmer than CASE A once steady-state conditions are met. I don’t see how anyone could say CO2 is not impeding the flow of energy. I don’t see how anyone could say CO2 is not warming the surface.
Sorry, Tim, but you won’t get away from the fact that you’re confusing cause and effect. You see a temperature EFFECT and assume it’s somehow the CAUSE of temperature.
Again:
You seem to think that Earth’s global average surface temperature is what it is (and not much, much lower) in the steady state because the “GHGs” in the atmosphere somehow impeded the heat transfer away from the surface, reducing the surface radiative heat loss from ~296 W/m^2 (the Moon’s global surface radiative balance with the Sun, the global lunar surface being at about 197K on average) down to what it is in the current situation (~53 W/m^2), when this is blatantly not the case …!
A “stronger greenhouse”, as defined by theory, won’t force the average surface TEMPERATURE to be higher, Tim. This is clearly evident from real-world observations.
Raval & Ramanathan (1989) says: http://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr50.pdf
Which is a pretty concrete definition. So let’s test it against reality:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
The Congo (5N-6S, 10-27E):
LW_s – LW_e = 450 – 225 = 225 W/m^2 (total “GHE”)
SW_s(net) = 173.6 W/m^2
T_s = 25.3C
Sahara-Sahel (20-14N, 15W-36E):
LW:s – LW_e = 473 – 279 = 194 W/m^2 (total “GHE”)
SW_s(net) = 173.6 W/m^2
T_s = 29.1C
What do we see? A much larger difference between LW_s and LW_e in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel (+31 W/m^2), which means that the “greenhouse mechanism” should be ~16% stronger according to the definition. At the same time, we see that the average heat INPUT to the surface from the Sun is practically equal in both regions.
In spite of this, the T_s is 3.8 degrees HIGHER in Sahara-Sahel!
So where’s the temperature EFFECT of what appears to be a considerably stronger “greenhouse mechanism” operating in the Congo!?
– – –
The surface radiative heat loss in Sahara-Sahel is two (CERES EBAF Ed2.8) or three (CERES EBAF Ed4) times as efficient as in the Congo, while the average annual solar heat input is the same in both cases (larger fluctuations in the former case). So the radiative heat transfer away from the surface is apparently severely impeded in the Congo relative to Sahara-Sahel, while the heat transfer TO the surface is the same, and STILL the surface temperature is on average significantly LOWER.
“What do we see? A much larger difference between LW_s and LW_e in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel (+31 W/m^2), which means that the greenhouse mechanism should be ~16% stronger according to the definition. At the same time, we see that the average heat INPUT to the surface from the Sun is practically equal in both regions.
In spite of this, the T_s is 3.8 degrees HIGHER in Sahara-Sahel!”
Testing is good. But this ‘test’ is too simple-minded. The GHE is but one element that contributes to temperature. In particular, you ignore a HUGE difference in moisture. Congo gets 5-10x more rainfall. Wet ground has a higher heat capacity, making it harder to warm. Wet ground evaporates, making it harder to warm. This makes this an apples/oranges comparison.
“Tim, you dont get my point. Again, we KNOW what Earths average global surface temperature is, and were pretty sure its practically steady. However, we dont know HOW this temperature came to be.”
The temperature of global air temperature is caused by a warm ocean surface water.
How surface warmed and how continues to be warm could be “we don’t know how”
But warm ocean surface is equal to global air temperature.
Or hot land surface has nothing to do with global air temperature- other than it could be cooling mechanism.
Snape says, September 13, 2017 at 3:03 PM:
Do you think “radiative heat transfer” is something independent from a “photon cloud”? A separate thing? What do you think a photon cloud is? What do you think EM radiation is? What do you think radiative heat is?
Kristian:
This comment landed in the wrong spot so I’m reposting it here. (Punctuation might get messed up)
“You need to realize Im still trying to work things out. I may be skeptical one minute, on board the next.. Your description of a photon/radiation cloud may be spot on, I dont know. Heres what Im thinking. A room where everything is the same temperature would be like a thermal fog. Introduce a colder object it would initially appear very dark and would dim the fog around it. Gradually, it would brighten and shrink, eventually disappearing altogether.
Not saying I agree with your above comments. I have a great deal of respect for the opinions of Norman, Tim and others.”
Tim Folkerts says, September 13, 2017 at 2:49 PM:
Haha! This is EXACTLY my point. Read again how Raval & Ramanathan define the “GHE”:
“If E is the longwave flux emitted by the surface at a certain location, and F is the flux leaving the top of the atmosphere (TOA) directly above that location, then the greenhouse effect G for that location can be defined as G = E – F.”
That IS the “strength of the GHE” defined in energy terms, Tim. If the average temperature at the surface in a place where the “GHE” as defined by R&R (and as defined by you, through the atmosphere impeding (reducing) the radiative heat loss from the surface) is supposedly much stronger is STILL considerably LOWER than in a place where the “GHE” as defined by R&R and by you is supposedly much weaker, then this completely negates the whole idea of “greenhouse warming” – if you reduce the radiation transfer, then you CAUSE net warming.
You do of course realise that an “enhanced GHE” is supposed to cause net warming NO MATTER WHAT. No matter what else is happening at the same time in the Earth system.
You have just explained why and how this is an altogether untenable idea, Tim.
Why? Because it is just too “simple-minded”! It assumes that Earth’s own radiation rules it all, both at the surface and inside the troposphere. Radiation and only radiation. All other physical mechanisms in operation change only in response to changes in Earth’s own radiation, and can only augment or diminish its overall temperature effect.
If you agree that this is obviously NOT the case, then we’ve come a long way, Tim.
The things you mention just underscores my point. It doesn’t “explain away” the fundamental problem.
The Sahara-Sahel region has the same average heat balance at the surface (~174 W/m^2 IN, ~174 W/m^2 OUT) as does the Congo region. They’re both in a relative steady state. Same equilibrated average rate of heat gain from the Sun, same equilibrated total average rate of heat loss. But the total average rate of heat loss in Sahara-Sahel includes more than 100 W/m^2 worth of RADIATIVE loss, while the total average rate of heat loss in the Congo includes less than 50 W/m^2 worth of radiative loss. Because of a supposedly much “stronger greenhouse” in the latter region …
And that’s really all you need to know, Tim. There’s no “extra” surface loss in the Congo. And at dynamic equilibrium, surface heat capacity shouldn’t matter anymore.
Merely impeding (reducing) the radiative heat loss from a surface (while keeping the heat gain to that surface the same) can NOT be said to CAUSE the average temperature of the surface to rise. Because of … “other things”. All is not just about radiation.
An interesting discussion, Kristian.
I DO agree that it is obviously NOT the case that “Earths own radiation rules it all, both at the surface and inside the troposphere. Radiation and only radiation. ”
I disagree that anyone assumes this! The most famous summary — the Trenberth diagram — clearly shows that other factors are included. Radiation is certainly an important part, but not the only part. A few simplified models designed to teach basic concepts look only at radiation, but no one expects these to show anything more than the fact that GHGs can lead to surface warming. No one considers these actual “climate models”.
On the other hand, radiation does “rule all” at the TOA. Energy only arrives as radiation and only leaves as radiation.
Also, you seem to conflate “GHE” and “enhanced GHE”. If we are calling G = E-F the local greenhouse effct, then the enhanced GHE would be G’ = E’-F’ — the energy flows at the same location after conditions are changed to some new amount of GHGs. (Not energy glows at some other location).
If I have time later, I will try to come back to this.
Kristian
Here is the unspoken trick of the Congo/Sahel argument:
“Let’s demonstrate that an increase in water vapor, a GHG, does not necessarily lead to global warming.
That will cast doubt on whether an increase CO2, a very different GHG, will lead to global warming.”
But I AGREE about your main point. The “other stuff” associated with any GHG needs to be carefully studied before drawing any conclusions!
Tim Folkerts says, September 14, 2017 at 8:48 AM:
How can you possibly disagree with this!? That’s the entire premise behind the idea of an “enhanced GHE” causing global warming. If people didn’t assume that changes in Earth’s radiation, at the surface and inside the troposphere, rule it all, then we wouldn’t have the entire discussion about “climate sensitivity” to an increase in atmospheric CO2. The whole idea of a (positive) climate sensitivity (of some magnitude) to, say, a doubling of CO2_atm is strictly based on such an assumption – that there MUST be some degree of warming NO MATTER WHAT.
And you promulgate that same basic premise, that no other (non-radiative) process can negate CO2 warming, it can only make it larger or smaller (as a dependent/responding feedback), when insisting that by reducing the radiative heat transfer between the surface and space, you automatically create surface warming. YOU DON’T! You CAN, potentially, in theory, in isolation (“All Else Being Equal”). But it is NOT an automatic necessity. Because there are other processes at play beside the radiative ones.
What can we read from the simple comparison between the Congo and Sahara-Sahel regarding this whole issue?
We see that the NON-radiative processes working to rid the surface of its excess energy from the Sun are MORE EFFICIENT than the radiative one, meaning that they make it possible for the surface to balance its heat budget (input vs. output) AT A LOWER STEADY-STATE TEMPERATURE. This has almost all to do with the level of “convective power”. Evaporatively driven convection is simply the most effective way for the surface to shed its heat. There’s no contest.
At dynamic equilibrium, just as much energy is shed from the Sahara-Sahel surface on average as from the Congo surface, there’s no difference there. The total heat loss rate is exactly the same, just as the total rate of heat uptake.
The only difference is the DISTRIBUTION between the different heat loss mechanisms. Plus the convective power of the air column above the surface.
In the Congo the radiative loss is just ~40-50 W/m^2, while in Sahara-Sahel the radiative loss is ~100-105 W/m^2. Which means that, in the Congo, 125-135 W/m^2 are shed through conduction and (mostly) evaporation, while in Sahara-Sahel only 70-75 W/m^2 are shed via these two mechanisms, and to a large extent through conduction and dry, shallow convection.
This distribution results in an average surface temperature in the Congo (with the EXACT SAME HEAT BALANCE) which is 3.8K LOWER than in Sahara-Sahel!
The severe impedance of radiative heat loss from the surface in the Congo thus DOES NOT produce net warming. It does NOT determine the “end result”.
Convective power does …
You need to produce some empirical evidence, Tim, that more CO2 in the atmosphere does in fact CAUSE temps to rise … Your task is to falsify the NULL HYPOTHESIS, saying that it doesn’t.
Snape says, September 14, 2017 at 4:12 PM:
No, what it shows beyond any doubt is that there is absolutely no way you can say that the surface temperature will rise – BY PHYSICAL NECESSITY, NO MATTER WHAT – by simply reducing (impeding) the RADIATIVE heat transfer away from the surface, by making the tropospheric column more opaque to outgoing surface IR. The average rate of surface radiative heat loss is strongly reduced when moving from the Sahara-Sahel region in towards the Congo around the equator, while the average surface heat input remains the same, and still, at the same time, the average surface temperature goes considerably DOWN.
Your unspoken “trick” is rather that you try to convince yourself that the idea of the “GHE” somehow takes all of these other (non-radiative) surface effects into consideration when determining its “strength”. It doesn’t. It ONLY considers how much each of the so-called “GHGs” directly affects the IR opacity of the atmospheric column, and thus how much it reduces the rate of radiative heat loss at the surface. The reduction in radiative heat loss IS the “radiative forcing (RF)” that climate science speaks of. And from a specific amount of “forcing” comes a specific rise in surface temperature. According to theory …
If they did in fact acknowledge the fact that there are other processes independently at play beside the radiative ones, then they would HAVE TO acknowledge that we simply cannot say with any level of certainty whatsoever that there is in fact such a thing as a (positive) “climate sensitivity” to an increase in “radiative forcing”.
What needs to be shown is simply such a causal link in the Earth system. That a smaller average surface radiative heat loss is the CAUSE of a higher average surface temperature. THAT’S how you falsify the null hypothesis and strengthen your own.
When and where has such empirical evidence EVER been produced?
Tim Folkerts says, September 14, 2017 at 8:48 AM:
I am not conflating the “GHE” and the “enhanced GHE”, Tim. And you know that. I have pointed out to you the following now twice, and you have yet to respond:
You seem to think that Earth’s global average surface temperature is what it is (and not much, much lower) in the steady state because the “GHGs” in the atmosphere somehow impeded the heat transfer away from the surface, reducing the surface radiative heat loss from ~296 W/m^2 (the Moon’s global surface radiative balance with the Sun, the global lunar surface being at about 197K on average) down to what it is in the current situation (~53 W/m^2), when this is blatantly not the case …!
This pertains directly to the “GHE”, while the Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel comparison relates more to the “enhanced GHE”.
At last, a sensible argument against AGW.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262948
Earlier you talked about albedo, do you think that explains all of the observed warming, or what else is there to consider in your opinion?
(Sorry my post above was intended to be a reply to Skeptic Gone Wild not Tim Folkerts)
In physics invoking an energy flux such as the sky back radiation does by no means imply that the relevant energy might ever be harnessed. You cannot extract work from sky radiation because your equipment is at a higher temperature as the sky. This is prevented by the second principle of thermodynamics. Yet this does not mean that this flux doesnt exist. Its unescapable thermal radiation that satisfies the first principle of thermodynamics and has to be taken into account in order to conserve the energy at the ground, for instance.
Useful work is constrained release of energy, that is energy that can only be extracted under restrictive conditions such as, for instance, Carnot was the first to become aware of when the energy in question is in the form of heat. More generally there must systematically be an out of thermodynamic equilibrium situation with sources at different temperatures that could sustain spontaneous (entropy increasing) processes such as heat flow from hot to cold. Only then is it possible to tap a thermal engine on these sources. Or if the energy is in the form of chemical energy such as in living creatures there must be an out of equilibrium situation with available molecules high in free energy capable to enter in spontaneous exergonic reactions that can be coupled to the useful indispensable endergonic reactions that sustain life.
This back radiation thing is simple basics. In physics when one studies the important problem of thermal radiation in equilibrium with an enclosure at temperature T one clearly distinguishes an energy flux drawn from radiation field (or photon gas) to the enclosure in the form of radiation absorbed by the enclosure that, as soon as equilibrium is reached, is exactly balanced by an opposite energy flux of radiation emitted by the enclosure and added to the radiation field (or photon gas). Of course no work can ever be extracted in such a system at thermal equilibrium.
In the case of the troposphere there is similarly an energy flux from troposphere to the ground and an opposite energy flux from ground to the troposphere both in form of thermal IR. Yet they are now not exactly balanced because troposphere and ground are not in thermal equilibrium, the ground being maintained at a somewhat higher temperature than the troposphere by the sun.
If you want to extract work from that you have to use a heat engine and draw heat from ground or sea surface (high temperature source) convert some into work and release the remainder into the troposphere (low temperature source) exactly as convection cells and hurricanes naturally do.
Alphagruis
Interesting. Do you think it would be viable to tap energy emmitted from the ground….. as an alternative to solar? Solar would produce more intense heat but for fewer hours in a day. The ground would keep “producing” well after the sun has set.
Certainly possible, but in such meager amounts as to not be very useful.
Bart
Why would the amount be any less than solar? After all, 100% of energy received by solar panels would have otherwise been remitted or reflected by the surface beneath them.
Snape, efficiency for any heat engine is theoretically limited to
[ 1 – T(cold)/T(hot) ]
As the temperature of the cold and hot side get more similar, the efficiency drops toward 0. It is impossible theoretically to use passive radiation from the “hot” ground (~ 300 K) and passive radiation to the “cold” atmosphere (~ 270 K) to to get any better than about 10% efficiency. Cloudy days would be worse; clear days would be a little better. Any actual scheme would be considerably less than the theoretical efficiency.
Thanks, Tim. alpha too!
“After all, 100% of energy received by solar panels would have otherwise been remitted or reflected by the surface beneath them.”
Also, heat transfer is either by conduction, convection, or radiation. It is not all radiation.
It called using geothermal heat pump:
“A geothermal heat pump or ground source heat pump (GSHP) is a central heating and/or cooling system that transfers heat to or from the ground. It uses the earth as a heat source (in the winter) or a heat sink (in the summer). … Ground source heat pumps harvest heat absorbed at the Earth’s surface from solar energy”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump
Lots people use them, they can be efficient way to heat and cool a house. Need large yard or can be done vertically.
alphagruis on September 11, 2017 at 10:58 AM
Thanks for this excellent comment.
It seems one can simply replace photon gas with air temperature, what is the difference?
Or under water do you have photon gas?
And makes sense to me if you using a Carnot engine at surface of Venus it will have to run hotter to be as efficient as one operating on Earth surface.
Let’s also go someplace else with no photon gas, the lunar surface.
A significant aspect of lunar water mining would involve heat engines or Carnot engines.
What would say about the difference of efficiency of Carnot engine on the Moon as compared to Earth surface?
Ah, ok, here:
http://users.df.uba.ar/arbo/PhotonGasAJP.pdf
“”The numerical values of N, U , P, and S for the photon gas are all approximately 10 or more orders of magnitude smaller than for the ideal gas, which is why we can ignore the photon gas when discussing the thermodynamics of an ideal gas in the
vicinity of room temperature and atmospheric pressure.
On the other hand, for sufficiently high temperatures, the number of photons can exceed the number of ideal gas atoms in an equal volume”
But anyway this has nothing to do with backradiation- other then to indicate how insignificant that energy is.
The fact that the internal energy of the radiation (essentially IR) at equilibrium with an ordinary gas made of Argon atoms or N2 molecules for instance at room temperature is completely negligible with respect to the internal energy of that gas is quite true. Things are different in the core of a star.
Yet this does not imply that when energy exchanges are considered and have to be taken into account between a gas such as the atmosphere and the earth surface radiation can be in any respect be ignored. On the contrary. While It is indeed true that there are about 10^10 less photons at RT than gas particles in a given volume the photon speed v is however 3 10^8 / 3 10^2 = 10^6 times larger than the gas particles one. One might guess intuitively that the higher the speed the larger the ability to transport energy by a particle. Similarly the photon mean free path l is also usually much larger than for the gas molecules. Typically a few meters or much more as compared to about a 1000 Angstrms. This is again a factor of about 10^7 in favor of the photon as as an effective carriers of heat or energy. In favor of the gas particles is only their much larger number per unit volume n. A detailed analysis indeed confirms that the “ability” to transport heat is indeed proportional to the product n l v. As a result heat can be transported in the atmosphere much more effectively by the IR photons than the gas particles themselves, about 10^7 x 10^6 / 10^10 = 10^3 times better at least.
Of course this analysis neglects convection and latent heat which set in in the real atmosphere as soon as the vertical temperature gradient that results from above processes exceeds a given threshold.
“As a result heat can be transported in the atmosphere much more effectively by the IR photons than the gas particles themselves, about 10^7 x 10^6 / 10^10 = 10^3 times better at least.”
well the proton gas is about a thermodynamic equilibrium and not about transferring energy. And it’s about blackbody spectrum in thermodynamic equilibrium.
It could be explanation of lack of transfer of heat via radiation. But needs details like what creates the thermodynamic equilibrium of proton gas.
It does seem to me that clouds could create a thermodynamic equilibrium of proton gas.
Kristian
You need to realize I’m still trying to work things out. I may be skeptical one minute, on board the next.. Your description of a photon/radiation cloud may be spot on, I don’t know. Here’s what I’m thinking. A room where everything is the same temperature would be like a thermal fog. Introduce a colder object – it would initially appear very dark and would dim the fog around it. Gradually, it would brighten and shrink, eventually disappearing altogether.
Not saying I agree with your above comments. I have a great deal of respect for the opinions of Norman, Tim and others.
” Heres what Im thinking. A room where everything is the same temperature would be like a thermal fog.”
If room were in space and interior was vacuum of space, and walls, floor, ceiling were at say 20 C.
You would have a full spectrum blackbody photon gas. And blackbody spectrum at 20 C.
Let’s add a gas which doesn’t absorb any wavelength of 20 C blackbody spectrum.
The gas has to be at 20 C or it warms or cools the walls.
And the gas can be any pressure- it could mars pressure, or 1/3rd Earth pressure, or 1/2 or twice earth pressure or whatever. The greater the pressure requires the gas molecules to have lower average velocity- or Mars pressure they would have to be pretty fast.
Now, with this gas or without this gas added to photon gas at blackbody spectrum of 20 C, with infrared sensors all you would see is the walls [ceiling and floor]. We can use pin hole camera [so as not effect the photon gas very much].
Let’s make room a 40 foot cube. Middle floor have rectangle box 2 feet square and 15 feet high. The box is also 20 C.
But inside the box is dead and cool cat which is 10 C- which in another box [less the 2 foot cube] with 20 C ceiling.
The cat box has no walls, pillars at corners. And cat is “resting” on podium which cools cat to 10 C.
So, cat box pops up from rectangle box and cat box and dead cat is roughly in middle of room.
After dead cat is in middle of room, you could keep it being refrigerated or turn off the refrigeration.
If turn off refrigeration, the dead cat will be warmed by gas in the room. It will warm at different rate depending amount pressure of the air.
We don’t have any gravity- but could add any artificial gravity wanted by added a counter weight attached to 40 foot cube room.
But with no gravity, the dead cat will warm slowly- basically regardless of pressure of gas, And any gravity will imbalance the air temperature of room [by some amount].
Though the faster average velocity of gas [say mars like pressure] I think the gravity will affect it less.
Now of course whole point is what happens to photon gas which was at blackbody temperature of 20 C.
And can it warm the cat by any amount.
You were off to a good start until “The greater the pressure requires the gas molecules to have lower average velocity- or Mars pressure they would have to be pretty fast.”
From kinetic theory: KE_av = 1/2 m (v_rms)^2 = 3/2 kT
There is no pressure dependence. The rms speed of a gas molecule of mass m is
v_rms = (3kT/m)^0.5
I have no idea what you are talking about with the dead cat, but given this earlier mistake, the rest almost certainly is invalid.
Tim Folkerts says:
September 14, 2017 at 5:54 PM
You were off to a good start until The greater the pressure requires the gas molecules to have lower average velocity- or Mars pressure they would have to be pretty fast.
From kinetic theory: KE_av = 1/2 m (v_rms)^2 = 3/2 kT
There is no pressure dependence. The rms speed of a gas molecule of mass m is
v_rms = (3kT/m)^0.5
If room has more pressure of a gas, it will have more mass of the gas.
Or if gas has more density – Hydrogen vs argon. The less dense hydrogen will have higher average velocity at same temperature as compared to it being argon gas.
Either one.
“If room has more pressure of a gas, it will have more mass of the gas.”
The “m” in “v_rms = (3kT/m)^0.5” is the mass of each molecule. No matter how dense the gas, the mass of each molecule won’t change.
Now, you ARE right that H will be going faster than Ar at a given temperature, but that is NOT your original point. Whether you have a cylinder of compressed N2, N2 at atmospheric pressure, or a vacuum chamber with 99.9% of the N2 removed, if the temperature is 300 K in all, then all will have the same average speed.
skeptic…”333 W/m2 times 24 hours = 7,992 Wh/m2/day, or 8.0 kWh/m2/day. That is an enormous amount of energy. Has anyone ever harnessed this energy to perform actual work?? Hmmm? No? Why not?”
Because the 333 W/M^2 is fiction. It came from the vibrant imagination of Trenberth/Kiehle who were looking to balance the radiation budget and got silly.
Gordon Robertson
No Gordon, it came from observations. Have you read the paper on it?
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf
“Satellite measurements provide the best-estimate of TOA terms. Satellite retrievals from the
ERBE and the CERES (Wielicki et al. 1996) datasets are used (see Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a)
for details. ERBE estimates are based on observations from three satellites (ERBS, NOAA-9 (the
scanner failed in Jan. 1987), and NOAA-10) for February 1985 to April 1989. The CERES
instruments used here (FM1 and FM2) are flown aboard the Terra satellite, which has a morning
equatorial crossing time and was launched in December 1999 with data extending to May 2004
(cut-off for this study). We compile monthly means for the available data period and use those to
compute an annual mean.”
You may no like them but they are scientists who are using data to try and figure a complex picture. It is not fiction that they have just made up. Fiction is your area, you make up physics and peddle it on this blog and when confronted you never respond.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Because the 333 W/M^2 is fiction.”
It’s easy to measure. Here’s just one group that’s done exactly that:
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Gordon Robertson says:
skeptic333 W/m2 times 24 hours = 7,992 Wh/m2/day, or 8.0 kWh/m2/day. That is an enormous amount of energy..”
No it isn’t.
It’s 0.005 kWh/inch2 for one day.
That’s a *small* amount of energy flow.
Irma does not want to give up. The situation is still dynamic. It requires observation.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/nwatl/h5-loop-ir4.html
Circulation in the Atlantic favors the formation of new hurricanes.
Ooops?! I thought it was the SST above 26 C.
Below harvey and Irma, we had 29 if I well remember.
A quick comparison of scientific credibility levels
1. From Dr Roy Spencer, PhD, in his paper ‘The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?’
The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.
Published in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
as well in
http://co2coalition.org/2016/07/30/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
and… ending with
Finally, just because the greenhouse effect exists does not mean that global warming in response to increasing carbon dioxide will be a serious problemthat is another issue entirely, and involves things like cloud feedbacks. Im only referring to the existence of the Earths natural greenhouse effect, which to me is largely settled science.
From the same people who tell you that NOAA fudges data and that UAH data is the only valuable dataset, you suddenly get to read
2. Dont know where this quote came from but it is wrong. The 2nd law does not state anywhere that the NET flow of energy must be from higher to lower temperatures. The notion of net energy flow is pseudo-science that comes generally from alarmists.
Written by one of the very best clowny trolls in this thread – or are they rather trolly clowns?
Whom, do you think, does layman Bindidon rather trust in?
Perhaps the layman Bindidon should trust in the Clausian statement of the Second Law:
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.”
Do you see the term “net” or “energy” mentioned? The Second Law is about “heat” transfer.
Furthermore, please explain how the term “net” would apply to conductive heat transfer?
Bindidon knows more then most AGW climate scientist even though I disagree with him often .
At least he puts up a pretty good case regardless.
Same for Barry they are AGW best advocates.
No Salvatore: I am only a humble replicator of the meaning of science people who understand far more of all that than I do!
SkepticGoneWild on September 11, 2017 at 4:52 PM
Perhaps the layman Bindidon should trust in the Clausian statement of the Second Law
He does, he does!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
But the very problem here is that layperson SkepticGoneWild does not at all trust in scentists like Roy Spencer who probably have a far better understanding of where Rudolf Clausius’ work really applies.
You present well Bindidon , have to be honest even though I disagree.
Bindidon
Layperson SGW is also science educated person SGW. I’ve taken plenty of University physics and thermodynamics courses, and my career is physics based, though more on the Newtonian side.
My educational experience with the Second Law never referred to this “net transfer of energy” or “energy” idea. The Second Law is about heat transfer. The problem is, this “net energy transfer” business gets morphed into bi-directional heat transfer, which unfortunately many people in here believe. This belief results in seriously bizarre beliefs, like electromagnetic radiation from the earth heating the sun, the very thing the Clausius statement forbids.
The Clausius statement of the Second Law makes logical sense. If I stick a long iron bar into an icy lake, heat does not travel up the bar and warm my hand. The same idea applies to radiative heat transfer as well.
My advice to you is always be skeptical. When people tell you the science is settled, you know they are lying to you. And who is telling you the science is settled? Corrupt climate scientists with a political agenda, mostly employed by our federal government. (And I’m not talking about Roy. We just have a different opinion on the Second Law)
SkepticGoneWild
What do you think the term heat means? What do you accept as transfer of heat?
Here maybe this will help you.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/notes/Heattransfer.html
From the section on radiation.
“The net energy change is simply the difference between the radiated energy and the absorbed energy. This can be expressed as a power by dividing the energy by the time. The net power output of an object of temperature T is thus:
SkepticGoneWild
YOU: “business gets morphed into bi-directional heat transfer, which unfortunately many people in here believe. This belief results in seriously bizarre beliefs, like electromagnetic radiation from the earth heating the sun, the very thing the Clausius statement forbids.”
It does not get morphed into bi-directional heat transfer. I stays a one way heat transfer (Net is a one way process in this application). The statement is bi-directional energy flow to a surface:
Q(heat) = (area of surface)(Stefan-Boltzmann constant)(emissivity)(view factor)(Kelvin temp of surface^4 minus Kelvin temp of surrounding object).
The surface emits losing energy, at the same time it absorbs energy from the surroundings. The NET between the two processes is HEAT flux.
You say you studied the material. I do not know what textbook you used because all I have read state it the same as I have. I have linked you to textbooks in other replies to your posts. Let me know your source that makes a different claim. Thanks.
No one claims the Earth heats the Sun. The Sun is getting warmer because less energy is able to leave it than when planets are present. And remember it is an exceedingly small amount.
Whether or not it is an exceedingly small amount is not the point. The Second Law forbids any transfer of heat from the earth to the sun however minute, period.
“The Sun is getting warmer because less energy is able to leave it than when planets are present.”
That is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in awhile. The only thing that will warm the sun is an object warmer than the sun.
SkepticGoneWild
The more you post the more likely it is you have forgotten the physics you learned at some earlier time in your life. What you perceive as dumb is a reflection of your own inability to comprehend what is stated. I cannot be faulted for that.
You do not seem to understand the process when objects have there own energy source. It seems all your physics information is no systems that have no energy inputs.
The Sun heats itself through fusion. If anything restricts the amount of energy that can leave the Sun’s system, the energy it is producing will make it warm up. It does not need a warmer object, it only needs something that restricts the energy loss.
The Earth will not warm up the Sun in equilibrium conditions. If a large planet moved into the solar system, absorbed solar energy, warmed up and returned a portion of the solar energy back to the solar surface it would warm up over the condition without the planet. It is established physics. If you read textbooks you will find this to be the case.
SkepticGoneWild
Please take the time to explain what you think “heat” is.
The Second Law of Thermo clearly states heat flows from hot to cold.
It might help if you define what you think heat is. Is it energy? Power (energy/time…joules/second…watts?)
It flows. What is flowing? How do you describe it.
Every physics book I have so far read states heat is NET energy flow (Watts, time based flow of energy).
Tim Folkerts (thanks for him posting!! Real textbook physics every post, one can learn much from his posts or take the time to read an actual textbook) clearly explained heat flow in conduction. Energy exchange by molecules in the surfaces of objects at different temperatures. The flow is obviously a two-way exchange or else heat flow would not slow down as two objects got closer in temperature. Each object exchanges energy with the other. The heat flow is the NET energy flow between all the interactions of surface molecules. If you read textbooks they will inform you heat is Qnet. I have linked you to sources stating this very thing.
Norman,
Let up the ante. Suppose there was another identical sun that popped into the picture, adjacent to our original sun, but not touching. Will our original sun get warmer with an identical sun present nearby? No. The radiative heat flow equation says Q, or heat transfer, is zero when T1=T2. So why would a blackbody with a monumentally smaller temperature cause the sun to get warmer??
SkepticGoneWild
I think you have firm understanding of heat transfer in cases where there is not input energy taking place.
If you have a hot object and surround it with any material, the hot object will not warm. If you have a perfect mirror and all the energy stays inside the system of object and mirror, the object will not warm. However if the object has an internal supply of energy production, it will get warmer depending on what is surrounding it.
In your solar situation. Both Stars will get warmer than they would be isolated. They have an internal production of energy. If the energy exchange is zero (as you pointed out) the area of this zero energy loss will not allow the energy produced by fusion at the core to leave the system and hence both stars will warm to whatever temperature they need to until the amount of energy they are producing balances the amount of energy leaving.
I think the hurdle in your understanding of the physics pointed out by Tim Folkerts is you only apply your knowledge to the physics where not energy is being added. I think your thermodynamic system would be considered an isolated system. There is no new energy entering your system.
You can think in terms of your conduction test with a pole stuck in water. If the pole is heated (has a constant input of energy) how do you think the temperature of the water it is put into will effect its equilibrium temperature?
If the pole has energy added to it so it achieves a temperature of 100 C do you think the equilibrium temperature will be the same if you put the pole in 0 C water vs 50 C water? The heat is always flowing from the hot pole to the colder water but will it end at the same temperature regardless of the water temp?
I see.
So two light bulbs next to each other will burn brighter.
And if I have two water heaters, placing them adjacent to each other will cause them to increase in temperature.
Got it.
You can always tell when Norm gets trapped (again). He starts rambling off in diverse directions, preaching his pseudoscience –pounding on his keyboard.
Hilarious.
So Norman,
What is the new temperature of two suns next to each other. You should be able to calculate it with view factors.
Or can you show me a similar worked out problem in a physics textbook?
SkepticGoneWild
YOU: “And if I have two water heaters, placing them adjacent to each other will cause them to increase in temperature”
Most water heaters have some temperature setting that will turn the heating element on/off to maintain the setpoint temperature so it will not make much difference in that situation unless you have a continuous power supply that does not alter based upon surrounding conditions.
“And if I have two water heaters, placing them adjacent to each other will cause them to increase in temperature.””
Seriously? You could even question that this is right?
Of course two objects will interact thermally and affect each other. There are lots of details (size, shape, thermostats, convection …) that will make calculations a mess, but the principle is trivial.
To isolate out the basic physics, consider a simple situation. You have a flat panel heater — 1 m^2 and 2000 W (1000 W/^2 on each side). It is in the middle of no where in outer space, so it is radiating out to the 3K background of space. The surfaces have an emissivity of 1.
The surface temperature will be (1000/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 364 K
Now put another identical panel right in front of it. The two surfaces that face each other will not lose any radiation (since the other panel is the same temperature). So the remaining outer faces much each radiate 2000 W/m^2 each to shed the 4000W total.
The surface temperature will be (2000/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 433 K = 70 K warmer than before!
——————————————
NOTE: Even if the second panel was lower power (say 1000 W total instead of 2000 W total), BOTH panels would get warmer!
NOTE: the farther apart, the smaller the effect. But the effect does not magically cease at some specific distance — it just gets smaller and smaller until it is too small to measure. If the panels were even 1 m apart, I estimate they would only get on the order of 10K warmer (rather than 70 K warmer). At 10 m it would be closer to and order of 0.1K warmer.
O M G
Q Equals ZERO. I repeat ZERO. There is NO heat transfer because T1 = T2. When there is no heat transfer, the temperature does not increase. This is basic physics.
You guys need serious help in understanding the radiative heat flow equation, and the Second and First Law of thermodynamics.
“When there is no heat transfer, the temperature does not increase. This is basic physics.”
Shaking my head. Do I really need to spell this out?
Start with only one panel — call it P1. it has two sides, P1-A and P1-B. It gets a steady 2000 W (say from an electrical connection). It radiates 1000 W from P1-A and 1000 W from P1-B. The temperature is steady at 364 K. Far away, we have P2 in a similar condition.
Now the two panels are brought close, P1-A facing P2-A. What happens?
There is no transfer from P1 to P2 because P1-A and P2_A are the same temperature (that much you got correct — yay!). P1 loses nothing from side A, loses 1000 W from side B, and receives 2000 W. What do YOU predict will happen to an object that is gaining 2000 W of thermal energy, but only losing 1000 W of thermal energy???
Once P1-B and P2-B are radiating 2000 W from their B sides, then things will stabilize at the new, higher temperature.
SkepticGoneWild, please do that simple experiment.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“So two light bulbs next to each other will burn brighter.”
No — the brightness of bulbs comes from electricity, not external radiation.
SkepticsGoneWild
Concider that since the dawn of man, people caught in the cold have huddled together to stay warm. All near 98.6 F.
Foolish warmists?
David, the point is that two filaments WILL be (imperceptibly) hotter.
If the 2nd filament covers x% of the solid angle around the first filament, then the first filament ceases to lose energy into that x% of all possible directions. If the same energy keeps coming in, then the filament must warm enough to emit that x% into the other directions before the system will stabilize.
For my panel example, x = 50% (half of the possible direction for radiation are covered by the other panel). For the filament, it might be 0.0001% covered by the other filament. The principle is the same; just the magnitude of the effect is different.
Tim,
You need to ask for a refund from the school that taught you thermodynamics, because they failed miserably. Or you were drunk or stoned and skipped the lectures.
1. You are ignoring the radiative heat flow equation. When two objects have the same temperature, Q is zero. It’s beyond me why you will not accept this valid equation. There is NO heat transfer from one object to the other when T2 equals T1. With no heat transfer, the objects will remain at their initial identical temperatures.
2. If I had two identical cubes of metal at the same temperature and stuck them together, will they warm each other up by conductive heat transfer? YES ACCORDING TO YOU.
Furthermore in your first thought experiment, you have two 2000 watt heaters that magically emit 3000 Watts each! This is staggering beyond belief.
And you have the nerve to shake your head at me when YOU are the one spewing pseudo-scientific HORSE MANURE.
SkepticsGoneWild
You need to reread the prior comments and ask yourself this question, “what does the sun, a water heater, a light bulb, Tim’s panel example, and a human body all have in common?”
They all have internal sources of heat!
(Did you read Norman’s comments about that?)
And BTW, in none of those examples do the objects (or people) get warmer by transferring heat to each other.
Very easy to test it at home. Boiling water bath.Stick one metal knife into it so that the half of it is above the surface.Measure the temperature from the tip after a while. No place a second knife to the bath. Measure the temperature from both tips. Do you see a difference? Remove the first one.Does the temperature sink in the second one? Put a cover on the bath to prevent the greenhouse gas water vapour to interact. Does the temperature at the metal tip sink?
Apparently 1000 + 1000 = 3000 in SkepticGoneWild’s world.
Tim Folkerts
I was wondering where he got the 3000 myself. Your post was clear and easy to comprehend. You show that the surfaces not facing each other must radiate more to shed the continuous input energy. The surfaces were emitting 1000 Watts/m^2 because you had two surfaces to shed the input of 2000 Watts. When they face each other and are close you have zero heat exchange but energy keeps being added to the plates so they need to shed the 2000 watts somehow. The only way is for the plates not facing each other to warm to the point where the surfaces can emit the input of 2000 watts. Easy physics. Found in all textbooks on the subject.
Odd that SkepticGoneWild spends so much energy trying to convince himself you are wrong but he will not spend a minute consulting physics books to see the flaw in his thought processes and correct them.
I know Mike Flynn and g*e*r*a*n are an able to understand material in physics books. I was hoping since Skeptic took actual physics courses it would not be so hard for him to read up on it and then go, “Oh I see what Tim is saying” and learn from it.
I really do not understand the mentality of those who will refuse to learn and grow and hold on to incorrect notions.
SkepticGoneWild
1) “When two objects have the same temperature, Q is zero. … With no heat transfer, the objects will remain at their initial identical temperatures.”
More specifically, Q=0 between the inner sides of the heaters (from P1A to P2A) when they are placed near each other. But there is still Q(in)=2000W coming into each panel and still some variable Q(out) from the other sides of the panels (P1B and P2B) to space.
You need to consider ALL the heat flows to find out what happens to the temperature! When first brought together Q(in1)=2000W, Q(out1A)=0W (one of the few things you got right!) and Q(out1B)=1000W. With a net gain of Q=1000W, things will definitely start to warm up!
2) If I had two identical cubes of metal at the same temperature and stuck them together, will they warm each other up by conductive heat transfer? YES ACCORDING TO YOU.
IF the two blocks each have constant power heaters built in — you know, like the situation we are discussing! — they yes, the two block would obviously get warmer still if they were placed adjacent to each other.
Skeptic Gone Wild
Sure, yet Tim Folkerts is of course quite right !
And nobody ever claims that there is a heat transfer between two panels at temperatures T1 = T2. By definition heat is that kind of energy that spontaneously flows from a hot object to a cold one, be it by radiation exchanges, conduction or convection. If it is only radiation that’s the result of two equal and opposite photon fluxes.
As to the example of the heating panels: if you put two 1000 W panels one mile apart in still air at same temperature they will reach an equilibrium temperature T= T1=T2. Now if you bring them next to each other, say at one inch apart, in very same ambient air then their temperature is undoubtedly going to increase to T’ > T. In other words they get hotter even though there is definitely no heat flow between them. They get hotter because as they move towards each other they progressively shield each other from their colder environment so
that they have to get hotter in order to reach a new equilibrium temperature where their heat flow to the environment increases again up to 1000 W, the very condition for thermal equilibrium.
Similarly putting CO2 into the atmosphere shields the ground from cold outer space and increases it’s temperature.
SGW,
I’m afraid the others are correct on this issue.
Insulation (like the atmosphere) works by reducing the heat OUTPUT (Q_out) of an object (like the earth) at any given surface temperature. This means that if the heat INPUT (Q_in) from some heat source (like the sun) to the object remains unchanged and constant, the object’s surface will warm. Why? Because its surface temperature is determined by the balance between its Q_in and its Q_out.
These are TWO SEPARATE heat transfers occurring simultaneously at the surface: 1) sun => sfc (IN); 2) sfc => atm/space (OUT).
The sun heats/warms the surface, while the atmosphere and space cools it. In the steady state, the average heating rate is equal to the average cooling rate, and so there’s a balance maintained and thus no change in temperature.
However, if the average heat input somehow increases OR the average heat output somehow decreases, a positive imbalance will open up – more energy will ENTER per unit time than EXIT.
And if this new situation happen to be a permanent one, the accumulated net energy (Q_in > Q_out) will force the average surface temperature to rise to a level where its heat output once again manages to match the heat input. New dynamic equilibrium at a higher average temperature.
This is how insulation on constantly heated objects works.
You are telling that in my boiling water bath example the more knives I add into it the hotter they become?
esalil, your example is FUNDAMENTALLY different than the situations we are describing.
YOU are describing constant TEMPERATURE heat source, effectively acting as an infinite hot reservoir that can bring any object (or objects) to its temperature. Boiling water is a classic example. Anything with a thermostat would also fall in this category.
WE are discussing a constant POWER heat source, which provides a constant thermal energy input to an object regardless of its current temperature. Radiation is very close to a constant power source. So is an electric heater (as long as there is no thermostat).
Tim
I have to disagree with you here. It’s hard to visualize because the environment around the knives is so hot. The temperature change would be tiny, but the knives would be a hair warmer.
Tim
I’m not too sure about this, though. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s me who is mistaken.
SkepticGoneWild,
Think of the extremes.
First Tims flat panel heaters infinitely apart.
Now put them together without any gap.
Now they have the same area but twice the input.
It’s the same as doubling the original input on one panel.
Temperature has to go up.
The temperature progression is continuous, no jumps.
Sorry, I do not see the difference. In my example the kniga tips radiate IR also towards each other. The body heated by constant power reaches a constant temperature. Two bodies with a constant equal temperature make no difference to two knives in a water bath.
esalil
IMHO, knives next to each other – sticking out of boiling water – the tips would be warmer than that of a knife in the water by itself. Right, same idea as other examples. One problem, if the knives are too far apart, the radiation they emit might be absorbed by the steam rising from the bath between them.
Perhaps I misunderstood the water/knife situation. I pictured the knives as good thermal conductors so that the tips were basically at 100C. If the knives were sticking up into a cooler room so that the tips were somewhere roughly midway between 20C and 100C, then there could be an effect.
I do disagree that this would be “Very easy to test it at home.” Conduction would almost certainly be the dominant effect. Steam and warm air currents would further mask things. Finally, radiation would be ineffective because metal tends to have very low emissivity. Maybe you could measure a small effect, but it would be tough.
Tim
I had to imagine that the pot of boiling water was sitting in an icy- cold room. Still was a stretch.
Tim,
You stated you had a two flat panel heater emitting 1000 W on each side. The inside panel does not stop emitting just because there is an adjacent panel next to it. You said the outside is emitting 2000 W. The inside is still emitting 1000 W, which totals 3000 W for each heater. Magic.
There is no way to increase the temperature of each panel above their initial temperatures. You need a temperature gradient to transfer heat. (basic thermo) There is none. And once again, there is no heat transfer between two object at the same temperature per the radiative heat flow equation.
You’ve also violated the First Law by creating energy. Increasing the temperature of one or both heaters requires a higher energy state.
Please provide a worked out problem from a published peer reviewed paper, or a reputable physics or thermodynamic textbook which analyzes the same problem. Otherwise, you are blowing hot air.
Kristian stated:
SGW,
Im afraid the others are correct on this issue.
Your arguments were not validated by the use of the laws of thermodynamics or thermodynamic equations. You just stated a lot of opinions with nothing to back it up.
Norman stated:
“Easy physics. Found in all textbooks on the subject.”
Then find me a worked out problem like Tim presents.
Tim,
Let me correct the first sentence three posts above. It should read:
“You stated you had two flat panel heaters emitting 1000 W on each side.”
Your example is unrealistic. What you have is a one meter square black body at a constant temperature T, which according to you is has a value of 364 K. We must assume it is extremely thin, with a uniform temperature throughout. The object has to emit radiation according to its temperature on both sides. If it has a temperature, it will not stop emitting EMR on the inside face. So your example is invalid.
Tim stated:
“NOTE: Even if the second panel was lower power (say 1000 W total instead of 2000 W total), BOTH panels would get warmer!”
This is a CLEAR example of a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 1000 W panel (at a lower temperature) has transferred heat to and increased the temperature of the 2000 W higher temperature panel.
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.
Whoops! How did that happen? Above post should read:
SkepticGoneWild says
Snape said “IMHO, knives next to each other sticking out of boiling water the tips would be warmer than that of a knife in the water by itself. Right, same idea as other examples. One problem, if the knives are too far apart, the radiation they emit might be absorbed by the steam rising from the bath between them.”
How come a knife tip become hotter than 100C? I asked what happens if the boiling water is covered so that only the knives are sticking through the cover? You say that the radiation might be absorbed by the steam. Does it mean that the tips become hotter or colder? I guess that you meant colder. But the steam is a greenhouse gas.
Tim said: ” I do disagree that this would be Very easy to test it at home. Conduction would almost certainly be the dominant effect. Steam and warm air currents would further mask things. Finally, radiation would be ineffective because metal tends to have very low emissivity. Maybe you could measure a small effect, but it would be tough.”
Conduction is indeed the way the knives are heated. But the question was : Do the knife tips heat each other by radiation like heater plates in your example. If metal has a low emissivity why does it apply here but not with your plate heaters? At least my home 1000W plate heaters are all metal.
Kristian:
I appreciate your opinions. Do you think still that Norman, Snape, Tim Folkerts et al are right in the current debate?
SGW says: ” You just stated a lot of opinions with nothing to back it up.”
Oh, the irony!
“The inside is still emitting 1000 W”
… and receiving 1000 W from the other panel! So the net flow from one panel to the other is Q = 0 (as you have correctly stated several times).
“Increasing the temperature of one or both heaters requires a higher energy state.”
… like an internal electric heater.
“The 1000 W panel (at a lower temperature) has transferred heat to and increased the temperature of the 2000 W higher temperature panel.”
… or the internal electric heater did this.
*****************
One other thing — try to be careful about the terminology. You seem to be sloppy.
“Panel” = entire device; a flat, thin 1mx1m sheet.
“Side” = either of the two sides of the panel
“inside” = the side of one panel facing the other panel.
“outside” = the side of one panel not facing the other panel.
So, for example, I was assuming on your last comment quoted above that you meant “The 1000 W SIDE (at a lower temperature) has transferred heat to and increased the temperature of the 2000 W higher temperature SIDE.” Because nowhere in the discussion is there a “1000 W panel”. The panels are ALWAYS 2000 W total electrical input.
Oops .. ignore the previous comment about “This is a CLEAR example of a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 1000 W panel (at a lower temperature) has transferred heat to and increased the temperature of the 2000 W higher temperature panel.” I misread the comment.
Let me fix that.
By itself, a 1000W panel emits 500 W from each side, which would be 306 K (in deep space).
By itself, a 2000W panel emits 500 W from each side, which would be 364 K (in deep space).
When placed adjacent to each other, the two panels become effectively a single 3000 W panel, emitting 1500 W from each side, which would be 403 K.
There is no violation of the 2nd law because the heat flow is
(hot electric heating element) -⟩ (warm sides) -⟩ (cold space)
For a while when the panels are first brought together, there is also
(inward side of 2000W panel) -⟩ (inward side of cooler 1000W panel)
which is still not a violation of the 2nd law.
esalil
Tim Folkerts is an excellent source of knowledge on the physics of heat transfer. He is correct.
Here is the huge difference between your knives test and Tim Folkers
heated plates.
Consider it at least even if you do not agree.
In your knife case the energy supply is variable the temperature is constant. In the heated plate situation the energy is constant, the temperature is variable.
You could go one more with your knife in boiling water. Surround the tip with a thermos type insulation so it loses insignificant amount of energy at the tip. The tip temperature remains at 100 C regardless of the surroundings. The amount of energy flowing to the tip varies depending upon the surrounding condition. If the tip is well insulated far less energy moves from the boiling water to the tip.
In the heated plate case, the energy added is the constant not the temperature. If you insulate the heated plate or reduce the effective radiating surface the temperature goes up. The temperature is the variable in that case, the energy input is the variable in your knife case. Does that help?
esalil says, September 15, 2017 at 4:27 AM:
That depends on what you’re referring to. They are most certainly correct in pointing out that insulation does actually work.
The problem with the idea of the “GHE” and of the “enhanced” version of it isn’t and never was about this basic thermodynamic concept.
Kristian:
So you think that two plates with equal temperature and equal power supply will insulate each other when they are near enough and become hotter? Or in my example the knife tips insulate each other to become hotter?
esalil says, September 15, 2017 at 8:23 AM:
What you’re basically asking me is, if on a cold winter’s night I were to hold a jacket out at arm’s length from my body, would it insulate me against my cold surroundings? The answer is no, esalil. Because this is not what insulation is. That jacket won’t come between me and my cold surroundings. Like the atmosphere, completely enveloping the global solar-heated surface of the Earth, comes between it and the infinite heat sink of space. THAT’S an insulating layer.
SkepticGoneWild, perhaps if you look at it this way.
A heater in equilibrium has the same input and output.
A warmer body loses energy (joules) to cold surroundings.
The rate (watts) depends on the difference.
Reduce the coldness and the rate is less.
The heater then has more input than output (watts).
Temperature rises until a new equilibrium is reached.
Now that we’re all on the same page we have also resolved “cold can not warm hot” and GHE “2nd law violation” since:
1) Heater input corresponds to solar radiation absorbed by the surface.
2) The cold surroundings is our atmosphere.
3) When it absorbs outgoing IR its coldness is reduced.
4) Surface temperature goes up.
Note for beginners: CO2 is transparent to the bulk of the incoming solar radiation, but absorbs in the middle of the outgoing (infrared) band.
‘It is a dynamic system. The sinks are not static. They are responsive. Part of the sink activity is induced by the anthro inputs. The sinks dynamically increase in size in response to them.’
Oh I see, it is a dynamic system, that can decide to obey or not obey ordinary conservation laws, chemical equilibrium, etc. It can behave in any way Bart deems necessary to support his beliefs.
No. As you should know in math, which you seem to prefer, proofs can only be done using previously proven theorems. You can’t use an unproven speculation to prove something. It just dont work, especially when the speculation is itself implausible.
Youve done this now a number of times.
In science, we dont require absolute proofs, but we do require consistency with know facts and laws. We require plausibility. We require logical simplicity (Occam).
None of these requirements are met by your explanation for the buildup of atm CO2.
Rather, it seems to require that I dial back my critical thinking skills, common sense, and unlearn physics and chemistry. Why should I do that?
Norman says: “In your knife case the energy supply is variable the temperature is constant. In the heated plate situation the energy is constant, the temperature is variable”
No. In both cases the energy supply and temperature are constant. The stove heats the water with a constant energy supply and water boils at constant 100C temperature. The lower end of the knives are at 100C while the upper tips have another temperature depending on the surroundings. Now you claim that if there are two or more knives in the water the upper tips become hotter. It is not different to the case where the power heats the plates until the equilibrium temperature is reached (without thermostat). Now you claim that the two plates with equal temperatures heat each other to become hotter.
If that were the case it would be feasible to warm the room with two plate heaters sticked together instead of two heaters on the separate walls which is the common practise. I wonder why the constructors do not use this trick.
esalil
I am not making the claims you believe me to be making.
YOU: “Now you claim that the two plates with equal temperatures heat each other to become hotter.”
Not at all what I am claiming. The two plates have a constant internal supply of energy. They do not heat each other. Please find where you think in any way I made such a claim.
Others have explained it in detail to you. Think about it a bit. What you have is a continuous supply of energy. There is no set temperature based only upon the energy input.
If you take a 60 Watt power supply and heat an object with an effect radiating surface of 1 meter squared (with no other energy sources around it) the surface will be quite cold. If you take the same 60 Watt power supply but reduce the effective radiating surface to something the area of a tungsten filament, this same power supply can raise the surface temperature to thousands of degrees. There is no set temperature. The equilibrium temperature is determined by the effective radiating surface area when there is a constant energy input. Two heated plates near each other cause both surfaces to increase in temperature because you have reduced the effective radiating surface area. The new equilibrium temperature is found when you have the energy leaving is equal to the energy being added.
Your knife case is complex (as Tim Folkerts pointed out). If the knife tips are not at the temperature of the water (100 C) then changing the surroundings can alter the tip surface temperature. If the tips find equilibrium at 100 C (the energy from the water via conduction can maintain a 100 C temperature) then adding more knives will have no effect, all that would happen is less energy would flow from the water to the knife tip.
How can I make it easier for you to understand the points?
esalil, maybe this will help …
Imagine the boiling water is inside a layer of insulation, so that the warmth is (mostly) kept inside the pot. Stick a long thin blade through the insulation, so it extends from 100C water to 20 C room. The tip will be somewhere between 20 and 100. Let’s assume it is 40 C due to conductive & convective and radiative loses to the surroundings.
Now put a whole forest of such blades through — hundreds of them. Any tip by itself would be 40 C. But with all the other tips around, each one will provide some general warmth to the area. Conduction and convection and radiation will limit how well any one tip can cool. ALL the tips will warm above 40 C.
Bindidon – the test is on now wit increasing CO2 -result warmer ocean temperatures overall/warmer global climate versus very weak solar the result lower ocean temperature overall a cooler climate.
Let us see what happens from here.
I say by summer of 2018, 30 year global mean temperatures at or below those means.
Salvatore, it makes few sense to say for example ‘Let us see what increasing CO2 concentration will bring the next 12 months’, as (not only) you do so often.
It will take a lot more than 12 months to become visible.
There are many counteraspects to be considered when trying to evaluate CO2’s action, e.g.:
– CO2 is not the main agent; it is only a tiny catalysator increasing tropospheric water vapor above the boundary layer;
– volcano eruptions;
– collateral effect of CO2 emissions: aerosols known to cool the atmosphere;
– CO2 uptake by the oceans (they store much more of it than does the atmosphere);
– heat uptake by the oceans (they store by magnitudes more of it than does the atmosphere).
I repeat: Essere paziente, Salvatore!
The reason why I bring this up is because of AGW believers in general, that see CO2 as the DRIVER and nothing else.
You do have the sense to know there are other factors, unlike so many of your counterparts.
Thanks for your valuable opinion, Salvatore.
The reason why I bring this up is because of AGW believers in general, that see CO2 as the DRIVER and nothing else.
That refers to the views of no one here, and no one I’ve ever heard of. The view is that CO2 is the dominant driver of multi-decadal global temp change since 1950, not the only driver.
Where did you get this idea?
From others not here on this site.
It wasn’t me your honour: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261256
This is an example of someone saying CO2 is the only driver?
Because it isn’t.
No, I was just trying to clear my name.
I think everything aside AGW theory’s biggest test is coming up starting now and over the next few years.
Let’s see where the data take things.
Salvatore,
CO2 (and CH4) is pushing the trend upward.
The UAH trend is +0.13 C/decade.
That is 0.013 C/year.
El Nino pushed temperatures up about 0.7 C around 1998.
Whatever you find in the next few years it is not AGW.
This is AGW:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
–This is AGW:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png —
Broadly what graph indicates is no large cooling effects, lately.
Or big spikes of warming in past, but no large spike currently and currently lacking big dips.
So AGW seems like a good effect or AGW is the same as still recovering from LIA [which is good/nice/better as in let’s have more of this, please.
Well it shows temperature proportional to ln(CO2) which was added by us, but Salvatore can still get his dip in the next few years.
https://tinyurl.com/ydgsjxle
“This is AGW:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png“
That is malarkey. Anything before 1900 is speculative at best, and the data have been interpreted within the margins of uncertainty to best support the preconceived outcome.
“Well it shows temperature proportional to ln(CO2) which was added by us…”
Nonsense. We do not significantly contribute to atmospheric CO2 concentration. It is impossible to have a greater proportionate impact on a balance than one’s proportionate addition to the inputs which establish that balance.
The rate of change of CO2 is proportional to temperature anomaly. Were there a significant dependence of temperature on CO2 in the present climate state, that would represent a positive feedback that could not even be stabilized by T^4 radiation. We would have been toast eons ago.
Bart,
“Anything before 1900 is speculative at best”.
There is independent verification of the instrumental temperature record, e.g.:
https://tinyurl.com/y737wfa5.
“We do not significantly contribute to atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
Do you need more proof than this:
https://tinyurl.com/y7xz4ytk.
“The rate of change of CO2 is proportional to temperature anomaly.”
That is short term as we discussed before, see:
https://tinyurl.com/yaogerpr.
“a positive feedback that could not even be stabilized by T^4 radiation”.
It’s ln(CO2), the impact drops off with concentration.
We added exponentially and got a more linear response.
Svante, you might want to investigate where the “ln(CO2)” came from.
Oh, come on Svante.
“There is independent verification of the instrumental temperature record.”
Nonsense. There simply are no global data available anywhere near the quality of the latter period. The error bars are way larger than the signal.
“Do you need more proof than this:”
A splice of low resolution proxy data with modern, direct measurements? Uh, yeah.
“That is short term as we discussed before…”
Nonsense. It holds for both the long term trend and the variability in the era in which the lion’s share of the increase occurred. There is no question about it.
“Its ln(CO2), the impact drops off with concentration.”
Doesn’t matter. As long as there is positive impact on both sides, there is a positive feedback loop, and no steady state equilibrium. The system would go off the rails.
You have been gulled by a narrative that is physically impossible. Watch and see. The truth will eventually out.
Bart says:
“We do not significantly contribute to atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
You can’t prove that.
You are ignoring all the science — raw unthinking denialism at its worst.
g*e*r*a*n, now I’ve investigated.
Here’s the theoretical computation:
https://tinyurl.com/ybcl7jfq
Here’s the practical observation:
https://tinyurl.com/y7lb6zpn
Svante says: “…now Ive investigated”
Well, if you study your first link, you will find the constant “circular reasoning” used in pseudoscience.
They start with the “given”, use MODTRAN, and find that the “given” is “proved”!
*The question was “Why logarithmic?”.
MODTRAN is only used in fig. 1a.
Do you think it’s only spectral a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n line saturation?
David Appell @ September 13, 2017 at 7:31 AM
“You are ignoring all the science…”
No, I am using science, period. The science as a phrase with the article preceding is a narrative work based on what people have decided they want to be true. It has no actual rigor or proof.
” raw unthinking denialism at its worst.”
What you are engaging in is raw, unthinking Groupthink.
Bart,
“As long as there is positive impact on both sides, there is a positive feedback loop, and no steady state equilibrium. The system would go off the rails.”
Your view reminds me of ‘Achilles and the tortoise’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise
Freshen up your maths here:
https://tinyurl.com/p7dhyse
An infinite series can be limited, and very much so when you have ln(CO2) and T^4. This is the solution to Zeno’s paradox.
Sure, an infinite series can be limited. This one isn’t. The loop gain is greater than unity at low frequency. Even T^4 radiation will not stabilize it.
Yes, the climate can flip, but I still think you are too alarmist. What evidence do you have?
Not can. Would. If there were “a significant dependence of temperature on CO2 in the present climate state”. Which tells us there isn’t.Not can. Would. If there were “a significant dependence of temperature on CO2 in the present climate state”. Which tells us there isn’t.
Bart you said this about a CO2 GHE
‘Doesnt matter. As long as there is positive impact on both sides, there is a positive feedback loop, and no steady state equilibrium. The system would go off the rails.’
Where do you get so many hare-brained ideas?
No just no..
Obviously hasnt been the case for water vapor and its GHE.
Water vapor does not have an integral relationship with temperature. CO2 does.
If you do not understand, ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions.
Svante –
“So why do you see major emissions in eastern China, Europe and eastern US, and where biomass is being burnt in the tropics?”
A diffuse input over the entire ocean surface has much greater impact than a concentrated input over a few square miles.
Nate –
“In your scenario, the 36Btons is ALL absorbed by the ocean, and THEN the ocean emits 20 B tons into the atmosphere. That is different from the first scenario how?”
Not “ALL”, just most, in proportion to its proportion of the input. It is different in that, if the anthro stopped, the atmosphere would still be gaining due to the temperature relationship. It is different in that, if temperatures go down, the rate of change in the atmosphere will go down. If temperatures go down enough, the atmospheric concentration will start to decline.
Temperatures are likely to start going down in the near future. Keep watching.
For a logical, mathematical description, refer to the link I have supplied previously.
Bart, you say:
“It is impossible to have a greater proportionate impact on a balance than ones proportionate addition to the inputs which establish that balance.”
Let’s say reservoir of 10, and balanced input 100, output 100.
Adding 3 increases output to 101.5 out.
103 in 101.5 out => reservoir of 11.5.
Next cycle => reservoir of 13.
N cycles => 10 + N*1.5.
This is a nonsensical scenario that only works physically in your head. If the system is at equilibrium at 10, and you add 3% to the input which maintains that prior equilibrium, then your steady state output will not rise to more than 10.3.
An equilibrium system must obey a system of equations for which a deviation from equilibirum is driven back to the equilibrium position. For example, a first order relaxation process
dr/dt = -r/tau + u
where u is the input, and tau is a time constant. If you temporarily displace one of the variables, the system always returns to the point where the derivative dr/dt is zero, i.e., where r = u*tau. That is what establishes the equilibrium position – a persistent drive to the equilibrium point. If there is no such dynamic, then there is no equilibrium position, and the system is free to wander wherever it will.
So, in your example, assuming the system differential equation above, we could initialize with r = 10 and u = 100. Assuming the system is at equilibrium, that would make tau = 0.1. Let’s say we sample the output of this process with a sample interval equal to tau. Then, the solution of the above equation at the kth time step is
r(k+1) = 0.3679*r(k) + 0.06321*u(k)
We see that if u(0) = 100 and r(0) = 10, then r(1) = 10, and we are at equilibrium. If we set u(k) = 103 for k greater than 0, then we have the following progression:
r(2) = 10.1896
r(3) = 10.2594
r(4) = 10.2851
r(5) = 10.2945
r(6) = 10.2980
r(7) = 10.2993
r(8) = 10.2997
r(9) = 10.2999
r(10) = 10.3000
…
and, we are at the new equilibrium position. Now, it is possible to have an underdamped response that temporarily exceeds the 3% limit, but in the steady state, it will always settle out at that limit. It is also possible to have a nonlinear response that increases the output beyond the limit. However, it would have to be a substantial nonlinearity, and there is no indication we are dealing with such a system.
So, let’s suppose we had a system such as that above, and we observed that it actually rose to 15 instead of 10.3. What could have caused such a rise?
We know it is not the additional input, because that can only give us up to 10.3. We have to change the other governing variable, which is tau. We need 15 = 103*tau, which implies tau increased to 0.1456. The timeline over which the system dissipates the input increased.
That is what we are dealing with for atmospheric CO2. The system response has changed, due to rising temperature. Only something on the order of 3% of the observed increase is due to our additional input. The rest is natural.
No, it depends on what the differential equations really are.
If the CO2 uptake was completely saturated all our emissions would stay in the atmosphere. At the moment half of it does.
“However, it would have to be a substantial nonlinearity, and there is no indication we are dealing with such a system.”
Your graph has tremendous non-linearity. The second derivative is positive. You have exponential growth in your diagram.
“No, it depends on what the differential equations really are.”
No, not really. It’s general for any equilibrium process.
“If the CO2 uptake was completely saturated all our emissions would stay in the atmosphere.”
Then, it is no longer an equilibrium process.
You are appealing to way-out scenarios when there is a much simpler explanation that A) is physically possible, and B) fits the data. What you are engaging in is known as slothful induction”.
Bart Svante,
”dr/dt = -r/tau + u
where u is the input, and tau is a time constant.”
I would suggest modifying this to take into account that there are two reservoirs. ra and ro for atm and ocean. Lets suppose they are in equilibrium when both have 390 ppm of co2. This is consistent with known parameters.
There is a net flow when there is a difference delr = ra-ro.
So dra/dt = -delr/tau +u
and dro/dt = delr/tau.
u = 3 is the anthro flow, the natural flows average to 0 each year. We can take tau = 0.4 to get reasonable results
Solving these numerically gives:
year ra ro
0 290 290
1 391.79 391.20
2 393.29 392.70
3 394.8 394.2
4 396.3 395.7
5 404.15 400.35
etc growth just continues
starting values should be
y ra ro
0 390 390
Bart,
I really like the site you linked for “slothful induction”.
Nature generates more CO2 than humans:
https://tinyurl.com/y7vw9abb
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356
Until the reality of the pause was accepted, it was said to be so dominant that other drivers would hitherto have little impact.
Accepting that other drivers are still significant was a concession, necessary to keep the machine running.
Eventually, we will realize that CO2 has little impact at all. It is a symptom of warming, not the cause.
Good paper, thank you Bart, I find nothing wrong in it.
It is focused on the TOA radiation balance, not the temporary fluctuations that we like to discuss here.
Quote:
Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n of radiation.
Are you saying this spike was not emitted by us?
https://tinyurl.com/y7xz4ytk.
Why then did it coincide with the industrial revolution when it stayed below 300 ppm for 400000 years or more?
Bart says:
“Eventually, we will realize that CO2 has little impact at all. It is a symptom of warming, not the cause.”
CO2 is clearly created by witches. We should burn them.
“Quote:
Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n of radiation.”
Facile. Radiation from the Earth occurs at all levels of the surface and atmosphere, and the aggregate output is established by radiative-convective equilibrium processes.
“Are you saying this spike was not emitted by us?”
I’m saying this graph is misleading, as it is a splice of low resolution, low quality proxies with modern, direct, high bandwidth measurements.
“Why then did it coincide with the industrial revolution when it stayed below 300 ppm for 400000 years or more?”
Because that is where the splice occurs. You are looking at a chimera.
Humans have emitted over 2 trillion tons of CO2 since 1850. Just where to think all that went?
And are you aware of how carbon’s isotopes identify their source as fossil fuels?
“Humans have emitted over 2 trillion tons of CO2 since 1850.”
Tiny, compared to the amount nature has emitted in the same time period.
“Just where to think all that went?”
Same places all the natural emissions went.
“And are you aware of how carbons isotopes identify their source as fossil fuels?”
It’s not unique. We do not know all the inputs, and there is a complicated diffusion process involved.
Bart says:
“Tiny, compared to the amount nature has emitted in the same time period.”
How much has nature absorbed in that time period?
Bart says:
>> And are you aware of how carbons isotopes identify their source as fossil fuels? <<
"Its not unique."
Yes, it is.
I doubt you have the scientific chops to deal with this, but here is the proof:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
“…but here is the proof:”
Pitiful.
What’s pitiful is that you have no intelligent reply and so readily admit it.
Pretty representative of CliSCi in general, really. The dregs. Terribly flaccid stuff.
The final impregnable line of defense: thousands of climate scientist are incompetent and/or conspiring against us.
Bart says:
“this graph is misleading, as it is a splice of low resolution, low quality proxies with modern, direct, high bandwidth measurements.”
Not really, it’s based on air trapped in ice.
“Because that is where the splice occurs.”
No need to splice, just connect the dots. We were below 300ppm at least 800000 years, now we are measuring 400ppm.
EPICA Dome C: https://tinyurl.com/y98myfm2
“Not really, its based on air trapped in ice.”
Air diffuses. We have no control experiment. There is no means of end-to-end verification.
“We were below 300ppm at least 800000 years…”
…you think.
“…now we are measuring 400ppm.”
A change in less than 100 years that definitely would not be picked up with the ice core resolution.
Understand, this is all academic. In the 60 years that we have direct and reliable CO2 measurements, the measured increase in concentration was greater than 2/3 of the purported rise.
We know what happened in those 60 years – the rise was driven by temperature. That’s all we need to know. Human inputs, at the very least, are not responsible for that lion’s share of the rise.
BTW:
“…thousands of climate scientist are incompetent and/or conspiring against us.”
In any given field, fully 50% of the active players are below the median. And, half of the remainder are below the median in that group. And, so on. It is only after several such divisions that you get to the core of players who actually know what they are doing.
After all, if you choose your champion as Michael Moore, and I choose Richard Lindzen, I win. If you choose Gavin Schmidt, and I choose Freeman Dyson, I win again. Quantity ~= Quality.
Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap. It holds in just about every field of human endeavor. Don’t worship authorities who are no more qualified than yourself to make rational judgments. Make your own determination.
Sorry – Michael Mann, not Michael Moore. Different weight class, but otherwise equally appealing figures.
Bart, what do you mean by this:
“the measured increase in concentration was greater than 2/3 of the purported rise”?
We have emitted about twice as much as the rise in atmospheric concentration.
“Bart, what do you mean by this:
the measured increase in concentration was greater than 2/3 of the purported rise?”
The purported pre-industrial level was about 280 ppm. In 1958, the level was about 315 ppm. Now, it is about 405 ppm.
Change from pre-industrial to 1958: about 35 ppm
Change from 60 years ago to now: about 90 ppm
Proportion of total change from 60 years ago: 90/(90+35) := 2/3
So, you can quibble that it isn’t “greater than”, but it is about that. In the era when approximately 2/3 of the total rise was measured, we can objectively say that it was not because of human emissions. It is not very likely that the other 1/3 was our responsibility, either.
“We have emitted about twice as much as the rise in atmospheric concentration.”
You’ve eaten many times your body weight over the years. Yet, somehow, you weigh much less than half that.
Why in the world would you imagine that the total accumulation of all the CO2 we ever emitted should show up as a significant percentage of what is there now?
Bart says: “we can objectively say that it was not because of human emissions.”
No. I’m glad you reference a real climate scientist:
“Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.”
https://tinyurl.com/yd3esw3z
I’ve presented the evidence. What you do with it is up to you. If you doubt your own faculties, and prefer to take the word of someone else, that is your prerogative.
You’ve presented no evidence at all — just a bunch of random, unsupported claims you made up.
A study of CO2’s carbon isotopes shows that it comes from fossil fuels:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
We also know that atmosphere, land and ocean are all gaining carbon. There is no known “source” for this extra carbon except burning fossil fuels and land use changes.
The congruence of the temperature series with the rate of change of atmospheric concentration is incontrovertible. Isotope measurements are merely consistent with a narrative, and consistency is not proof. And, there is a continuous source in upwelling and downwelling waters transporting CO2 from the surface to the ocean depths and back up again.
You’ve made up your mind, and there is nothing that can sway you. There is little point in arguing with your religion.
1) You said you choose Lindzen as your champion. Lindzen says your opinion is “nutty”.
2) That congruence is only short term. Show me a long term correlation please!
3) What part of the isotope evidence do you not accept, or do you not believe in isotopes at all?
“transporting CO2 from the surface to the ocean depths and back up again”
4) As David just said, CO2 is increasing in the oceans as well (causing ocean acidification which may be a worse problem than AGW for all I know).
I can change my mind you find compelling evidence.
Bart says:
“The congruence of the temperature series with the rate of change of atmospheric concentration is incontrovertible.”
Again, it is not. And you haven’t proved it.
IF it was true, there’s be an annual oscillation in the temperature, since there is one in the CO2 data.
“Isotope measurements are merely consistent with a narrative, and consistency is not proof.”
Yes, consistent with the hypothesis that the increase in CO2 comes from humans!
You have no refutation of this science at all.
“And, there is a continuous source in upwelling and downwelling waters transporting CO2 from the surface to the ocean depths and back up again.”
Oceanic CO2 is increasing. Land uptake is increasing. So where is the extra atmospheric CO2 coming from?
“Youve made up your mind, and there is nothing that can sway you. There is little point in arguing with your religion.”
I understand why you’re frustrated. But it’s because you provide no science or data, and I and others here do.
Svante @ September 17, 2017 at 4:32 PM
“1) You said you choose Lindzen as your champion. Lindzen says your opinion is nutty.”
He said people who dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas are nutty. I have not disputed the IR absorbing properties of CO2.
Lindzen is a very bright guy. Better than anyone on the alarmist side. But, that does not mean he is infallible.
The fact that CO2 concentration is not significantly influenced by human inputs is a pretty big deal, that goes against decades of assumptions. It will take a long time for people to climb down from it, and they will only do so when the evidence becomes too overwhelming for even the diehards to deny. It could take decades or centuries, but it will happen. Because the data are very clear, and sooner or later, the divergence with expectations will become too pronounced to defend.
“2) That congruence is only short term.”
It holds for the entire 60 year era in which we have had reliable CO2 measurements, an era in which 2/3 of the observed rise occurred.
“3) What part of the isotope evidence do you not accept…”
That is necessarily arises due to fossil fuel combustion, and that historic proxy records for the ratio are reliable.
“4) As David just said, CO2 is increasing in the oceans as well…”
So? Any increase in the surface system must manifest in both oceans and atmosphere. It does not indicate the source.
David Appell @ September 17, 2017 at 4:39 PM
“IF it was true, theres be an annual oscillation in the temperature, since there is one in the CO2 data.”
There is an annual oscillation in temperatures. Perhaps you live at the equator, and were unaware?
“Yes, consistent with the hypothesis that the increase in CO2 comes from humans!”
And, malaria is consistent with poisonous gases in night air, hence mal-aria. Consistency with assumed answers proffered as proof is a manifestation of pre-enlightenment, anti-science superstition.
“Oceanic CO2 is increasing. Land uptake is increasing. So where is the extra atmospheric CO2 coming from?”
It is a dynamic system. See thread here.
“But its because you provide no science or data, and I and others here do.”
You provide your feelings, and a Gish-Gallop of dubious and poor quality links to what others of dubious qualification have claimed.
.It holds for the entire 60 year era in which we have had reliable CO2 measurements, an era in which 2/3 of the observed rise occurred’
No it doesnt, when one looks carefully at variations on longer and times, filtering out the faster variation, the correlation coefficient is rapidly decreasing.
Finally for the 60 year time scale you have an apparent ‘correlation’ because both sets happen to be rising. But this is not meaningful.
illustration of weak correlation on long time scales http://tinyurl.com/y92oaf9a
That’s just ridiculous, Nate.
1) Why is it ridiculous?
2) You say temperature drives CO2.
In your own plot you correlate temperature with the CO2 derivative. During the pause 1945-1975, the derivative is positive. During your recent pause, the derivative is even higher. Stable temperature, growing CO2, how can that be?
It is ridiculous because it is grasping for reasons to deny the obvious. The correlation is strong across the entire modern CO2 record:
https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7
We are ‘Grasping for reasons to deny the obvious’
Translation from Bart to real world:
Obvious- an unproven hypothesis
Grasping- testing the hypothesis
Reasons to deny – hypothesis fails test
We- the data. Not us.
But your plot shows CO2 rising when temperature declines?
“But your plot shows CO2 rising when temperature declines?”
But, the rate of change is declining. It is a rate of change relationship.
Are you misinterpreting the domain (rate of change vs. absolute level), or are you concerned that the series do not match perfectly? In the real world, the signals never match perfectly. The measurements are not ideal, and there are secondary processes taking place producing short term deviations. But, overall, this is a very good match.
No Bart, the rate of change is trending up in your plot.
The derivative starts around 0.06 and finishes at 0.2.
https://tinyurl.com/y7fqmokt
Bart,
you keep showing the same plot over and over with the same result that it is not convincing to many here who have pointed out its flaws.
Your repeated statement ‘Because the data are very clear’ simply does not hold up to scrutiny.
How hard is this, guys?
Svante – if the temperature anomaly declines, the rate of change declines. If the temperature anomaly rises, the rate of change rises. The rate of change is proportional to temperature anomaly. Not perfectly, of course, but about as good as it gets in the real world.
Nate – there are no flaws. The data are very, very clear.
Bart,
The derivative is positive when temperature drops in your diagram.
That means that CO2 is going up when temperature goes down.
Moreover, the derivative is increasing, so CO2 is rising faster and faster.
Something is pushing CO2 up and it is not temperature.
So in the short term you are absolutely right, the natural CO2 variation is driven by temperature.
In the long term our emissions are pushing the trend up.
It is explained here: https://tinyurl.com/yayg5e3u.
That means that CO2 is going up when temperature goes down.
So what? Its the rate of change that is proportional to temperature anomaly. When the temperature goes down, the rate of change goes down.
I think maybe you are not familiar with calculus, and models of physical systems using differential equations.
It is explained here
It is assumed at the outset there that the long term rise is anthropogenically induced. If you dig into it, you will find this results in a need to effectively high pass filter the temperature signal to get the correlated variation. This violates continuity, and treats anthropogenic emissions differently from natural emissions, even though nature has no means of distinguishing between the two.
Im right on this, Svante. Watch and see what happens.
‘there are no flaws’
how can you say that? This look correlated? As correlated as the 24 month smoothed data?
http://tinyurl.com/y92oaf9a
Bart,
You say temperatures are driving CO2.
“When the temperature goes down, the rate of change goes down.”
Yes, but it is still positive, why?
When temperature goes up CO2 goes up.
When temperature goes down CO2 goes up.
Some driver!
Svante –
“When temperature goes up CO2 goes up.
When temperature goes down CO2 goes up.”
No.
When temperature goes up, the rate of change of CO2 goes up.
When temperature goes down, the rate of change of CO2 goes down.
“Yes, but it is still positive, why?”
Because it is the rate of change that responds to temperature.
You are stuck in a loop when you are expecting CO2 to track the temperature. It doesn’t. It tracks the integral of the temperature.
Bart, I say:
When temperature goes up CO2 goes up.”
“When temperature goes down CO2 goes up.
How can you say no to this when you have a positive derivative all the way through your plot?
Svante – it is immaterial. I’m not saying CO2 is proportional to temperature. I am saying the rate of change is proportional to temperature.
Think of temperature as the accelerator pedal on your car, and CO2 as the position of your car. You press the pedal down, and the velocity, i.e. the rate of change of position, goes up.
You let up on the pedal, and your rate of change goes down.
You’re telling me
“When the pedal goes up, position goes up.
When pedal goes down, position goes up.”
Sure, it does. But, the velocity goes up in the first case, and it goes down in the second case. Your position is the outcome of the time history of how you depressed the pedal.
The only difficulty with this analogy is that, in a normal car, if you let up entirely on the pedal, the velocity only ever goes down to idling speed. But, if you imagine you are on a hill, and if you do not depress the pedal enough, you will start rolling backwards, then the analogy becomes more complete.
Just so, once temperatures decline beyond a critical point, then the CO2 starts coming down again.
That is the basic analogy. The next question you should ask is, what if temperatures do not come back down again? The answer to that is, after a sustained increase, other limitations kick in. But, those need not concern us here.
For the time interval of interest (mid-20th century to now), the rate of change of CO2 is, for all intents and purposes, proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly, and its level is the outcome of the time history of temperature anomaly.
Bart, you say “the rate of change is proportional to temperature.”
It’s worse than that, the rate of change is tripled during the span of your diagram.
A thirty year pause and the rate of change still went up.
How much must temperature drop in order to stop CO2 growth?
“A thirty year pause and the rate of change still went up.”
You are not making any sense, Svante. What do you mean by “pause”? The temperature anomaly is moving up in lock step with the rate of change.
I repeat the question
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263918
Sorry Bart,
I mean temperature trend going down for forty years:
https://tinyurl.com/y7p8m449
While CO2 rate of change went up almost three times:
https://tinyurl.com/yanxu367
… so you release the accelerator, and not only does your car keep accelerating, it accelerates at a higher and higher rate.
Perhaps you need the 2nd derivative.
Nate @ September 21, 2017 at 12:57 PM
Dumb question. I can make data look uncorrelated with itself using your manipulations:
https://tinyurl.com/x8s93ld
I’m not going to take the time to respond to nonsense like that anymore.
Svante – you’re not even trending over the same time periods. Are you well?
I gave you ten bonus years to show that the effect was not accumulated earlier. Here is the cut down version:
Temperature down:
https://tinyurl.com/ya5c9qwh
The rate of change doubles:
https://tinyurl.com/y7symq4n
Bart
‘I can make data look uncorrelated with itself using your manipulations:’
False. A complete dodge.
Your plot shows correlated data with itself. A calculation will show corr coeff of 1.
My plot shows poorly correlated data. A calculation shows its Corr coeff is 0.16.
While data filtered at 12 mo has a corr coeff of 0.62.
The data is not a ‘perfect’ fit. Its a bad fit.
Sorry, reality gets in the way of our ideas sometimes.
Get over it. Move on.
i see you have arbitrary detrending, so no the temp data will not have cc of 1 with itself.
However, that is different from what I did, which was not at all arbitrary.
I removed the linear trend from each data. Translating to your graph, both sets have equal trend removed. Then cc will be 1.
The point of my manipulations was to isolate variations ocurring over moderate times, > 9 y less than 60 years. These are shown in the graph, and these are poorly correlated. This is not consistent with your hypothesis.
It is falsified.
Svante @ September 21, 2017 at 11:29 PM
So, I showed you a near perfect fit:
https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7
And, you went off hunting for other data sets that wouldn’t fit as well over specific time intervals.
The data show an excellent fit over the long term with the set above, and the fit is even better with the high quality satellite data:
https://tinyurl.com/muo5shh
If you are so determined to fool yourself, there’s not a lot I can do.
Nate @ September 22, 2017 at 7:46 AM
This is going from the ridiculous to the sublime. Yes, what you did was absolutely arbitrary. You, also, are determined to fool yourself.
I really have no more time for these silly games, fella’s. You obviously would have to be smacked on the sides of your heads with a 2X4 before you would admit it even existed. It’s boring and annoying. Au revoir.
Bart,
I restricted myself to your data sources because you do not accept much else.
Yes, you have a great fit.
I am trying to explain to you what your data means.
Positive derivative means CO2 goes up all of the time. Not only that, the derivative goes from 0.05 to 0.2 in your diagram, so CO2 goes up faster and faster.
Temperature T one year, a decade later you can have more CO2 at the same T, because the rate of change is positive all the way.
It looks like you have a runaway feedback effect in your diagram. You accept that CO2 is a green house gas, so I guess that’s it.
Svante – you changed the temperature source. The global does not work as well as the SH. But, the SH is closer to the satellite data, to which the CO2 data adhere with amazing consistency. I conclude the surface sets are significantly error prone, especially with all the arbitrary “adjustments” that have been made to them. The global data can be scaled to work fairly well:
https://tinyurl.com/ybxevgta
but not as well. So what? It only means the data are imperfect.
Yes, there is no bound upon the growth in CO2 within the model. But, this is merely a reflection of the short data record. Over the long term, other limiting factors will come into play. But, in any relatively short interval such as the nearly 60 years we are examining, the rate of change model fits.
This is not at all an unusual way of looking at things. In an electronic circuit, the rate of change of voltage across a capacitor is proportional to current. But, that does not mean that putting a capacitor in series with a current source will make the voltage go infinite. Limiting factors come into play at some point. But, we can still use the model i = c*dV/dt in circuit design and analysis.
If you still think your quibbles amount to anything, well, we will just have to agree to disagree. The truth will out, in time.
‘Im not going to take the time to respond ‘
I can understand why. You been have pushing and promoting and constantly bring up this analysis, which many of us have found glaring flaws in.
So, why dont you turn the page and find some other evidence to support your idea, that is not so controversial.
This data and analysis is only one tiny slice of the data pie. There are many other lines of evidence to show that CO2 rise is anthropogenic. Such as this one that you have not adressed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263896
If your alternative is correct, there ought to be other evidence for it.
Bart, I have agree with Nate, we need more data.
Can you accepts satellite measurements from JPL?
https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/10/549/2017/amt-10-549-2017.pdf
There are no flaws. You are in denial.
“There are many other lines of evidence to show that CO2 rise is anthropogenic. “
Threadbare rationalizations, you mean.
“If your alternative is correct, there ought to be other evidence for it.”
All parts of the system have to be consistent with one another. E.g., whether the source were natural or anthropogenic, the surface oceans would be gaining, and the atmosphere would be gaining. So, every “evidence” proffered in support of anthro holds for natural, too. That’s why it’s not really evidence, but rationalization.
You have to look at the fine details. The fingerprints at the scene of the crime. And, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is the fingerprint that reveals that the culprit is natural.
It will become more evident as temperatures enter their cooling phase. We’re already back to the level of the “pause”, and a monster La Nina appears to be taking shape. Keep watching, and see what happens.
Bart,
Can you accept satellite measurements from JPL?
https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/10/549/2017/amt-10-549-2017.pdf
‘You have to look at the fine details. The fingerprints at the scene of the crime.’
So you have no other data, or evidence?
‘Threadbare rationalizations’
More declarative statements.
Pls find the flaws in the calculation, or provide and alternative calculation.
‘whether the source were natural or anthropogenic, the surface oceans would be gaining, and the atmosphere would be gaining. ‘
Good that is progress. You agree that an anthropogenic source would cause gains. We happen to have such a source, and we happen to know how big it is.
See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-264614
Bart,
With modern satellite measurements you can actually see CO2 sources and sinks.
Here’s three point source examples, then the global picture:
https://tinyurl.com/y94r4zhw
Nate –
“We happen to have such a source, and we happen to know how big it is.”
Yes, we know it is tiny, on the order of perhaps 3% of natural emissions. It is not possible to affect a balance by a greater proportion than your proportionate addition to the inputs which establish the balance.
Svante –
This is an excellent way to fool yourself. Assume an answer, then go looking for scraps of information that would tend to support that answer when viewed by sympathetic eyes.
The data are very clear. The rate of change of CO2 concentration is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly. There is no way around that.
So why do you see major emissions in eastern China, Europe and eastern US, and where biomass is being burnt in the tropics?
‘It is not possible to affect a balance by a greater proportion than your proportionate addition to the inputs which establish the balance.’
You keep saying this but what it specifically means here makes no sense. Pls explain.
Again the anthro emissions 36 Btons CO2/year. Atmo gains ~ 20 Btons per year. Most of the remainder goes into the oceans.
What is the problem with that, specifically?
In your scenario, the 36Btons is ALL absorbed by the ocean, and THEN the ocean emits 20 B tons into the atmosphere.
That is different from the first scenario how? Why is it allowed?
Defies logic.
Svante
So why do you see major emissions in eastern China, Europe and eastern US, and where biomass is being burnt in the tropics?>/i>
A diffuse input over the entire ocean surface has much greater impact than a concentrated input over a few square miles.
Nate
In your scenario, the 36Btons is ALL absorbed by the ocean, and THEN the ocean emits 20 B tons into the atmosphere. That is different from the first scenario how?
Not ALL, just most, in proportion to its proportion of the input. It is different in that, if the anthro stopped, the atmosphere would still be gaining due to the temperature relationship. It is different in that, if temperatures go down, the rate of change in the atmosphere will go down. If temperatures go down enough, the atmospheric concentration will start to decline.
Temperatures are likely to start going down in the near future. Keep watching.
For a logical, mathematical description, refer to the link I have supplied previously.
Bart, that the 20 B tons anthro CO2 is first absorbed by the ocean (or simultaneously) then released by the ocean. Same result as if it just stayed in the atmosphere. The whole scenario defies common sense!
Now, with no evidence whatsoever you say:
‘It is different in that, if the anthro stopped, the atmosphere would still be gaining due to the temperature relationship.’
If the anthro stops, the 36 B tons has been removed from the (as you claim) much larger natural flows. Why should the natural flow now increase by 36B tons? What is the mechanism?
I think you agree that the reservoir of co2 in ocean or atmosphere is much larger than 36 Btons.
Hence the natural flows in or out of these reservoirs cares not a whit about the 36B tons added to the total. The natural flows are doing what they are doing regardless.
Mathematically, a temperature rise will cause a small fraction (f) of the total reservoir R to exchange from ocean to atmosphere. The exchanged amt is fR.
Suppose the anthro emission adds dR to the reservioir. Now the exchanged amt is f(R+dR). The additional amt is fdR.
Clearly fdR << dR.
So the anthro flow dR is NOT ever cancelled by the natural response fdR.
“Hence the natural flows in or out of these reservoirs cares not a whit about the 36B tons added to the total. “
That is incorrect. The natural uptake is dependent upon the amount in the surface system. When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and surface oceans, there is more uptake by plants, mineralization, and downwelling transport within the oceans. When humans add to the input flow, those output mechanisms react to diminish its impact.
When the temperature rises, sink uptake decreases. And, since there is a consistent flow, the throttling of the uptake by the temperature rise leads to accumulation within the surface system.
Just like the GHE, in a radiation-heat-transport-only environment, leads to an accumulation of heat at the surface when the outflow of heat is throttled by IR absorbing gases.
But, the CO2 system response is much slower than the GHE mechanism, so attaining equilibrium takes much longer. Over relatively short timelines, the response looks like a pure integration. And, that is what we see in the data.
Bart,
‘if the anthro stopped, the atmosphere would still be gaining’
There is a simple reason this cannot be correct.
Nature has been a net ABSORBER of CO2 recently.
For example this year 36 B tons anthro emitted and only 20 B tons stayed in the atmosphere. Thus natures portion is -16 Btons. This has been the typical behavior for decades.
Anthro turned off, why should nature suddenly become a net emitter??
‘The natural uptake is dependent upon the amount in the surface system. When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and surface oceans, there is more uptake by plants, mineralization, and downwelling transport within the oceans.’
Agree
When humans add to the input flow, those output mechanisms react to diminish its impact.
Not quite, amount in system and input flow are different quantities.
The reaction, as I showed mathematically (thought youd appreciate) to input flow would be to diminish it, but negligibly.
‘When the temperature rises, sink uptake decreases. And, since there is a consistent flow, the throttling of the uptake by the temperature rise leads to accumulation within the surface system.’
As I already showed, this makes absolutely no sense.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263629
“Nature has been a net ABSORBER of CO2 recently.”
There is no evidence that nature on its own is a net absorber. You are venturing into the ridiculously bad pseudo-mass balance argument territory.
https://tinyurl.com/y6u8vace
“As I already showed, this makes absolutely no sense.”
It makes perfect sense, mathematically and logically, as I showed here:
https://tinyurl.com/y8voyfgx
no. Its called conservation of mass, and one should try to avoid violating it.
But i can see that you are in so deep into the cult now that your willing to throw out a lot of fundamentals, logic, and common sense.
Already read it. Still doesnt use real world numbers, or make sense. Just math.
As i pointed out, the flow down stops.
‘There is no evidence that nature on its own is a net absorber. ‘
Other than arithmetic. What part of 20-36 =-16 do you disagree with, and why?
And I gave you math to critique, which is a language you speak, to demonstrate that the anthro flow, being small, has little effect on the natural flows…..not until it has produced a large buildup in atm CO2.
Sorry, no. I explained at length at the link.
https://tinyurl.com/y6u8vace
It is a dynamic system. The sinks are not static. They are responsive. Part of the sink activity is induced by the anthro inputs. The sinks dynamically increase in size in response to them.
Thus, that portion of sink activity belongs on the anthro side of the ledger. This is very basic from feedback control theory. The pseudo-mass balance argument is just pitiful. But, not unrepresentative of the swamp that is CliSci in the early 21st century. It is dominated by poorly done, poorly reasoned, pathological science.
bart,
Here you put anthro and natural on an equal footing, as they should be:
‘
All parts of the system have to be consistent with one another. E.g., whether the source were natural or anthropogenic, the surface oceans would be gaining, and the atmosphere would be gaining.’
Not consistent with your writeup, where you are saying the system will respond to the different fluxes differently. The sinks for anthro could be such that almost all anthro flux goes into the sink. While the natural sinks do not respond in the same way so the natural flows could be a acting as a net source.
No. Known physics says that the system does not respond to fluxes, it responds to imbalances between the reservoirs, period, as I showed above.
Behavior different from that would be, at best, speculative.
The imbalance lately has been clearly towards the atmosphere, so net (natural) flow is from atm to ocean.
It is a dynamic system. The sinks are not static. They are responsive. Part of the sink activity is induced by the anthro inputs.’
Oh I see, it is a dynamic system, that can decide to obey or not obey ordinary conservation laws, chemical equilibrium, etc. It can behave in any way Bart deems necessary to support his beliefs.
‘The sinks dynamically increase in size in response to them.
Wow ok, just wow.
No. As you should know in math, which you seem to prefer, proofs can only be done using previously proven theorems. You cant use an unproven speculation to prove something. It just dont work, especially when the speculation is itself implausible. Youve done this now a number of times.
In science, we dont require absolute proofs, but we do require consistency with know facts and laws. We require plausibility. We require logical simplicity (Occam).
None of these requirements are met by your alternative explanation for the buildup of atm CO2.
Rather, it seems to require that I dial back my critical thinking skills, common sense, and unlearn physics and chemistry. Why should I do that?
Another thing you said
‘The natural uptake is dependent upon the amount in the surface system. When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and surface oceans, there is more uptake by plants, mineralization, and downwelling transport within the oceans.’
agrees with my statement
”Known physics says that the system does not respond to fluxes, it responds to imbalances between the reservoirs, period,”
but does not agree with your writeup.
You are absolutely incoherent, Nate. You are flailing. Everything I have stated is consistent with natural laws, and continuity relationships. It is the attribution of CO2 rise to humans that abrogates these principles.
With what part of
‘Known physics says that the system does not respond to fluxes, it responds to imbalances between the reservoirs, period.’
do you disagree?
You would like to claim that oceans absorb nearly 100% of anthro emissions.
1. No, because of known physics, chem and system size, it is close to 50%. You cant simply disregard these facts for your convenience.
2. If oceans absorb nearly 100% of anthro, than same applies to natural-agrees with your earlier statement. You now disagree?
“No, because of known physics, chem and system size, it is close to 50%.”
This is not a fact, it is a kluge.
“If oceans absorb nearly 100% of anthro, than same applies to natural…”
That is correct, but the natural input is significantly larger, hence it dominates the residual remainder.
You keep bringing up the ‘throttling of a consistent flow’ due to temp rise, leads to CO2 rise.
I tried hard to find a way for this mechanism to work. For example suppose Co2 downflow is in one location and up flow is elsewhere. In fact this is true. Most downflow of both water and CO2 (in NH) is in north Atlantic.
There is much data available on CO2 accumulation in ocean. In fact, the accumulation is highest in north Atlantic, makes sense this is where downflow is occurring.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html
This data shows that more CO2 is going downward, not less, as your model requires. Why? Because more atm CO2 is available and is entering ocean there. This extra overcomes the effect of temp rise.
”This is not a fact, it is a kluge.”
No evidence, no numbers, just words.
These extensive measurements a ‘kluge’?
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2683/sabi2683.shtml
Yes, it is. All it is doing is fitting the preconceived model to the data, and declaring inventories based on the model assumptions. It in no way validates the model.
The model is wrong. It can be seen clearly in the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.
“Yes, it is. All it is doing is fitting the preconceived model to the data, and declaring inventories based on the model assumptions. ”
So we’ve gone there. The measurement is wrong. Do you know what the measurement is?
Do you understand that a global measurement like this one is so much more valuable than any toy model?
A real scientist would be eager to test his model on real data like this.
“This data shows that more CO2 is going downward, not less, as your model requires.”
No, my model does not require that. It requires only that less be going down than otherwise would be going down had temperatures remained lower.
You’re not going to invalidate the model with these potshots, Nate. It is all mathematically coherent. I have provided differential equations which demonstrate it.
. It requires only that less be going down than otherwise would be going down had temperatures remained lower.”
Ahhh. But the magnitude of the effect will then be certainly < anthro effect. Have you determined the magnitude of effect?
“t. I have provided differential equations which demonstrate it.”
With real world inputs?
I can write eqns. So can the relativity busters. Doesnt mean they apply to the world.
“But the magnitude of the effect will then be certainly < anthro effect."
It does not follow.
If you cannot deal with algebra, you really should not be involved in this debate.
Bart and (FY) Svante
‘ the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.’
Hmmm, where have I heard this before?
Have you really tried to look this notion with a critical eye?
Look at this plot http://tinyurl.com/y8axm2w5
Clearly shows temp is flat or decreasing during period 1940-1978.
Now look at CO2 derivative. It is rapidly rising from 1958-1978.
We can extend Co2 derivative into the 1940s: Ice core and other measurements show that CO2 was ~ 310 ppm in late 1930s, and Mauna Loa shows it was 315 ppm in 1958. So the ave derivative over this 20 y period was 5 ppm/240 mo = 0.02 in same units as graph. We can place that point in ~ 1948. This point lines up with the continuation of the 1958-1978 trend.
Hence the trend in CO2 derivative was rising fairly consistently during this period of flat or decreasing temps, from 1940s-1970s.
(FY) Svante meant (FYI Svante)
Slothful induction.
You are welcome to try an extrapolation. It will not help.
Clearly the strong rise in CO2 derivative predated the rise in temperature.
Sorry but
‘rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the appropriately baselined temperature anomaly’
is falsified.
Callendar 1938, also shows measurements of 310 ppm in mid 1930s.
Water vapor has been increasing 1.5% per decade since before 1960 and is countering the temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring. The WV increase is more than twice expected from the SST rise of tropical oceans (feedback). The source of the WV might surprise you. (click my name)
After committing science malpractice by changing data to corroborate an agenda it appears RSS has gone silent on reporting temperature.
Water vapor will start to decline if overall sea surface temperatures decline.
Dan Pangburn on September 11, 2017 at 4:49 PM
After committing science malpractice by changing data to corroborate an agenda it appears RSS has gone silent on reporting temperature.
What’s that for a crank, pretentious, mendacious blah blah, Mr Pangburn?
What rot. RSS has temp data up to last month, same as UAH.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
As opposed to RSS’ data, UAH’s data for August 2017 isn’t published yet… Look at the files’ date stamps in
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
Ah, you’re right.
S’pose one could argue that UAH has ‘gone silent’ (facepalm).
bar – thanks for the link. Apparently it replaces their abandoned ‘old’ link at http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Comparing the data from the ‘new’ and ‘old’ links reveals the changes they have made. ‘New’ minus ‘old’ shows a fairly steady increase to about +0.05 K until Jan, 2010 and then a serious rise to about +0.17 K in Jan, 2015. Since then the ‘new’ appears to have leveled off at an average of about 0.17 K above the ‘old’ reported data.
Dan Pangburn on September 12, 2017 at 3:01 PM
The same nonsense as yesterday. No wonder, Mt Pangburn! It is not the first time I see such traces of your incompetence.
Look at the ‘fairly steady increase’ and the ‘serious rise’, Mr Genius Pangburn:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170913/ccuhknau.jpg
and compare them to the differences between UAH5.6 and UAH6.0.
What a ridiculous claim.
barry on September 13, 2017 at 4:52 AM / 4:55 AM
Having looked at the anomalies at the end of the time series for RSS v3 and v4, I am more confident that there is some error in your chart.
No barry, I’m sorry. It was a bit hidden, but Pangburn refers here to a ridiculous polemic started about RSS3.3 TLT at Watt’s WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/10/remote-sensing-systems-apparently-slips-in-a-stealth-adjustment-to-warm-global-temperature-data/
And this has nothing to do with the major revision change you have in mind (3.3 up to 4.0, way bigger).
By accident, I had an old Excel file at that time, dated a bit in front of these minor RSS corrections.
That luckily allowed me to compare the two data streams without having to rely on the WUWT nonsense, and the result is the chart above.
Bli – I got both v3 and v4 for charts from RSS.
Barry, I corrected my misinterpretation of Pangburns highly misinterpretable comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262633
All RSS data is here:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series
You’ll need a login and password.
Bin, you may have made an error with the old/new RSS. The change from v3 to v4 (TLT) trend is more significant than your graph depicts.
Check out the difference from 1998 or 1999 to 2017 at the Uni of York app.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Here is a good link for both data sets (RSSv3 and 4). I’d be surprised if there was not an error in your graph.
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/
Having looked at the anomalies at the end of the time series for RSS v3 and v4, I am more confident that there is some error in your chart. The anomaly differences are in the region of 0.15C at the end of the record, but less than 0.05 in your chart.
The argument of increased water vapor /positive feedback is not going to work out.
Water vapor like CO2 is a result of the climate not the cause.
Ho capito
Agree on WV. That’s the mainstream view. If the atmosphere warms, it has a higher capacity to hold WV. That is a result, not a cause.
However, more WV in the atmosphere = more GHE. Feedback.
“However, more WV in the atmosphere = more GHE…”
… = more energy required to raise the temperature.
Bart says:
” = more energy required to raise the temperature.”
The Earth is warming. Hence it is radiating more energy.
David Appell says, September 13, 2017 at 7:25 AM:
Which goes to show that David Appell doesn’t even understand the postulated working mechanism of his favorite “global warming hypothesis” – that of the raised ERL (“effective radiating level”):
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
The whole point about this mechanism is that the Earth is supposed to warm internally (each altitude-specific level from the surface to the tropopause, T_s/T_tropo), but NOT outwardly towards space (T_e). Because Z_e (the ERL) is supposed to be raised to a higher, originally cooler level of atmosphere.
This is why and how we can readily see that an “enhanced GHE” has NOT contributed to global warming over the last few decades – T_e (=> OLR) has simply gone up in close correspondence with T_tropo (=> TLT) over time:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
My statement was 100% correct physics, well known to anyone who has taken freshman physics.
David Appell says, September 13, 2017 at 5:26 PM:
Yes, as you’ll note, I didn’t say it was “wrong physics”. I said it shows you don’t understand how an “enhanced GHE” is supposed to work to cause warming. And that is a 100% correct statement, well known to anyone who has read just a little bit about it.
Kristian, lad, everyone knows how human emissions are creating an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Don’t act stupid. Keep your comments to the parts of the science that are actually in dispute.
David Appell says, September 15, 2017 at 6:48 PM:
LOL! Says the man who doesn’t even understand how the “enhanced GHE” is supposed to work.
An unscientific response is an admission you don’t have any science to support your claims.
Sal – The water vapor is increasing about twice as fast as expected from just liquid water temperature increase. Do the calcs yourself or tell me what is wrong with the calcs I did in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
I just included there an assessment of the sources of the added water vapor that might interest you.
I let Sal do calcs and tell you what did wrong.
I will instead make some comments.
I was surprised by +4 trillion tonnes of water and it’s growth, I knew US was around 600 billion tonnes of water withdrawal. And India or China was more than US.
I wonder about the amount evaporated particularly in certain types of irrigation. Or if efforts are made to conserve irrigation water, it seems a higher percentage will evaporate.
Like rice farming. And lefty environmentalist complaining about fertilization “run off” getting to rivers and ground water. Generally Lefty complain about stuff done in US, when usually a bigger problem elsewhere and tend to get things wrong [or lie]. But if not paying market price of water, it seems there is tendency to waste it. Also an often evironmental issue is heated water being put back in rivers or lakes or oceans from power generation plants. Or some water withdrawal is returned as warm water.
But on different topic and one mentioned recently, why is the tropics [tropical ocean] have average temperature of about 28 C. Or is the high water vapor of tropics causing it to have a higher average temperature or result of having a warm ocean. You probably think the water vapor is causing it to warmer [or it seems the standard view] and if so how much warmer is tropic due to having high level of water vapor?
I expect tropic water SST is warmer mostly because it gets more direct sun. I have not yet come up with a rational basis for how much is attributable to more WV.
I agree.
Also I think tropics being largely ocean and ocean can also absorb indirect sunlight [dry land doesn’t] is additional factor than simply being near the equator and having sun spending more time closer to Zenith.
Dan Pangburn says:
“I expect tropic water SST is warmer mostly because it gets more direct sun.”
Evidence?
barry, are you watching the temperatures plummet in the ENSO region?
Guess the ocean doesn’t know how to “trap heat” like the magic CO, huh?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Your conclusion say nothing about your premise.
Those are SSTs. Heat-trapping of the ocean is about the upper 750-2000 meters.
Could it be that the ocean is drawing heat from the surface. Or the atmosphere?
Not enough info from you to say. But I guess it excites you that temps are going down somewhere in the last few days/weeks? The usual confusion of multi-decadal conditions with weather.
“Not enough info from you to say.”
How about this: Cold water is being pushed to the surface?
g*e*r*a*n
While cold water is currently being pushed to the surface in the Nino region, warm water is being pushed subsurface much further to the west. Figuratively, the heat of a future el nino is now being “trapped”.
So it turns out your comment, “Guess the ocean doesnt know how to trap heat …” is assbackwards.
snake, the “trap heat” phrase was used in reference to the link I supplied.
Try to keep up.
How about this: Cold water is being pushed to the surface?
That’s a statement, not information.
The information was in the link provided. Obviously you chose to ignore it.
The link to sea surface temperatures?
Uh-uh. That is, as I said, sea surface temperatures, not ocean heat content. Where the heat is ‘trapped’, as you say.
Trapped is the wrong word, of course. But you’re on a roll.
barry, youre trying awfully hard to look dumb.
Are you saying you don’t understand that an El Nno causes ocean heat energy to move into the atmosphere?
I sure do.
You really think that every sea surface fluctuation in that region is a result of ENSO? That ocean/atmosphere heat exchange is the only thing affecting SSTs in NINO3.4 region?
This phrase comes to mind:
If all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails.
Local SSTs are also affected by winds and clouds and teleconnection with the broader ocean.
To answer your original question: the recent SSTs for the region are typical of fluctuations below the ENSO threshold. Looks like business as usual to me. You think something interesting has been happening?
What do you think it means that while temps from July to August in the NINO3.4 region went down, global temps went up?
“To answer your original question…”
Yes, nearly a century later!
3.4 region down, global temps up, likely means ocean oscillation is reversing.
@barry,
“The view is that CO2 is the dominant driver of multi-decadal global temp change since 1950, not the only driver.”
There is compelling scientific evidence that temperature drives [CO2]:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
Can you produce any scientific evidence that [CO2] drives temperature? Can you show that [CO2] dominates natural processes that warm or cool our planet? Yes, I will accept your models if you provide enough information for me to “Replicate” your calculations. Here is an example of what I mean when I talk about “Replication”:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
My definition of “Scientific” requires that the hypothesis is “Replicable” at the “Three Sigma” level.
Three sigma means that there is only a 0.3% probability that the null hypothesis is true.
If anyone could show that [CO2] drives temperature at the “Three Sigma” level we would be reading all about it in scientific publications. Instead we are deluged with the opinions of “Experts” who could not recognize a differential equation, let alone solve one.
gallopingcamel
It would be nice if climate scientists had an identical earth without CO2, or maybe at preindustrial levels, with which to use for comparison. As it is, they are at a serious disadvantage compared to a lot of other fields of science.
What stupidity!
I have just tested a new anti-cancer drug and found it cured 9 out of 10 of my patients.
I am afraid I cannot treat you with it as, by your own definition, it has not been tested for reliability at the “three sigma level”.
Just send me enough data to replicate the work. Qualitative arguments are just that.
Science can be replicated. Three sigma is OK for science but it is not good enough for matters of life or death.
Are you aware that airlines operate at better than the six sigma level when it comes to the probability of killing you when you buy a “Ticket to Ride”?
The data are:
0101010101
1111111110
The values indicate survival (1) or not (0)
The first row represents an untreated sample of 10 patients, the second set the treated set.
Why should Dr No be put in prison?
Anyone have some guesses?
Practicing medicine without a license?
Try and address the problem.
What do you think is/are the correct answers?
(a) the anti-cancer drug failed
(b) the anti-cancer drug succeeded
(c) the results are inconclusive
(d) I should desist testing
(e) I should continue testing
(f) I should deny gallopingcamel treatment
(g) I should go to prison
(h) I should hand in my license
(i) I should wait for gbaikie and g*.. to develop cancer and see whether they beg for treatment
(j) I should stop trying to educate ignorant trolls
(h) I should hand in my license
If have license and allow “patients” to be untreated
for cancer, there is huge problem.
Can you produce any scientific evidence that [CO2] drives temperature?
Sure. Empirical lab observations of CO2 absorbing infrared radiation.
Temps lead CO2… in past glacial cycles.
Yep. And? What does this tell us about what is happening today?
Did you know that there were forest fires before humans existed?
Ergo, humans are incapable of starting forest fires.
Same logic.
“Sure. Empirical lab observations of CO2 absorbing infrared radiation.”
CO2 absorbs IR, so climate clowns believe that is proof of AGW.
CO2 emits IR, so climate clowns believe that is also proof of AGW!
Don’t we just love climate comedy?
g*e*r*a*n on September 12, 2017 at 6:49 PM
CO2 absorbs IR, so climate clowns believe that is proof of AGW. CO2 emits IR, so climate clowns believe that is also proof of AGW!
You perfectly know that AGW is not the discussion’s kernel here. GWis! To what extent the phenomenon’s anthropic part is estimated: that is imho secondary.
And… btw: did Roy Spencer in your mind enter what you call the ‘climate clown’ community just because he considers the ‘green house’ effect belong to settled science (see the last sentence in his paper) ?
Bin, feel free to misrepresent my comments all you want.
A “climate clown” is anyone that claims the “science is settled”, when it is clearly NOT.
A climate clown is anyone that claims the science is settled, when it is clearly NOT.
Thus you aren’t courageous enough to write that in fact, you consider Roy Spencer being a climate clown, as he manifestly claims that the greenhouse science is settled.
Stop beating around the bush, g-e-r-a-n.
No Bin, you’re trying to put words in Dr. Roy’s mouth. He merely expressed his opinion–“to me”. And, the word “largely” leaves it dangling.
“Sure. Empirical lab observations of CO2 absorbing infrared radiation.”
Controlled lab settings do not reflect the interconnected complexity of the Earth’s climate.
“Temps lead CO2 in past glacial cycles.”
And, currently. There is a 90 deg phase lag readily apparent in modern data. And, that is basically tautological with the fact that the rate of change of CO2 concentration is proportional to temperature anomaly.
“Same logic.”
No. The data are clear. Temperatures lead CO2 at all time scales.
Sure. Empirical lab observations of CO2 absorbing infrared radiation.
I mean, this is like saying sodium and chlorine will kill you, so you shouldn’t consume table salt.
“Your graphs do not have the numbers to account for the long-term rise, only the short-term mini-fluctuations.”
Wrong.
https://tinyurl.com/y6wvkjpa
“…were digging up carbon and burning it in huge amounts…”
Tiny in relation to natural flows. You cannot affect a balance by a proportionately greater amount than your proportional addition to the flows that establish the balance. And, we contribute at most a few percent to the natural flows.
You guys are out of your depth. You just don’t understand. But, you will see eventually. There is no doubt about it.
Bart says:
“And, we contribute at most a few percent to the natural flows.”
Yes. So what?
Nature emits a lot of CO2. It also absorbs a lot of CO2 — currently, more than it emits. It’s our emissions that make up the net positive flux to the atmosphere.
“Its our emissions that make up the net positive flux to the atmosphere.”
This is an unscientific assertion of faith. Again, one cannot affect a balance by a proportionately greater amount than one’s proportional addition to the flows that establish the balance.
Learn some science, for once in your life.
“How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?” Realclimate.org, 22 December 2004.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
You wouldn’t know science if it walked up and bit you on the tuckus. This is pathetic stuff. Where it isn’t completely irrelevant (that awful pseudo-mass balance argument cropping up again), it is bald assertion with no foundation.
Oh Bart, just stick to the science. Either you can refute realclimate or you (clearly) can’t. Pathetic weak tea responses and bald denialism doesn’t cut it with the smart people here.
Bart:
Q1 – How much CO2 does nature emit?
Q2 – How much does it absorb?
“Pathetic weak tea responses and bald denialism doesnt cut it with the smart people here.”
How would you know?
“Q1 How much CO2 does nature emit?”
More than an order of magnitude more than human combustion of fossil fuels.
“Q2 How much does it absorb?”
All but a small residual in the past 60 years.
‘Its just rationalization ‘
Mre declarative statements. Not useful.
Point out the specific flaws in the calculations. And show me a correct calculation.
If you cant, then there is no reason to reject it out of hand.
Q2 How much does it absorb?
All but a small residual in the past 60 years.’
Lets see we have known anthro emissions, atmospheric and ocean gains:
Anthro emissions have been around 36 B tons/year of CO2. The atmosphere has been gaining about 20 B tons/year. The ocean has been gaining a comparable amount, and acidifying. Measurements agree, the accounting works and agrees with known physics and chem.
But Bart says nearly all of anthro emissions are vanishing into the ocean, though he can show no calculation.
Miraculously he says the ocean is EMITTING the right amount of CO2 to make up for the amount it gobbled up!
Miraculously the ocean is emitting CO2 with a history that matches the anthro emission history and the rise in atm ppms.
Reminds me of a 911 conspiracy theory of a coworker of mine. 4 jets crashed into buildings or the ground. But the jets that crashed into the buildings were military jets flown by CIA. What happened to the missing 4 commercial jets and their passengers? Oh they vanished, probably taken to secret prison somewhere.
Bart is asking us to turn off our common sense brain. Why should we?
No. The data are clear. Temperatures lead CO2 at all time scales.
Nonsense.
The data are clear, all right. Temperature affects CO2 at a fraction of 1 ppm per year. But the actual increase has been more than 1ppm per year on average for decades.
CO2 held relatively steady at around 280ppm for thousands of years after the last interglacial.
CO2 rose by 100ppm over the last 100 years. We should have seen significant changes in the biosphere to account for that rise if it was natural.
The last time the Earth had a rise of CO2 that large, it took a few thousand years, and sea levels rose by 100 meters. Kilometer thick ice sheets disappeared from the Northern continents.
The rise is clearly due to the incessant output of billions of tons CO2 year on year from human industry.
It’s patently obvious. Graphs showing microspcopic changes in atmospheric content from fluctuations in Earth’s temperature manifestly do not account for the overall rise.
Your graphs do not have the numbers to account for the long-term rise, only the short-term mini-fluctuations.
“Your graphs do not have the numbers to account for the long-term rise, only the short-term mini-fluctuations.”
Wrong.
https://tinyurl.com/y6wvkjpa
Doesn’t work. You had to change the scale by 80% to get the fit. You don’t have the numbers.
Here’s derivative CO2 compared with actual CO2 with 12 month means. I offset, otherwise you wouldn’t actually see the derivative CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/y7hvhm2f
You’re plotting instantaneous acceleration fluctuations, which amount to less than 0.3ppm over a year.
This in no way accounts for the 70ppm rise since 1979.
Your plots don’t have the numbers. You’re measuring micro acceleration changes, and they fluctuate up and down. This couldn’t possibly account for the overall rise. In fact, it isn’t designed to.
Out of curiosity, I got rid of the made-to-fit scale factor and left the offset.
This is what it looks like:
http://tinyurl.com/y8vr934t
And you offset twice. How much BS are you willing to peddle?
Look, I can make the elephant wiggle its trunk, too.
http://tinyurl.com/y85jllu7
Your pretending here, your trial and error to get a fit – it disgusts me. It should disgust you.
A bit of fiddling makes the elephant wiggle his trunk even more ‘accurately’.
http://tinyurl.com/y9rwyvte
Coincidentally, all it took was the classic ‘5 parameters’ to get it done.
“Heres derivative CO2 compared with actual CO2 with 12 month means.”
It appears you do not understand calculus. One must integrate the derivative to retrieve the original function.
What is the physics-based rationalization for such a model? You’ve never presented any.
You know good and well I have.
https://tinyurl.com/y8voyfgx
Bart says:
“You know good and well I have.”
Hardly. You’re just making conjectures and tossing algebra around.
What’s the PHYSICAL motivation? Based in PHYSICS? You have no provided one.
I have. You don’t understand it. What can I do?
Bart says:
“The data are clear. Temperatures lead CO2 at all time scales.”
Horsesh!t.
Do you only drive your car on days warmer than average? Do you wait for the temperature outside to go up before you turn on your furnace?
CO2 and temperature are in a mutual feedback look — the 5 C warmup from the last glacial period 25,000 years ago would only have been two-thirds as much without’s CO2’s feedback. CO2 lead temperature during the PETM.
And now CO2 leads temperature when we’re digging up carbon and burning it in huge amounts. (This is so obvious I can’t believe anyone denies it.)
“…were digging up carbon and burning it in huge amounts…”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. The amounts are tiny in relation to natural flows. You cannot affect a balance by a proportionately greater amount than your proportional addition to the flows that establish the balance.
You guys are out of your depth. You just don’t understand. But, you will see eventually. There is no doubt about it.
Bart believes that atm co2 rise by 40% is due to natural reservoir (ocean) releasing it in response to 1K rise in temp.
But oceans co2 content is in fact RISING causing acidification.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/feature/the-other-carbon-dioxide-problem/7567.article
In addition Henry’s law predicts a rise of atm co2 ppm of < 3% in response to 1K rise in water temp.
These are fatal flaws for Bart's notion.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.
No, the opposite. Can’t you get anything right?
We dig up coal and then burn it, and then it goes into the atmosphere.
Propter hoc ergo post hoc.
Bart says:
“The amounts are tiny in relation to natural flows.”
So what? That answers nothing.
The last time the CO2 atmospheric content changed by 100ppm, sea level rose 100 meters, kilometer thick ice sheets disappeared from the North of America and Europe, and global temperature rose by 5C.
It took thousands of years.
If nature increased the atmospheric content of CO2 by 100ppm over the last 100 years, where is the physical evidence? It should be completely obvious.
“But oceans co2 content is in fact RISING causing acidification.”
That is consistent with a rise in surface concentration from whatever source.
“In addition Henrys law predicts a rise of atm co2 ppm of < 3% in response to 1K rise in water temp."
A facile application of laboratory results for small, static systems with rapid propagation of temperatures and no excitations or flows. In fact, applying Henry’s law recursively along the entire THC leads to a long term response in which the rate of change of concentration is effectively proportional to temperature at the surface. And, lo and behold, that is precisely what the data show us.
“If nature increased the atmospheric content of CO2 by 100ppm over the last 100 years, where is the physical evidence?
In the plots showing the proportionality of the rate of change of concentration to temperature anomaly.
“It should be completely obvious.”
And, it is.
n fact, applying Henrys law recursively along the entire THC leads to a long term response in which the rate of change of concentration is effectively proportional to
Bart wrote:
>> If nature increased the atmospheric content of CO2 by 100ppm over the last 100 years, where is the physical evidence? <<
"In the plots showing the proportionality of the rate of change of concentration to temperature anomaly."
Even you aren't stupid enough to think that's unambiguous evidence.
Try again.
Actually, it is. If you understood how dynamics systems work, you would know it, too.
–Nate says:
September 15, 2017 at 5:15 AM
Bart believes that atm co2 rise by 40% is due to natural reservoir (ocean) releasing it in response to 1K rise in temp.
But oceans co2 content is in fact RISING causing acidification.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/feature/the-other-carbon-dioxide-problem/7567.article
In addition Henrys law predicts a rise of atm co2 ppm of < 3% in response to 1K rise in water temp.
These are fatal flaws for Bart's notion.–
Well, is anyone monitoring the lakes of liquid CO2 in the oceans?
Cf:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/38/13903.full
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6820491_Lakes_of_liquid_CO2_in_the_deep_sea
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4896/are-there-pockets-of-liquid-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-oceans
Way to avoid the point (and grind your ax).
Tiny fluctuations of of a fraction of a ppm are not the evidence we should see. Last time we saw a 100ppm rise in CO2 caused by nature, the biosphere was massively different. Why have we not seen the radical changes to the surface of the Earth this time?
Bart says:
“Actually, it is. If you understood how dynamics systems work, you would know it, too.”
Typical Bart response — exceedingly vague, not one detail, saying nothing whatsoever of use.
“Tiny fluctuations of of a fraction of a ppm are not the evidence we should see.”
???
“Typical Bart response exceedingly vague, not one detail, saying nothing whatsoever of use.”
Much as I would like to, I can’t make up for your woeful lack of education in the relevant fields on a blog comment panel.
RISING causing acidification.
That is consistent with a rise in surface concentration from whatever source’
No not if the source is the OCEAN itself! And you rule out exhaust pipes. So what is the other LARGE source producing a 40% rise?
In addition Henrys law predicts a rise of atm co2 ppm of < 3% in response to 1K rise in water temp."
'In fact, applying Henrys law recursively along the entire THC leads to a long term response in which the rate of change of concentration is effectively proportional to temperature at the surface.'
Uhhhh word salad …. got a citation describing this magical effect that turns <3% into 40%?
“No not if the source is the OCEAN itself!”
Yes! If the source is the OCEAN itself! It’s not a zero sum game. It all has to move consistently together.
“…got a citation describing this magical effect that turns <3% into 40%?"
I described a plausible mechanism here:
https://tinyurl.com/y8voyfgx
BTW, in rather a bit of irony, the mechanism to which I refer is analogous to the GHE itself.
The GHE says that, if the output radiated energy from the surface is impeded, the energy must pool at the surface until the obstacle can be surmounted by other means, those other means being an increase in temperature at the surface.
Just so, an impedance to downwelling transport of CO2 due to rising surface temperature must result in pooling of CO2 at the surface interface until the obstacle can be surmounted by other means, those means being the very long term equilibration of temperatures all along the downwelling and upwelling ocean current paths.
So, the ironic twist is that the GHE promoters are in effect denying the GHE in order to attribute CO2 rise to human activity!
I like that, Bart.
Bart,
Interesting. Have you tried to publish it? Let peer reviewers look for flaws? If not why not?
Your model seems to propose that the deep ocean is upwelling CO2. This is increasing concentration of upper ocean and atmosphere by 40% in last century or so. Why would we expect such a large change of upwelling from its historical behavior?
Why should this new mysterious upwelling of CO2 from the deep ocean just-so-happen to match the time history of the LARGE recent anthropogenic source? Not plausible.
Your parameters like r and T-dependence of tau of deep ocean are adjustable to give a fit, they are not derived from real world numbers or physics. This is a weakness in your model.
“Why would we expect such a large change of upwelling from its historical behavior? “
We don’t actually know the historical behavior. All the evidence has been weighed with preconceptions in mind, and the presumed history is substantially infused with confirmation bias.
“Why should this new mysterious upwelling of CO2 from the deep ocean just-so-happen to match the time history of the LARGE recent anthropogenic source? Not plausible.”
That’s a 50/50 coin toss. At the time the industrial age really took off, the climate could have been warming or cooling. As it turns out, it was warming.
It may not be that much of a coincidence, even. Warmer weather allows greater crop yields, allowing resources to be dedicated to wider pursuits than mere survival. So, the odds were perhaps better than even that industrialization would occur in a warming period.
“Your parameters like r and T-dependence of tau of deep ocean are adjustable to give a fit, they are not derived from real world numbers or physics.”
The GCMs have many more tunable parameters.
No dont buy it. Your model has to be consistent with known physics and chem. If it doesn’t incorporate physically motivated numbers, then it will remain a toy model, as you call it.
Meanwhile we have available a mechnism that is more plausible, physically motivated, and doesnt require odd coincidences. You havent really pinned down the flaw in this mechanism.
“Your model has to be consistent with known physics and chem.”
It is.
“If it doesnt incorporate physically motivated numbers…”
Of course, they are physically motivated. It’s a physical model.
“Meanwhile we have available a mechnism that is more plausible…”
It isn’t. It is physically impossible to affect a balance by a greater proportion than your proportionate addition to the input which establishes the balance.
BTW, “toy model” is not an arbitrary phrase. It has a specific meaning:
https://tinyurl.com/ybg5dyu3
Bart says:
“Yes! If the source is the OCEAN itself! Its not a zero sum game. It all has to move consistently together.”
The ocean is GAINING CO2.
It’s acidifying.
In fact, the carbon cycles *IS* a zero sum game.
I don’t see ANY physics in your toy model.
Why don’t you explain where that is?
Bart says:
“The GCMs have many more tunable parameters.”
Which are those, specifically?
Bart says:
“We dont actually know the historical behavior. All the evidence has been weighed with preconceptions in mind, and the presumed history is substantially infused with confirmation bias.”
That’s a desperate mealy-mouthed claim with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
What we have are proxies based on known chemistry.
When you don’t like their implications, you try to simply throw out all data because of some nutball excuse you make up.
It’s pathetic.
“The ocean is GAINING CO2.”
Fully consistent with my model.
“In fact, the carbon cycles *IS* a zero sum game.”
Not in this context. The surface layer of the oceans and the atmosphere must move in tandem, no matter the source of the rise.
Not in any context, really. Carbon is being permanently sequestered, and CO2 levels have been steadily dropping on geologic timescales.
“I dont see ANY physics in your toy model.”
Then, you either have your eyes closed, or you are entirely unfamiliar with mathematical models of physical systems. Either way, there is little point in arguing with you.
“Which are those, specifically?”
Google “tunable parameters in GCM”. You’ll find plenty of links.
“What we have are proxies based on known chemistry.”
Based on known chemistry for assumed models of the physical processes. There is no end-to-end verification available, or even possible.
“When you dont like their implications, you try to simply throw out all data because of some nutball excuse you make up.”
When they contradict the implications of direct, modern, precise measurements, yeah, I consider it likely that the assumptions underlying their physical models are wrong. It would be scientific malpractice to assume otherwise.
If it doesnt incorporate physically motivated numbers
‘Of course, they are physically motivated. Its a physical model.’
1. Your model says r, the ratio of Anthro CO2 going into atm and ocean is very small, because you say the ocean reservoir is vastly larger. Show that with real world numbers.
In fact the mixed layer of the ocean is NOT a vastly larger reservoir than the atmosphere for holding CO2. It is quite comparable. This is precisely why anthro CO2 is sufficient to explain ocean acidification.
2. Your model says that tau2 the time to exchange Co2 between surface and deep ocean is temperature dependent. Why? The temperature change in the deep ocean is tiny. What is the physics behind that? Estimate the magnitude of this effect.
“In fact the mixed layer of the ocean is NOT a vastly larger reservoir than the atmosphere for holding CO2.”
The mixed layer is not a closed system, and there is long term exchange to all depths. That is why tau2 is so long.
“Your model says that tau2 the time to exchange Co2 between surface and deep ocean is temperature dependent. Why?”
I would think it would be obvious that something called the “thermohaline circulation” is inherently temperature dependent.
Understand, this is a toy model. It is a vast simplification intended for illustration, not computation. In the real world, there are diffusion processes with effectively many time constants, from the very short to the very long. And, there are other exchange processes with minerals, biota, and so forth.
The important thing to recognize is that there are very long term processes at work, and such processes behave like pure integrators over relatively short timelines. Couple that with the fact that CO2 concentration is observed to track the integral of temperature, and the mystery is solved – CO2 concentration is subject to very long term, temperature dependent redistribution among the reservoirs, and it is not significantly influenced by human inputs.
‘The mixed layer is not a closed system, and there is long term exchange to all depths. That is why tau2 is so long.’
You avoided answering the question, as i suspected you would.
You said ‘But, r is not even close to 1. The oceans ultimately hold vastly most CO2 than the atmosphere, and r is therefore a very small number.’
Demonstrate this key point with real-world numbers, please.
Show that the ocean mixed layer reservoir for CO2 (even the whole ocean!) is much much larger than the atmosphere. Hint: you can start with Henrys law.
If r isn’t small, then there is need for your model.
Tau2 is very long indeed, that is why the concentration of anthro CO2 builds up in the mixed layer (and atm!) and is projected to stay there for many centuries. To first order-we need only consider equlibration of atm with the mixd layer.
if r isn’t small, than there is NO need…
I would think it would be obvious that something called the thermohaline circulation is inherently temperature dependent.’
Is it speeding up or slowing down with increasing temp. By how much?
“Demonstrate this key point with real-world numbers, please. “
Estimates range from 30:1 to much higher.
“To first order-we need only consider equlibration of atm with the mixd layer.”
That is an assumption. The data indicate it is a bad assumption. Equilibration involves the entire oceans, with a spread of time constants from rapid to exceedingly slow.
“Is it speeding up or slowing down with increasing temp.”
Warmer oceans hold less CO2, so it slows down. Less CO2 is transported down, while the amount that is upwelling is not changing right away. This leads to an imbalance in which it steadily accumulates in the surface waters, and thence to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is the flea on the ocean elephant’s back.
‘Demonstrate this key point with real-world numbers, please.
‘Estimates range from 30:1 to much higher.’
Nope. You didnt answer the question.
Need a calculation with real world numbers, volume of the ocean, volume of the atmosphere etc.
‘Warmer oceans hold less CO2, so it slows down. Less CO2 is transported down, while the amount that is upwelling is not changing right away. This leads to an imbalance in which it steadily accumulates in the surface waters’
Nope, both ocean surface and atm CO2 levels building up 40%, so surface waters are, if anything, transporting MORE CO2 down…contradiction and self-limiting to < 3% in any case. No just no.
‘Equilibration involves the entire oceans, with a spread of time constants from rapid to exceedingly slow.’
Actually we know that turning over the bulk of the ocean takes thousands of years, so that is exceedingly slow. Again what amount of the ocean that gets mixed on decadal scales is key. If you like overestimate it, use 1000 m.
“Need a calculation with real world numbers, volume of the ocean, volume of the atmosphere etc.”
Google it.
“Nope, both ocean surface and atm CO2 levels building up 40%, so surface waters are, if anything, transporting MORE CO2 down…
You seem unclear on the concept. Try an experiment. Find a lavatory. Turn on the water. Wait for it to settle. Now, progressively close the drain. What happens?
“Again what amount of the ocean that gets mixed on decadal scales is key.”
Again, no. Equilibration occurs from the top to the bottom. You are speculating on what is important and what is not, making assumptions that are not warranted given the data.
Look, the data are unequivocal. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly. There is some variation here and there but, the SNR is very high, as good as you get with any stochastic, real-world system. Moreover, the higher the quality of the data (satellite vs. surface kluges), the better the correlation.
That alone disqualifies human inputs as the major driving force, because human inputs are not temperature dependent, and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 looks nothing like the rate of fossil fuel usage.
So, what we have is a very slow responding system driven by temperature anomaly such that, over at least half-century timescales, it is indistinguishable from pure integration.
My model of the oceans is a viable contender for that system response. You can disagree with that model all you like, but you have to then come up with some other explanation for the dynamics we observe. Because human inputs don’t fit the bill.
‘Google it.’
Nope. I want to where you are getting YOUR numbers to make the claim that you made, which everything rests upon, that ‘ r is not even close to 1. The oceans ultimately hold vastly most CO2 than the atmosphere, and r is therefore a very small number.’
If you cannot demonstrate this claim, Im astounded, because your entire rationale for denying anthro rise in CO2 depends upon it.
‘That alone disqualifies human inputs as the major driving force’
No not true at all.
You have consistently denied that anthro Co2 emissions are sufficient to cause the atm CO2 rise.
Are you now unable to back up that claim?
‘Try an experiment. Find a lavatory. Turn on the water. Wait for it to settle. Now, progressively close the drain. What happens?’
Mike-Flynn-like caricature of actual situation, leaving out key elements, like interaction with atmosphere.
No it doesnt conserve CO2-logically flawed-think about it.
These are non-starters, Nate. The oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the atmosphere, and the info is at your fingertips. It’s trivial.
Anthro emissions are insufficient, as they are a small proportion of the flows establishing the balance. Moreover, they do not match the evolution of the concentration data – the temperature data do.
And, if you do not understand how impeding the outflow of a consistent input flux results in an accumulation of the substance being transported, then you do not even understand the GHE at its fundamental level.
All the information you need has been provided to you. If you want to play dumb, that is your business. I have better things to do.
‘
‘These are non-starters, Nate. The oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the atmosphere, and the info is at your fingertips. Its trivial’
Trivial, implies easily shown. Then do so. Or can you not?
If i do the calculation, which is fairly trivial, it wont come out to your liking and you will dispute it.
This is why Im asking for your calculation. If you can’t do it or show where it has been done (though you say it is trivial) then you have no basis for claimimng anthro emissions are insufficient.
We know exactly what the anthro emissions have been. Your claim is that they have been gobbled up by the vast ocean carbon sink. Prove that it is vast.
‘nd, if you do not understand how impeding the outflow of a consistent input flux results in an accumulation of the substance being transported’
This is thoroughly dumb.
Start with a -3% deficit in surface water due to warming. Reduction in downward flow results in build up, until it reaches 0 deficit, then no more reduction in downflow, stop.
i’ll retract something i said (and you said), that it is trivial. it is not so trivial, because of chemistry, pH, temp profile etc. Carbon takes several forms in seawater and this matters a great deal. So clearly expert analysis is required.
Bart,
Here is a sketch of how the calculation goes in round numbers. Feel free to critique it.
Fresh water at neutral pH holds, per unit volume, about an equal amount (e.g. oles) of CO2 as the atmosphere above it, according to Henry’s law.
Experts on ocean chemistry say, mainly due to its pH, and the conversion of CO2 into other carbon molecules, that seawater will hold about 10 x as much CO2 per unit volume as freshwater (or atmosphere).
Thus the ocean surface will contain about 10x as much CO2 per m^3, as the atmosphere. Indeed measurements show this.
But what depth of ocean can reach near equilibrium on decadal time scales with the atmosphere? That is the mixed layer. Many lines of evidence point to this depth being < 500 m. Lets use 1 km to be conservative.
Meanwhile, the atmosphere contains a mass equal to a constant 1 atmosphere up to a height of 10 km. So the effective volume of the atmosphere is ~ 10x the volume of the ocean mixed layer.
Therefore of the anthro CO2 emitted, roughly equal amounts will be absorbed into ocean as remains in the atmosphere, at least on decadal time scales.
More refined calculation shows a bit more stays in atmosphere than goes in the ocean. Measurements confirm this as well.
Point is the r value that you discussed is ~ 1. And therefore the anthro CO2 is sufficient to explain the rise in ppms in last century.
Of course on millennial time scales the ocean will turnover and the majority of CO2 will be in the ocean. But not yet.
Bart,
Real world numbers lose your interest?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263896
Yeah, that’s the narrative. As I pointed out in the write-up I did at the link I provided, “So, a great deal of handwaving and legerdemain is expended on justifying that r is approximately 1, and approximately half of anthropogenic inputs go into the atmosphere, and half into the oceans.”
It’s just rationalization for what they want to be true, not actual evidence. It is contradicted by the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.
‘Its just rationalization for what they want to be true, not actual evidence.’
Just rhetoric. Show me the actual flaws in the calculation, or show your own calculation.
If you cannot, then you cannot explain away anthro CO2. It has not vanished.
See also: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-264614
No, it hasn’t vanished. It has just joined the natural flows, which are overwhelmingly larger.
The flaw in the calculation is that it treats natural and anthropogenic flows as having different dynamics, when nature has no means of differentiating them. If the oceans take up only 1/2 of anthropogenic flow, then they take up only 1/2 of natural flows, and we would soon be overwhelmed by the backup of natural flows.
no flaws, no numbers, no science, just handwaving. 100% handwaving.
If cant distinguish between natural and anthro, then the 20 btons remaining in atm could be anthro, yet you claim not. Plain dumb.
‘Soon have backup’ natural flows are both plus and minus on annual basis. Variations occur, but no backup.
‘It has just joined the natural flows, which are overwhelmingly larger.’
In April in my area the average seasonal rise in temp is about 0.3 F/day. This comes from a tiny additional input of heat.
The additional flow of heat is miniscule compared to the flow of heat in and out, which produces a temp change of 20F, every day.
It matters not, the tiny influx of heat, in comparison to the massive daily in-out flow, inexorably builds up, leading to a total rise of 40F by summer.
Similarly the large in-out flow of CO2 matters not. The small anthro flow gets integrated over time, it builds up.
@barry,
All I am asking for is a paper that supports the hypothesis that [CO2] drives temperature containing enough detail to allow me to replicate the work.
In “Climate Science” very few papers put forward hypotheses that can be replicated at the two sigma level (5% probability that the null hypothesis is true), much less at the three sigma level.
Here is a video that may help you understand how much junk science is out there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gge05OiOW8Y
How would you replicate the work?
Describe the method and I will look for the paper. There are various ways, but which one will you choose?
gallopingcamel says:
“Yes, I will accept your models if you provide enough information for me to Replicate your calculations”
Arrhenius 1896 is about as simple as you’re going to get. Look at Plass 1956. Or, if you have the skill and the time to build your own computer model, then definitely Manabe and Wetherald 1967 & 1975.
gallopingcamel:
Ramanathan 1978 is a great starting point for an overview of radiative-convective models. It’s a seminal study, and might be what you’re looking for.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf
For more basic stuff, like CO2 lab experiments, you can go all the way back to Tyndall in the mid-1800s.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724 (click on PDF for the full version)
If you need more on CO2 lab experiments, there is a list of papers.
http://tinyurl.com/y7nnx2vp
Expected geomagnetic activity.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00932/teupm5ayygp0.jpeg
Sorry.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00932/e0qgog1l9y70.png
Monster storm to smash Australia – bringing damaging winds, snow, thunderstorms and the coldest weather of the year
Australia’s east coast will be hit with a monster storm bringing wild weather
It will hit New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, the ACT and Tasmania
Heavy snowfall forced officers to rescue a mother and her son on Monday
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4849902/Australia-weather-monster-storm-damaging-winds-snow-cold.html#ixzz4sSJ9zQ1O
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Didn’t happen.
Monster storm to smash Australia bringing damaging winds, snow, thunderstorms and the coldest weather of the year
Australias east coast will be hit with a monster storm bringing wild weather…. this week.
The article was written 8 days ago. No stormy weather in NSW, Victoria or South Australia. Mind you, it was the Daily Fail, so not unexpected that they got it wrong.
Forecast.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/09/14/0000Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-225.12,-34.32,1807
When is this storminess supposed to hit? Two days from now?
There are no storm warnings here, ren.
Looks like the South is getting some more cold winds. We had our first really warm day of the latter half of the year in Sydney. No chill factor in the morning or evening. You beaut.
Here are forecasts for major Australian cities for the rest of the week:
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/majorcities.shtml
No storms. A few ‘windy’ forecasts and showers. Nothing tempestuous.
Sea surface temperature shows air circulation over a longer period of time.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomw.9.11.2017.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anome.9.11.2017.gif
Still, when it comes to damage, Irma may bump Andrew, Watson said. The companys most recent estimate is for $49.5 billion in Irma costs for Florida; Andrews were an inflation-adjusted $47.8 billion.
The price tag for Hurricane Harvey, which struck southeastern Texas on Aug. 25, could end up between $65 billion to $75 billion, according to AIR Worldwide, a Verisk Analytics risk modeler based in Boston.
The top spots at the moment are held by 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, at $160 billion, and 2012’s Superstorm Sandy, at $70.2 billion, according to a list compiled by the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Information.
Those are modern storms. Simulations based on the paths and powers of some that rammed the U.S. 100 or more years ago show they were far more disastrous, or would be if they arrived today when the population is much more dense and there is far more, and far more expensive, property to destroy.
One hurricane that raked the U.S. East Coast in 1893 was so furious the impact could have added up to $1 trillion. “They haven’t really happened in our modern economy,” Watson said, adding its only a matter of time. “We have so much stuff and so much infrastructure. Leave all the arguments about climate change aside; we are rapidly moving into that era where we are going to be seeing $50 billion, $100 billion storms, and I will not be s surprised when we get to $300 billion.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-11/-150-billion-misfire-how-forecasters-got-irma-damage-so-wrong
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/
jimc…”Climate change denial should be a crime, declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline…”
I thought Hitler was dead.
“Always, after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another form, and grows again.”
-J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
The Shadow is within us. Eternal vigilance is necessary to keep it at bay.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I thought Hitler was dead.”
Hitler loved science. See: Heisenberg. Or Mengele.
Own goal, and unaware…
It would help to get the government out of the insurance business. The free market would lead to hurricane/flood tolerant construction and reduced construction in areas subject to hurricane and/or flood.
@Dan Pangburn,
You are 100% right so I hope that you don’t get treated like Jack Chambless.
Chambless is an economist at UCF who got death threats for pointing out what you just said on Fox News:
“One day after Katrina made landfall, economic professor Jack Chambless argued on Fox News that New Orleans was “a place where ecologically, it makes no sense to have levees keeping the Mississippi River from flooding into New Orleans like it naturally should.”Chambless said the federal government should give no help to hurricane victims. Instead, he argued natural disaster victims should rely on charity and insurance payments.”
Perhaps Mr Chambless should visit Holland then there few is the hydro dams about
Regards
dan pangburn…”It would help to get the government out of the insurance business. The free market would lead to hurricane/flood tolerant construction and reduced construction in areas subject to hurricane and/or flood”.
Governments represent the voters. The voters have a right to know how and why they are being ripped off. Therefore, governments should regulate/oversee insurance and financial institutes.
— Gordon Robertson says:
September 12, 2017 at 11:13 PM
dan pangburnIt would help to get the government out of the insurance business. The free market would lead to hurricane/flood tolerant construction and reduced construction in areas subject to hurricane and/or flood.
Governments represent the voters. The voters have a right to know how and why they are being ripped off. Therefore, governments should regulate/oversee insurance and financial institutes.–
Voter [or non voters] can become owners of a insurance business, and compete with all the other “bad insurance companies” [which are run by other voters [or non-voter].
The idea of politicians can know anything about the insurance
business, is about the same as 3rd teacher telling professional writer how to write. What world need is bunch 3rd teachers forming a board with powers of censorship dictating what should be written. Of course if any 3rd grade teacher wants to write something, go for it.
gbaikie…”The idea of politicians can know anything about the insurance business, is about the same as 3rd teacher telling professional writer how to write”.
Your views are too narrow, not to mention somewhat cynical. When we set up government auto insurance in the province of BC, Canada, an auto-insurance expert was brought in to overlook the implementation.
Any government with integrity implementing a government-controlled insurance agency would look to an expert of any political stripe for advice.
“Any government with integrity implementing a government-controlled insurance agency would look to an expert of any political stripe for advice.”
What does this have to do with integrity?
They are idiots, so they hire someone to tie their shoes.
I am with gbaikie on this one. When it comes to fixing problems with private corporations I distrust “The Government”……real competition is better than the “Crony Capitalism” that comes from excessive government involvement in business.
galloping…”When it comes to fixing problems with private corporations I distrust The Government…”
You’d rather trust the fox to look after the chickens. I don’t. If the government is crooked you can vote them out.
Reagan entrusted the financial sector through deregulation back in the early ’80s and it brought the entire financial sector down in the US in the early 2000 decade. The financial sector under deregulation had built themselves empires that were as crooked as the day is long.
You cannot trust anyone where profits and wealth are the motivating factors. Corporations have in-built mandates to maximize profits for the stockholders. That means reducing wages and other benefits to employees.
“Corporations have in-built mandates to maximize profits for the stockholders. That means reducing wages and other benefits to employees.”
No, it means getting the best employees at lowest cost- if pay them too little, they go elsewhere- and usually the best go elsewhere.
The sin of private enterprise is limiting competition, which they can use the government to do [that’s mostly what lobbying is about].
Or government is monopoly, except that strictly speaking government grant or create monopolies. There are many ways for government to create/support monopolies.
But if you think of the people as the source or beginning of government, the people are creating monopoly which is government.
Or government is the first monopoly and with power granted by the people, government can create other monopolies [it could have lots of “children”].
Anyhow one needs a government to have certain monopolies- power to imprison people, power to use legal force against people. And the power to tax people. Print money, etc.
But though many reasons can be given [and btw always wrong] I see no value in having activity, other governmental, being a monopoly.
gb: Corporations increase profits by whatever means necessary, including expecting the govt to subsidize them.
A great example: Walmart. US taxpayers are directly subsidizing its owners and their dividend payments:
Walmart could easily pay livable wages. But taxpayers pay the wage difference, and the owners of the corporation get to keep all the money.
“Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance,” Forbes 4/15/14
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#78d7b37e7cd8
Walmart earnings 2015: $16.4 billion, $4.99 per share. Dividends $7.2 billion.
http://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/investors/2015/02/19/walmart-announces-q4-underlying-eps-of-161-and-additional-strategic-investments-in-people-e-commerce-walmart-us-comp-sales-increased-15-percent
Walmart FY2016 dividend: $1.96 per share.
http://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2015/02/19/walmart-raises-annual-dividend-to-196-per-share-representing-the-42nd-consecutive-year-of-dividend-increases
Walmart reported profits Tuesday morning that missed Wall Street’s forecasts — and the recent pay hike for Walmart employees is one reason why.
Walmart raised the minimum wage for its workers to $9 an hour in April. Its most recent quarter closed in April, so the higher pay was only in effect for one month. The company said that the wage increase reduced earnings by 2 cents a share in the quarter.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/19/investing/walmart-sales-earnings-consumer-spending/
Governments job is to ‘keep the playing field level’, not to write insurance (and make taxpayers pay for their incompetence).
dan p …”Governments job is to keep the playing field level, not to write insurance (and make taxpayers pay for their incompetence)”.
We’ve had government auto insurance here in the province of BC, in Canada, since 1973 and it works fine, much to the chagrin of private insurers who ripped us off for decades prior to ’73.
It works even though one right-wing government after the other tried to modify it into a private insurer in its operation.
We’ve had government medical insurance Canada wide since the ’60s and no government would dare privatize it. Sanders is right, the US needs Medicare for all US citizens. For one, it would eliminate the gouging by private companies, pharmaceutical outfits, and medical equipment suppliers.
Private companies have proved they cannot be relied upon to offer insurance to the public with any degree of integrity.
Gor – The problem with government monopolies is the same as it is with all monopolies. The customer has no choice.
The government does a stealth rip off to cover any loss. Its called taxes.
“The problem with government monopolies is the same as it is with all monopolies. The customer has no choice.”
But, the problem is magnified in that other monopolies typically do not have police powers.
Some services are too crucial to be left to dictates of a so-called free market.
Health care, obviously. Also electricity & water.
“Some services are too crucial to be left to dictates of a so-called free market.”
That outlook is consistent with your AGW stance. You are a control freak with limited vision who supports using fear as a weapon to gain power over others in the hope of landing an exalted position for yourself. You create nothing of real value.
Bart, your frustrations are showing. Oops!
It’s been exceedingly well known for over half a century that the so-called “free market” cannot provide universal, affordable health care. It’s pretty obvious when you try to think about it — you might try that — but since you probably will miss all that you can read these Nobel Laureates:
“Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care,” Kenneth J. Arrow, The American Economic Review, Vol. LIII n 5 (Dec 1963)
http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/top20/53.5.941-973.pdf
For a synopsis you can read:
“Why markets can’t cure healthcare,” Paul Krugman, New York Times, July 25, 2009.
“Patients are not Consumers,” Paul Krugman, New York Times, April 21 2011
Gordon Robertson says:
“Private companies have proved they cannot be relied upon to offer insurance to the public with any degree of integrity.”
Exhibit A: The United States of America.
Now, you’re appealing to Krugman. Just sad.
Again, an utter lack of a rational argument.
Just who do you think such weak responses convince?
Do you think your blizzard of dubious sources convince?
I’m presenting science. You’re presenting the opinion of a guy too timid to even stand by his claims with his real name.
Bart says:
“You are a control freak with limited vision who supports using fear as a weapon to gain power over others in the hope of landing an exalted position for yourself.”
Does your mother know about your paranoia problems?
With renewable energy, you will still plug your toaster into the same outlet. Boo — how scary!
Then there are a few hydro dams about (should not write and drive at the same time)
Totally agree with Gordon Robertson
harry cummings…”Totally agree with Gordon Robertson…”
You are a gentleman and a scholar, Harry Cummings, not necessarily in that order. ☺
gallopingcamel on September 12, 2017 at 7:58 PM
All I am asking for is a paper that supports the hypothesis that [CO2] drives temperature containing enough detail to allow me to replicate the work.
Well, Peter Morcombe… I propose you to first read this:
1. Chamberlain, J.W., 1978. Elementary, Analytic Models of Climate: I. The Mean Global Heat Balance
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19790010343
2. Chamberlain, J.W., Hunten, D.M., 1987. Theory of Planetary Atmospheres: An Introduction to their Physics and Chemistry.
http://tinyurl.com/m2ad2r3
And when you will have digested it completely (I mean ‘to digest’, and not ‘to browse’), I propose that you come back again to a more fruitful discussion.
*
Just a little hint concerning your ‘The dog that did not bark’: you have completely misunderstood the second paper you refer to.
Probably you performed of it what I call an ultradiagonal reading, looking in the paper for things that might fit to your narrative instead of going into the details.
You would have understood what Jouzel, Masson-Delmotte & alii really wanted to explain, and that it considerably differs from what you thought in 2013!
*
BTW: these people very probably do not view the world’s climate as you do…
1. Valerie Vasson-Delmotte
She is a front(wo)man in climate affairs since longer time. She has been one of the leading redactors of… AR5.
2. Jean Jouzel
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Jouzel
One of his most recent contributions
Jean Jouzel, Anne Debroise, Le dfi climatique.
Objectif : 2 C !
https://tem.revues.org/3022
Bin, the first “paper” you link to contains the same error in logic as most. It “proves” the “given”.
Given: GHE is valid.
Prove : GHE is valid.
Pseudoscience!
As usual: “psiudosciens” blah blah instead of a formal falsification. You never prove anything; you only pretend.
I therefore can only assume that you aren’t able to do the job; thus your comments are completely redundant.
From the abstract, last sentence:
“Such a simplified model can be useful, however, for exploring the importance of changes in the greenhouse effect, caused by changes in the atmospheric composition…”
So what the paper REALLY does is …
Given: laws of radiative heat transfer are valid valid.
Assume: a simplified model of the earth and its atmosphere
Show: changes in radiative properties of the atmosphere will change the heat transfer and hence the temperature.
Again: instead of formulating a replique centered around formulae, you keep in your superficial, discrediting pseudocritique, and above all by deliberately cutting a sentence out of its scientific context.
Zero-value job.
Show us your science, by presenting an alternative sequence of equations having the same consistence.
Bin, you don’t like direct quotes from your own recommended source?
Maybe you should read and understand them better before recommending.
There’s a lot of pseudoscience out there.
And Tim gets it, only he’s a little wordier.
☺
g*e*r*a*n: you really are a coward.
Bin, you’ve dropped your scholarly facade!
Feel better now?
I think it is now time for me to stop reacting to your ‘comments’, g-e-r-a-n. Your ‘pseudoscience’ claims are simply unbearable.
Like they say, “Reality is a bitch!”
tim f..”changes in radiative properties of the atmosphere will change the heat transfer and hence the temperature”.
Explain how that is possible Tim. Where is the heat being transferred to? Heat required another mass in order for heat transfer to take place.
Transfer is not required with radiation, the surface will cool when it radiates IR or transfers it to nitrogen and oxygen by conduction. You seem to think that for a body to cool it requires another mass to receive the IR it radiates. Or that intervening IR absorbers will somehow slow down the emission from the surface.
Radiative properties of the atmosphere have nothing to do with surface emission/cooling. All that is required is that the atmosphere adjacent to the surface be cooler.
Gordon, I am having trouble figuring out what you think, or what you think I think! First of all, I recall that you use the word “heat” to mean what most scientists would call “internal energy”, U, which makes any discussion problematic from the get-go. (but that might be someone else — so tough to keep track of everyone’s idiosyncrasies!)
“Where is the heat being transferred to? Heat required another mass in order for heat transfer to take place.”
To the atmosphere. It has mass.
“You seem to think that for a body to cool it requires another mass to receive the IR it radiates. “
No. IR radiates quite well to empty space. Plus this seem to contradict the previous quote! First you insist another mass is needed, then you imply no mass is need!
“Radiative properties of the atmosphere have nothing to do with surface emission/cooling.
I completely disagree. The surroundings matter a great deal to cooling. On a foggy 20C night, a 20 C bit of surface will lose no energy via radiation. On a clear might — even if the air is 20 C — the surface will radiate significantly and cool. All I did was change the radiative properties. Do you still think radiative properties of the atmosphere have nothing to do with surface emission/cooling?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Explain how that is possible Tim. Where is the heat being transferred to? Heat required another mass in order for heat transfer to take place.”
So how does the heat of the Sun get to Earth?
(Gordon always avoids this question when I ask — every time.)
See how Gordon again avoided this question, despite many comments here after I posted my question to him?
Gordon does this every time. He doesn’t have the courage of his convictions.
Tim Folkerts on September 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM
Show: changes in radiative properties of the atmosphere will change the heat transfer and hence the temperature.
The most impressive in his paper was for me on pages 9 to 12, at positions (19) to (28), showing what happens when strong absor.ption occurs between 8 and 12 microns.
No reason to start crying with the Alarmists. But well worth to note.
Wow! Absor.ption is in the site’s word blacklist…
Interesting.
That’s difficult to understand
lewis, it has eventually somewhat in common with the Cot.ton era, during which Roy Spencer experienced daily attacks by this strange Australian guy.
rp
pt
Couple of tests above.
A.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n
and
T.u.t.o.r
Are two words that blacklisted for some reason. Not sure what they have to do with the banned individual.
I think this site has some gremlins that Roy is not responsible for.
binny…”Well, Peter Morcombe I propose you to first read this:
1. Chamberlain, J.W., 1978. Elementary, Analytic Models of Climate: I. The Mean Global Heat Balance”
*********
Mathematical nonsense. The entire premise of the presentation is a mathematical model without any real data to support it.
This notion of the Earth and it’s atmosphere as grey body radiators is theoretical bs.
Questions:
1)why should atmospheric components comprising approx. 1% of the atmosphere be able to act as absorbers that absorb all surface IR?
2)has anyone confirmed that radiation laws based on Planck and Boltzmann apply to our surface/atmosphere interface?
Gerlich and Tscheushner, two scientists with extensive experience in thermodynamics, don’t think they do. They pointed out that the Earth/atmosphere problem with a rotating planet is far too complex to be referenced by simple mathematical models.
3)has anyone taken into account that surface radiation is subject to the inverse square law therefore loses much of its intensity before it reaches more than a few feet into the atmosphere?
4) why are there no one to one measurements between CO2 and surface radiation, why are the theories dependent on mathematical calculations?
5)has anyone considered that N2/O2 in the atmosphere absorbs most surface heat by conduction leaving hardly any to be radiated? It appears to me that meteorologists don’t concern themselves with surface radiation, they are observing rising air parcels that form into clouds and thunder storms. Or low and high pressure areas associated with rising hot air packets.
Nonsense comment written by a troll discarded.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“4) why are there no one to one measurements between CO2 and surface radiation,”
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
BTW, while you argue over trivial details, real world data keeps rolling in:
“Bushfires and record temperatures herald arrival of forecast spring heat
Sydney logs hottest September day on record, Hunter Valley bushfires threaten houses and bureau warns of worse to come”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/13/bushfires-and-record-temperatures-herald-arrival-of-forecast-spring-heat
In comparison with the terror actually experienced by the Rohingya people in Myanmar, this ‘real world data’ is, excuse me please, a bit of secondary nature.
dr no…”Bushfires and record temperatures herald arrival of forecast spring heat
Sydney logs hottest September day on record, Hunter Valley bushfires threaten houses and bureau warns of worse to come”
You’re confusing weather with climate.
Good one Gordon!
Gordon Robertson says:
“Youre confusing weather with climate.”
The impacts of climate change ALWAYS present as “weather.” Always.
@Bindidon,
Thank you for your suggestions. It may take me a while to study those links.
There is something you said that I can respond to today:
“BTW: these people very probably do not view the worlds climate as you do”
When it comes to climate science the vast majority of the researchers are Alarmists. That is not news. It is also not news that they seldom express even the slightest doubt about the hypothesis that CO2 is a major climate driver.
In your list of EPICA researchers you did not mention Thomas F. Stocker who I sometimes refer to as the “Prince of Darkness”. He knows the truth but chooses to lie.
Clearly you did not understand the point of the “Dog That Did Not Bark”. It is the same point that I make in relation to Richard Alley’s GISP studies. While Richard Alley draws the wrong conclusions from his own work he is decent enough to respond to emails so I regard him as a real scientist even though I disagree with his conclusions.
Real scientists respond to emails from strangers?
Never mind view of climate. This is a strange world view.
I get plenty of emails from people I don’t know. If I were a crank, only then might I reply to all of them.
Clearly you did not understand the point of the Dog That Did Not Bark.
Are you sure? I repeat, Mr Morcombe: you did not understand the contents of
Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years
Read it again.
Moreover, to discredit a person like Masson-Delmotte as being an alarmist reflects exactly your niveau. Plus bas tu meurs.
gallopingcamel says:
“It is also not news that they seldom express even the slightest doubt about the hypothesis that CO2 is a major climate driver.”
That’s because that hypothesis has been thoroughly proven. Why would they question facts established by evidence?
“thoroughly proven”
In your dreams, Davie. In your dreams.
We are now Sep 13th, and the end of Roy Spencer’s monthly anomaly file still shows
2017 7 0.29 0.32 0.27
No wonder: all files in the directory above are dated ‘2017-08-10’.
Well I’m patient and, above all, other institutions busy in the same context publish on every month even later, but this unusual delay nevertheless is surprising a bit.
I also wonder why this happens. Roy never answers when I, and others, ask here.
I don’t think it’s worth worrying about. Roy (or John Christy) is probably busy with other stuff. Maybe there’s something pressing going on in his private life. The updates do not occur on the same day every time.
We should be glad to have access to this data at all.
If you want to worry about something, consider Colorado Uni’s sea level data. They haven’t updated for a year.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
They usually update every 3 or 4 months. Their longest gap was 5 months. The latest hiatus is twice as long.
(I emailed them about it a few months ago, and they said they were in the midst of changing database and software. They also said the site would updated “next month.” That was late May)
Try Aviso:
ftp://ftp.aviso.altimetry.fr/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_Filter2m.txt
They update about once a month (3 data points/month) and their lag is only about 3 months.
PS: Here’s Aviso’s main page:
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/
I look at the others, including AVISO (and CU, BoM, NOAA, NASA).
I was referring to your concern with an update that is a few days longer than usual. Seems like small potatoes compared to how long other groups take to update (like AVISO).
UAH’s data files are always updated 2+ weeks after Roy first announces the LT anomaly here.
He’s never explained the delay, despite repeated questions.
Bli – Your link is more evidence of science malpractice.
Did you not grasp what I wrote? I compared the ‘old’ and ‘new’ RSS and reported what I found. The average v4 since 2015 is about .17 above v3. The last point is about 0.15 higher than v3. The link you posted for RSS doesnt even come close.
Dan Pangburn on September 13, 2017 at 12:10 PM / 12:14 PM
Dan Pangburn, I always apologise for my misinterpretations, and so it is today as usual.
You didn’t mention, in your rather misleading critique to RSS posted on September 12, 2017 at 3:01 PM, any revision number.
Thus it was inevitable that I would think of your post being in relation with the stoopid WUWT thread
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/10/remote-sensing-systems-apparently-slips-in-a-stealth-adjustment-to-warm-global-temperature-data/
I posted to barry.
So I now welcome you to have a look at a new chart showing, for the TLT level, two Globe mean temperature anomaly difference plots:
– RSS4.0 minus RSS3.3
– UAH6.0 minus UAH5.6
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170913/qdsw33j3.jpg
Feel free to rank the results!
Any person experienced in analysing satellite TLT readings will explain you the high differences starting in the year 2000.
*
By the way, Mr Pangburn: did you, as UAH5.6 came up in July 2011 with a lot of warming compared with the preceeding revision, apply the same critique to Roy Spencer and team as you did to RSS’ manager Carl Mears and team last year?
In such cases, Frenchies love to say: Au royaume des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois.
Google Translator helps if needed.
Thanks, I see where the confusion arose. That’s how I thought the v3/v4 chart would look.
barry on September 13, 2017 at 4:28 PM
Thats how I thought the v3/v4 chart would look.
Yes: that’s what you of course would have seen in a chart showing the RSS3.3/4.0 diff plot standalone.
But my intention was rather to show in a chart the differences between the differences.
Only when having the two plots in one chart you’ll manage to see that
– before 2000 the RSS differences are quite similar to the UAH differences;
– by 2000 they begin to differ, the one increasing, the other decreasing, while keeping equidistant.
Commenter Olof R, who seems to know quite a lot about satellite readings, has insisted many times on RSS’ and UAH’s contradictory interpretations of the data delivered by NOAA channels 14 and 15.
That is something only the two ‘concurrent’ teams can talk about.
But my intention was rather to show in a chart the differences between the differences.
Aye, I understood that. Why I said upthread the latest differences are on the order of 0.15C (between v3 and v4).
Olof seems to have a fairly good handle on the technicalities, although, as you rightly say, only the compilers and others who compile satellite records would have keen insight into the choices made.
We’re left to scratch at the data. But some here are way too over-confident in their opinions on the validity of the methods. You’re not afraid to acknowledge your limitations. That makes your contribution trustworthy.
Bli – Sorry for misleading. I was not aware of the WUWT article.
I don’t think there was any deceit in what you said, only misunderstanding between you and Bin.
I, for one, appreciate your civility here.
No problem Mr Pangburn.
My goal is, whenever possible (!!!), to increase understanding, and not to increase animosity.
My overreaction concerning your opinion about RSS’ accuracy has much to do with Watts’ misleading attitude against any team presenting temperature series differing from his expectations. See his nonsense a la ‘karlizing the data’, etc etc.
Over the long term a convergence of RSS, UAH and STAR imho is unavoidable.
A look at a comparison of UAH6.0 TLT and NOAA STAR TMT
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170830/6h67mweh.jpg
might convince you…
Ooops! Blue: STAR TMT; red: UAH TLT.
I’m not sure that mid tropospheric and lower tropospheric temps are comparable. Mid troposphere has a lower trend in most than lower trop, if not all data sets.
The basic premises of AGW theory are wrong. They are the lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator, a evolution to a more -AO/-NAO and a lack of an decrease in OLR.
None of which have come to pass therefore when the premises are wrong the theory is wrong.
Salvatore: please don’t misunderstand the following.
By no means I would compare the joung climate science with Einstein’s work. By no means!
But let me tell you nevertheless that you have no idea of the unspeakable criticism that Albert Einstein endured in the early years of his career.
No error, so small it might have been, was ever forgiven him…
Bin, you have no idea of the unspeakable criticism that Skeptics must endure–insults, innuendos, name-calling–it’s almost as if some people hate truth.
g*e*r*a*n
You are starting to understand your own faulted information.
YOU: “insults, innuendos, name-callingits almost as if some people hate truth.”
Yes that is what anyone presenting science to you must endure. Now maybe you can answer why you hate the truth so much. What is it about real science you find so horrible you must create your own version that is more to your liking? I really hope you take some time to reflect on your hatred of the truth and maybe work to eliminate this condition.
Again Con-man, every sentence is inaccurate or a mis-represenaion.
Your desperation is hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
No desperation at all. Just wondering why you absolutely hate science so much.
By the way just make unsupported claims does not really do much to promote your value as a legitimate poster.
Your claims “every sentence is inaccurate or a mis-represenaion.”
Okay which ones? And what leads you that those conclusions?
Norm inquires: “Okay which ones?”
Look up the 5-letter word, “every”.
g*e*r*a*n,
Norman, like almost all foolish Warmists, thinks that posing “gotchas” in the form of questions supposedly seeking to advance his knowledge, demonstrates his intellectual attainments.
And so it does, except possibly not in the way he intended!
As usual, he demands that you provide full explanation of your thought processes, hoping he he can find a miniscule molehill to amplify into a mountain. That’s my opinion, of course, and if Norman wants to explain why he asked such a foolish Warmist “gotcha”, I would happily apologise if it transpires that my opinion is incorrect.
It’s of some note that foolish Warmists have reverted to dismissive ad-homs, appeals to discredited or irrelevant “authority”, bizarre assertions presented as fact, and all the nonsense they used in the past. Even the MSM is showing the first signs of becoming weary of the “Only . . . days/weeks/months/years to save the World!” – whatever that’s supposed to mean!
Even the Australian Prime Minister (once noted for his enthusiasm for curly “energy saving” light bulbs – conveniently ignoring their many defects, including at least 4 mgm. of Hg in each one), has now realised that people want to use electricity at night when the Sun doesn’t shine, when it’s stinking hot and humid because the wind isn’t blowing, and the hydro turbines aren’t turbining due to a lack of head in the dam.
Maybe letting operators close coal fired power stations so that taxpayer funds from generous renewable subsidies could be handed to shareholders, wasn’t the smartest idea! The Indians, Chinese, and many other countries, are furiously planning the construction of fossil fuel, and in some cases, nuclear, plants. In the mean time, selling solar panels, wind turbines and such, to countries silly enough to close their reliable energy plants down.
All of the foolish Warmists “gotchas” won’t affect the future one whit!
Science is science, and facts remain facts, until supplanted by new ones. The demented demands of the likes of David Appell to “prove it!” shows the perverted thinking of foolish Warmists. As Einstein wrote –
“A theory can thus be recognized as erroneous if there is a logical error in its deductions, or as inadequate if a fact is not in agreement with its consequences. But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never knows that even in the future no experience will be encountered which contradicts its consequences; and still other systems of thought are always conceivable which are capable of joining together the same given facts.”
This has been paraphrased as “No amount of experiment can prove a theory right; a single experiment can prove it wrong.”
Foolish Warmists cannot even provide a disprovable hypothesis, let alone a disprovable theory. Until they can, they remain foolish Warmists to me.
Keep at it, g. I try to avoid commenting, but it’s hard sometimes. I enjoy a good laugh too much.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Norman, like almost all foolish Warmists, thinks that posing gotchas in the form of questions supposedly seeking to advance his knowledge, demonstrates his intellectual attainments.”
They do.
And it is really fun to watch you (and those here like you) run away from these questions, as fast as you can.
You know you can’t answer them. So you kick and whine and throw your rattle out of your crib.
We all notice.
We all think you’re hilarious.
binny…”you have no idea of the unspeakable criticism that Albert Einstein endured in the early years of his career.”
Comes with the territory and Albert handled it fine. When a journal editor pointed out to him that several hundred scientist disagreed with him on a point, Albert replied that it only took one scientist to prove him wrong.
Today, in climate science in particular, we have dispensed with the scientific method and turned to agreement. If enough people agree we are suffering catastrophic global warming it has to be true, the real data be damned.
We have two scientists proving all the rest wrong, Roy Spencer and John Christy. The consensus crowd, unable to deal with the real data, have resorted to obfuscation to make the sat data APPEAR to be wrong.
A while back, John Christy took the real data to a climate modeler pointing out to him the discrepancy between the model output and the real data. The modeler rebuffed the real data claiming he did not care, that his model was right.
Nonsense comment written by a troll – discarded.
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“Nonsense comment written by a troll discarded.”
Unsubstantiated assertion, followed by another unsubstantiated assertion (or claim of possession of some form of extra-sensory perception), followed by bizarre statement confusing fantasy with reality.
“Nonsense” – personal opinion. Do you have supporting fact?
“Troll” – ad hominem attack, perhaps? Factual support?
“Discarded” – Eh? You can’t throw away something you don’t own. You have to accept something before you can reject it. Pretending that something doesn’t exist won’t make it vanish!
You might well choose to take offence if I characterised your comment as dismissive, patronising, condescending, pointless, and calculated merely to be gratuitously offensive.
If you wish to take offence, be my guest. Take as much offence as you like – I can always give more If you desire.
Still no GHE. Abusing people who point this out won’t help. Einstein famously said that he thought that “God does not play at dice.” Einstein appears to have been wrong. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics, – Lorenz’s workinvolving chaos – it appears that God does play at dice, however you want to express the uncertainty of Nature. You may choose to stick with Einstein if you wish.
Foolish French Warmist ! – see how easy it is to attempt a gratuitous offence? Now’s your chance to deny, divert, and confuse, by whining about discrimination, racism, denial, and all the rest. It won’t help. Still no GHE. Witless Woeful Warmists can’t even find the missing disprovable GHE hypothesis!
Keep it up. You’re good for a bit of mild amusement. More funny peculiar peculiar than funny ha-ha, if you know what I mean. I could throw in a few scurrilous jokes about the French, but I’m far too couth.
Over to you. I’ll play your silly game as long as Dr Spencer allows.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn on September 13, 2017 at 4:25 PM
The same holds for you: nonsense comment written by a troll discarded.
I have no interest in your comments.
Same old response. What a bore.
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“I have no interest in your comments.”
Foolish Warmist. You demonstrate your “lack of interest” by responding. This seems to be the abnormal normal as used by foolish Warmists.
They’re silly enough to believe that climate determines weather, rather than the truth – which is that climate is the average of weather.
They believe that cooling is heating – according to foolish Warmists, a reduction in the rate of losing energy is the same as gaining energy, ie. heating!
They believe that the mythical GHE (which has never been verified by reproducible experiments), is simultaneously responsible for floods, droughts, hurricanes, absence of hurricanes, hot spells, cold snaps, and quite possibly haemorrhoids and halitosis.
You might demonstrate your complete lack of interest in the truth by ignoring it.
It doesn’t seem to be working as well as it used to. The mass delusional outbreak of foolish Warmism seems to be succumbing to treatment by Nature.
The climate has been changing for about four and a half billion years. The Earth has been cooling for about the same length of time. Good luck with stopping either.
I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting. Nor would any rational person.
Cheers.
Bindidon…”Nonsense comment written by a troll discarded”
Bindidon is in deep denial about science.
MF wrote:
“The climate has been changing for about four and a half billion years. The Earth has been cooling for about the same length of time.”
Not true at all. There were at least two global glaciations in the Precambrian, and an ice-free planet in the Eocene.
And many variations in between.
Gordon Robertson says:
“A while back, John Christy took the real data to a climate modeler pointing out to him the discrepancy between the model output and the real data. The modeler rebuffed the real data claiming he did not care, that his model was right.”
Really? What was that modeler’s name?
(I think you made this story up.)
Ever wonder why John Christy has never submitted that graph to peer review and publication?
A look at the following document might be of interest:
downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap1-1/sap1-1-final-all.pdf
U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1
April 2006
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere
Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences
Well it’s a bit heavy to digest, but it’s helpful.
A considerable amount of scientists of e.g. NOAA, UAH and RSS contributed at that time.
Worth noting that this report was written one year after UAH made a large correction that doubled their lower troposphere warming trend. Prior to that, UAH was cited by ‘skeptics’ as showing little to no warming (or statistically non-significant warming).
We’re seeing a version of this play out now in various ways. ‘Skeptics’ gravitate to the lowest temp record (it was RSS for a few years), and announce that this is the really real truth. Turgidly predictable stuff.
In fact, none of them are the really real truth. They are all estimates with different methodology choices, strengths and limitations. That’s the most neutral view. Preference for one or another is personal bias, pure and simple.
DA…”Really? What was that modelers name? (I think you made this story up.)”
Send me your address and I’ll send you a quarter so you can call someone who gives a damn what you think.
Meantime, read this, watch the video and try to get over your denial of science.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/02/john-christy-climate-video/
I would suggest you read the following but I estimate it is beyond you. It requires comprehension and a real background in science.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/02/05/satellites-and-global-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/
barry…”Worth noting that this report was written one year after UAH made a large correction that doubled their lower troposphere warming trend”.
As you, DA, binny and the other alarmists are prone to whine, where is your link to the evidence?
Show me where the trend doubled in any UAH graph. If you can’t, knock of the propaganda or go somewhere else where it is appreciated, like realclimate or skepticalscience.
If you became a cartoonist you’d fit right in with John Cook at SS. Your obfuscation of the truth already has you in the door as an honourable member.
binny…”A look at the following document might be of interest: downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap1-1/sap1-1-final-all.pdf”
Looked at it. The paper is headed by Karl of NOAA who created the new fudged data put out by NOAA. In the opening pages they contradicted themselves royally.
Statement 1: “…surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
Statement 2: “The NRC further found that corrections in the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) processing algorithms brought the satellite data record into slightly closer alignment with surface temperature trends. They concluded that the substantial disparity that remained probably ref lected a less rapid warming of the troposphere than the surface in recent decades due to both natural and human-induced causes”.
Note in statement 1 that the discrepancy between the surface and sat data is claimed to have been corrected due to a correction of errors in the sat and radiosonde data. In statement 2 they claim the sat data was brought into SLIGHTLY closer alignment.
Which is it, are the surface and sats aligned or are they SLIGHTLY closer?
Binny, you become a bigger fool each time you cite those idiots at NOAA. Why are you such a chump?
At the end of statement 2 it is claimed that new data sets have been produced showing no discrepancy. That is a blatant lie from NOAA, trying to pass themselves off as an objective, scientific organization.
The pdf at your link is like one of those glossy travel brochures showing white sands and ideal conditions in tropical paradise while hiding the truth about the natives living in abject poverty. It’s full of lies. They have gone so far as to present finding from John Christy then lying through their teeth about what Christy has been claiming for years about the sats and surface stations being way out of alignment.
Gordon Robertson says:
“DAReally? What was that modelers name? (I think you made this story up.)
“Send me your address and Ill send you a quarter so you can call someone who gives a damn what you think.”
I knew you made that story up. You make up a lot of things.
Gordon,
WE AGREE WITH C.A. MEARS AND F.J. WENTZ (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” Reports, 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments. The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is +0.123 K/decade, or +0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1.
http://tinyurl.com/y8bdwwye
Beg pardon, it was a 40% increase on the prior trend (0.088 – 0.123), not doubled.
The rest of the history is correct.
Your obfuscation of the truth
I don’t do that. When I’m wrong, I admit it. That is a major difference between you and I.
bindindon – all I said was the premise that AGW theory has been built on does not seem to be taking place.
The ‘theory’ is about multi-decadal change. Not daily, not weekly, not monthly, not seasonally, not interannually.
Unless you’re examining over multi-decadal time frames, you’re not looking at the ‘theory.
Barry
I have an off topic question for you. Would more IR radiation in the atmosphere lead to higher atmospheric/surface temperature? Not talking about a higher rate, just MORE of this type of energy. I’m pretty sure it would, just wanted to bounce it off someone smart.
barry,
Here’s your chance. Someone thinks you’re pretty smart.
Only a simple yes or no answer answer required. How hard can it be?
One foolish Warmist asking another foolish Warmist an ill defined question, similar in structure to “how long is a piece of string”!
I await the ensuing exchange with bated breath!
Cheers.
Snape,
I’m not smart enough on this topic to opine, but I’ll try to make a reasonable comment from the little I know. I’ve also read some of your to and fro above, so I think I know where you’re coming from…
Surface temps on Earth comes (partly) from the efficiency of atmospheric cooling to space. (You’ve said as much yourself, IIRC).
If the cooling becomes less efficient (atmosphere optically thicker in the GHE IR range), the surface gets warmer.
To take your question literally – no. Imagine the moon suddenly has a thick atmosphere of oxygen only. This prevents some solar radiation reaching the surface. So there is more IR radiation in the atmosphere, but the surface is now cooler.
You are, of course, asking about CO2 (same applies to other ‘greenhouse’ gases). Because it lets virtually all solar radiation through, but impedes (net) transmission of IR from surface to space, the surface warms if there are more GHGs.
Micro/Macro
At the macro level, as Kristian says, the net flow is always from the warmer object (surface) to space. At the micro level, radiation from the atmosphere is going in every direction, including towards the surface. If the atmos radiates more IR, then more IR is going to go towards the surface (and every other direction). That’s the micro effect. At the macro level net flow from hot to cold continues, but efficiency of transmission has changed, warming the surface.
It’s possible to understand this at both the macro and micro level, and many other ways to describe or analogize what is happening.
Convection is also part of the process, but don’t let any try to tell you that this totally offsets or negates the radiative effect. Many things are happening all the time. Models try to capture as many of the processes as possible. Since the late 60s, most GCMs are radiative/convective models.
I understand you, Salvatore!
But that you should tell to persons working in bigger reinsurance companies like Munich Re, and being there responsible for long term risk assessments (I know one).
You would wonder.
Bindidon,
Insurance companies can no more predict the future than your local friendly fortune teller. They assiduously look into the past in great detail, and hope that dressing their guesses in the garb of actuarial science will accord it some respectability.
As to Munich Re (July 2017) –
“Hermann Pohlchristoph, Munich Re Board member responsible for Asia-Pacific: In terms of actual loss amounts, Asia and Australia were not as badly hit by natural disasters as they often are.””
Did Munich Re foresee this with their ability to peer into the future? If they did, did their reduce their premiums to reflect their risk assessment, or just keep gouging and praying?
Insurance companies, based on the past, have proved they can’t see into the future. The third biggest US Government bail out was – an insurance company! AIG. To the tune of about $67 billion dollars or so, if memory serves. Some ability to see into the future!
Your appeals to authority are a bit soggy. Not much to do with predictive ability of anything, let alone the average of weather events which haven’t happened yet!
You may discard the inconvenient truth as you wish.
Others might not be so cavalier.
Cheers.
salvatore…”bindindon all I said was the premise that AGW theory has been built on does not seem to be taking place”.
If you can call nearly 20 years of a flat trend as “doesn’t seem to be taking place”. I would state that as definitely not taking place.
Gordon lies again.
UAH LT v6.0 20-yr trend = +0.06 C/decade.
95% CL = 0.04 C/dec.
Bin, you have no idea of the unspeakable criticism that Skeptics must endureinsults, innuendos, name-calling
I am very much aware of it. It cuts both ways. At WUWT, slandering climate researchers happens multiple times daily, and people who post in the comments are maligned relentlessly.
For myself, I’ll be respectful if that is what I am served. Treat me with contempt and I reserve the right to return it.
G, you have treated many people, including me, with contempt. I’ve sometimes returned it. Any time you argue with courtesy, I will return that. Deal?
Which is the way it should be. Differences of opinions are to be argued with enthusiasm, not, NOT, vitriol.
You are evidently right, lewis.
But when all what you write all the time is replied in the same, boring, unscientific blah blah manner like in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262544
or in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262643
you sometimes leave the necessary selfcontrol.
Five years ago I would have engineered a pretty mix of HTML and Javascript filtering all this stoopid waste out of any interesting thread. I’m too lazy now to do…
barry, I am contemptuous of pseudoscience, yes. But, have never called you a “liar”, a or “coward”, as others have done to me.
g*e*r*a*n
I have called you a liar when you lie. I show in posts how you are actively lying about something I said. You do not care.
If you do not lie then you will not be called a liar by me. I actually think it would be nice if you did not lie about things people claim or twist and distort them and make fun of your distortion in an attempt to discredit.
You have called me con-man quite often for doing nothing more than repeating textbook physics (I have linked to the sources several times in posts directed to you to demonstrate this). You have called me reprobate. Not even sure why. You are quite insulting and derogatory to people for no apparent reason. Just mean spirited is my opinion.
Con-man, I call you a “con-man” because you are.
When you say I have lIed, you may be referring to the times I have ridiculed your pseudoscience. You don’t like getting caught, so your only defense is to insult me.
How many examples do need to see?
g*e*r*a*n
No g*e*r*a*n you call me a con-man when I state textbook physics and link you to the source.
Give an example of one of my posts that fits your derogatory name calling of con-man?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-255155
barry whines: “G, you have treated many people, including me, with contempt.”
bay, I treat pseudoscience with contempt. I have never called anyone a “liar” or a “coward”, as others have called me.
“Whining”
I guess you don’t realize that is contempt.
Shame. I offered you a reasonable deal. Guess the answer is no.
“Your desperation is amusing.”
“Snake”
“Abnormal con man”
“I usually dont respond to 12 year-old nonsense, so this must be your lucky day.”
“youre trying awfully hard to look dumb.”
“Your desperation is hilarious.”
Contempt comes in all shapes and sizes.
barry, I accept your “deal”.
We will be careful not to be contemptuous of each other.
Thanks for the offer.
Good-o.
From an ex NASA scientist (PhD and all) –
Physicists and mathematicians who couldnt make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldnt make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science.
Dr Thresher actually appears to possess a doctoral qualification in a field which relates to “climate science” unlike the pretenders Hansen, Schmidt and Mann.
I’ll see a foolish Warmist’s appeal to authority, and raise.
Cheers.
Oh look, a PHD. He must know everything.
Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldnt make it in his degree field of mathematics)
Pay heed to a qualified muckraker. Schmidt has a PhD in applied mathematics and fluid dynamics.
barry,
Maybe he forgot to mention the second PhD to his employer. They don’t seem to know anything about it – nothing they’re admitting in public, anyway.
Here’s Dr Thresher’s results, as far as I know –
“BS, MIT — #2 overall, #1 in Computer Science.
MS, University of Arizona — #73 overall, #34 in Geosciences.
PhD, Columbia University — #9 overall, #4 in Geosciences.”
You no doubt have equally impressive numbers for Gavin Schmidt. Would you mind posting them?
I’m not sure what qualifications you need to be a muckraker, but maybe you could state them, as you imply you know.
In any case, Schmidt’s qualifications in applied mathematics led to him saying that in his mind, a 38% probability of 2014 being the “Hottest year EVAH!” was good enough to make the claim. If his knowledge of fluid dynamics is maybe a tad better, maybe he could pick up a lazy $1,000,000 – just by entering the Millenium Prize competition, and solving a minor problem in fluid dynamics. Or maybe, if money doesn’t interest him, he could just pick up a Fields Medal.
Nope. You have to be a first rater to stand a chance of getting either. I’m sure a foolish Warmist can come up with any number of reasons why Gavin Schmidt chooses to remain an undistinguished mathematician, and self appointed climatologist. Do you think he’s so smart he doesn’t need to bother with something as trivial as an actual science degree? It’s a usual first step, unless scientific brilliance shows it to be unnecessary. Maybe there’s a “Schmidt’s Law”, or a “Schmidt Principle” hiding somewhere (maybe with Trenberth’s missing heat, or Mike’s Nature trick).
Maybe you could point me to Gavin Schmidt’s brilliant scientific achievements? I’d appreciate it.
Cheers.
Maybe he forgot to mention the second PhD to his employer. They dont seem to know anything about it nothing theyre admitting in public, anyway.
Did you look?
https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/gavin.a.schmidt
So now we’re chest-butting researchers are we? Phenomenal.
barry,
What part of what I wrote do you disagree with?
Gavin Schmidt, according to the link you provided, has a BA (Bachelor of Arts), and a PhD in Applied Mathematics. No second PhD, unless it’s a closely guarded climatological secret. Or does one equal two, in foolish Warmist parlance?
Maybe you could quote what I said, and provide correction.
There’s no chest-butting of researchers here. Endlessly reanalysing temperature records of very doubtful provenance, divining air temperatures from looking at pieces of wood, trying to find missing heat, or producing pointless amateurish computer games at great expense, doesn’t qualify as scientific research in my opinion.
Just as well, because Gavin Schmidt isn’t a scientist. He may be a good juggler, for all I know, but climatology is about as scientific as astrology or phrenology (or maybe even less useful).
Still no GHE. Not even a disprovable hypothesis! Just an endless list of delusional assertions and extraordinary claims.
Cheers.
The Muckraker said Schmidt told him he couldn’t make it in his degree field of mathematics. So I pointed out that Schmidt has a PhD in mathematics.
If you responded to that, I missed it. Mind if we settle that before shifting goalposts to a PhD count?
To be clear, I didn’t know what you meant by “second PhD.” Both researchers have one only.
barry,
You wrote –
“Schmidt has a PhD in applied mathematics and fluid dynamics.” I obviously misunderstood you to mean 2 PhDs, when it seems you mean one. The word “and” I took to mean two. This “and” that. More than one. My mistake.
As to Gavin Schmidt’s prowess as a mathematician, he doesn’t seem to be other than undistinguished in his field. You may have details of which I am unaware. He does seem to refer to himself as a climatologist (it appears anyone can), and gives the impression that he is a “scientist. The blog RealClimate contains the phrase “Climate Science from Climate Scientists”. Dr Schmidt does not object to being classified as a “climate scientist” any more than Michael Mann objected to being characterised as a Nobel Laureate.
Climate is defined as the average of historical weather, over a nominally period. A number. No science involved. Maybe you wish to confuse climatology with meteorology. I wouldn’t blame you.
Cheers
Gavin is Director of NASA GISS. Quite a prestigious position, esp at his age.
I would be very happy to go along with rejecting any blog or other commentary on climate science where the author has no degree qualifications in relevant fields.
What do you say, Mike? Can we write off Anthony Watts, Poptech, Tony Heller etc?
Flynn is a denier of climate change caused mainly by fossil fuel burning. He flies the denial banner as a warrior, problem is he will fall on by his own petard.
And so it goes on Fox News – Roy is at again 7 days earlier banging on about his own personal attack on Gore full of half truths and outright distortion. The evidence of progressive catastrophic climate change over time (decades of progressive worsening statistics, facts and records broken won’t stop him telling his whoppers. Selective cherry picked denial is not being exactly truthful is it?.
Ross,
Maybe you could actually quote something I wrote, and correct me with fact.
You wrote –
“He flies the denial banner as a warrior, problem is he will fall on by his own petard.”
I challenge any reasonable person (I’ll leave out bindidon – I think he’s Gallic. Another Gaul, Charles de Gaulle, complained about how hard it was to govern a country that produced 246 types of cheese. A good Gallic excuse. bindidon can probably come up with something similar.) to extract the mixed metaphors, the almost incomprehensible expression, not to mention an assertion about the future passed off as fact.
Just so you know, a petard is a small bomb. One is unlikely to “fall on by his own petard.”, rather more likely to be hoisted into the air by a premature explosion, as in “hoist on his own petard.”
If you are a foolish Warmist, you could always use the “I didn’t realise what I said, and I really meant to say something else” excuse. Give it a try if you wish. It might work for an audience of other foolish Warmists.
Still no GHE. Anywhere.
Cheers.
Ross…”The evidence of progressive catastrophic climate change over time (decades of progressive worsening statistics, facts and records broken wont stop him telling his whoppers”.
Another alarmist clown.
Has it occurred to you in your pea brain that Roy as part of the UAH team with John Christy has 38 years of real satellite data to back him? Both were awarded medals for excellence from NASA and the American Meteorological Society. John was elected a fellow in the AMS.
So, where are your alleged stats, facts, and broken records?
mike…”Dr Thresher actually appears to possess a doctoral qualification in a field which relates to climate science unlike the pretenders Hansen, Schmidt and Mann”.
Mann’s a geologist. Hansen was an astronomer by trade and got his theories about the runaway greenhouse effect from Carl Sagan, one of the first TV personalities to turn science into drama. Sagan presumed the Venusian atmosphere came from a runaway greenhouse effect but the extremely high surface temperature of Venus has proved him wrong.
Carl Sagan was, of course, right about Venus — a huge greenhouse effect is by far the leading hypothesis to explain the planet’s climate.
DA…”Carl Sagan was, of course, right about Venus a huge greenhouse effect is by far the leading hypothesis to explain the planets climate”.
Two corrections:
1)WAS the leading hypothesis
2)it’s wrong. The surface temperature is far too high to have come from thermal runaway. So claimed astronomer Andrew Ingersoll, who stated such a condition contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Link(s) to Ingersoll’s claims and papers?
Has subsequent work proved Ingersoll right? Do you even care?
Norman
I don’t think I really understand Kristian’s viewpoint, or how it differs that much from yours or Tim’s. My mind tends to go blank where math is involved……lol.
I do have an off topic question, though, that I’m sure you could answer. I posed it to Barry at the bottom of the thread but he hasn’t replied yet:
“Would more IR radiation in the atmosphere lead to higher atmospheric/surface temperature? Not talking about a higher rate, just MORE of this type of energy. A greater concentration, so to speak.
Im pretty sure it would, just wanted to bounce it off someone smart.”
Whoops, not sure why that comment landed down here. Maybe because I switched devices? Anyway, would be happy to here from anybody.
Snape,
You did write “anybody”.
The answer is “not necessarily”, as your question is phrased.
I assume you are asking if more “heat” would make “things” “hotter”, but of course the answer remains not necessarily. If the “extra” “heat” is hotter than the “things”, the things will get “hotter”.
For example, someone might be talking about “back radiation” of, say, 300 W/m2, which is around that emitted by ice a bit below zero. Definitely in the nominal IR band.
No amount of extra “energy” of that wavelength can raise the temperature. No matter how many km3 of ice you have, adding more won’t allow to raise the temperature of even a spoonful of water!
You did ask.
Cheers.
mike…”I assume you are asking if more heat would make things hotter, but of course the answer remains not necessarily. If the extra heat is hotter than the things, the things will get hotter”.
We need to do some engineering here.
To increase the heat of GHG molecules in the atmosphere we need to raise their average kinetic energy. As it stands, according to AGW theory, we need to increase the frequency and intensity of the surface radiation which GHGs absorb in order to raise the GHG temperature. That means raising the surface temperature which requires an increase in solar radiation intensity.
You can see the conundrum. Alarmists think they can get around the conundrum by making GHGs independent radiators and adding their radiation to that of incoming solar energy. They conveniently forget about losses, their physics being seriously flawed. Alarmist Stephan Rahmstorf, an alarmist DA sometimes quotes, is a proponent of the theory that GHG emitted IR adds to solar energy.
GHGs are not independent radiators, they are part of a negative feedback loop with losses. As you pointed out, the GHGs would need to be heated independently to a higher temperature than the surface to raise surface temperatures (2nd law). Even at that, how much could CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, warm the surface?
Question: how much of the surface IR flux can 0.04% of the atmosphere absorb? What happens to the rest of the flux, which has to be immense?
That same 0.04% is supposed to absorb all surface IR, lose more than half of it to upward and sideways radiation, then back-radiate the remainder to super heat the surface. The temperature of the GHGs cannot increase in temperature because they cannot warm to a temperature greater than the temperature of the surface that produced the IR they absorb. In fact, the higher in altitude they are located the colder they get.
Another conundrum. If the GHGs are located in a region of the atmosphere at a similar temperature to the surface they cannot absorb any surface radiation. That’s the situation in the Tropics where there has been little or no warming. The GHGs must be at a lower temperature in order to absorb IR from a warmer surface.
Mike
You: “I assume you are asking if more heat would make things hotter. ”
Nope, I’m asking if more IR radiation would make things hotter.
You: “For example, someone might be talking about back radiation of, say, 300 W/m2…”
I specifically mentioned that my question doesn’t involve a rate. What happens when MORE IR radiation is in the atmosphere.
Snape,
What wavelength are you talking about? For example, the wavelength at say 4 K, is longer than that at 400 K.
Photons are bosons, and therefore not subject to the Pauli Exclusion principle. In principle then, infinite additional IR photons would have precisely no effect, unless they interact with matter.
Have you reached a conclusion you wish to test? For example, asking whether it is possible for an infinite number of photons to simultaneously occupy an arbitrarily small volume leads to some interesting discussion.
Your question is ill-posed. As I said before, and I’ll repeat – not necessarily. It depends what you are really talking about. Just saying “more IR” is meaningless bafflegab.
Can you be a bit clearer? Your question doesn’t make any sense, in physical terms.
Cheers.
Flynn
My question might very well be bafflegab. I don’t know much about Radiation or wavelengths. But I at least know that IR gets absorbed by the Earth’s surface and oceans, water vapor, CO2, methane and others, all of which are “matter”. The following comment is therefore irrelevant to the question:
You: “Photons are bosons, and therefore not subject to the Pauli Exclusion principle. In principle then, infinite additional IR photons would have precisely no effect, unless they interact with matter.”
snape…”But I at least know that IR gets absorbed by the Earths surface and oceans, water vapor, CO2, methane and others, all of which are matter”.
Only under specific conditions. IR from a cooler source will not be absorbed by a target at a warmer temperature 2nd law).
i.e. not all IR under all conditions will be absorbed. Check out Bohr’s theory on the absorp-tion of EM by atoms. It’s well known that atoms only absorb-/emit at specific frequencies (eg. Balmer lines in hydrogen). Bohr goes further, he claimed the intensity and frequency of the EM is critical for absorp-tion.
Radiation with regard to AGW is seriously primitive.
Gordon
You: ” IR from a cooler source will not be absorbed by a target at a warmer temperature 2nd law).”
I only have a junior high understanding of heat transfer, but that’s enough to realize you are seriously confused. Stop making stuff up!!
snape…
BTW…that’s how radio-telescopes work. They detect emission lines of elements in space or the absorp-tion lines, where notches appear in the gas spectra of a star. Each atom/molecule has specific spectral lines.
Snape: “Nope, Im asking if more IR radiation would make things hotter.
You: For example, someone might be talking about back radiation of, say, 300 W/m2
I specifically mentioned that my question doesnt involve a rate. What happens when MORE IR radiation is in the atmosphere.”
Flynn:
“What wavelength are you talking about? For example, the wavelength at say 4 K, is longer than that at 400 K.”
At 300 W, if talking about proton gas the most is when have thermodynamic equilibrium and proton gas has full blackbody spectrum at the blackbody temperature which emits 300 watts into vacuum- so, about 0 C temperature.
A blackbody emitting at around 0 C into vacuum and into universe of about 2.7 K.
But a blackbody emitting at O C in space is assumed to have constant energy source- or 300 watts of energy per second is being “lost” or emitted.
And the proton gas with blackbody spectrum is not doing work- or if doing work it’s not thermodynamic equalibrium.
So what we talking about is not something doing work [not heating anything] instead we talking about it acting like insulation [insulation generally isn’t a energy source which can do work, rather insulation prevents work or energy from leaving a system.
Now CO2 it’s but segment of the blackbody spectrum of 0 C any object [liquid or solid- rather than any gas] has roughly a full blackbody spectrum at 0 C.
Anyways most one can have is when have radiant thermodynamic equilibrium- and the atmosphere is not in a radiant thermodynamic equilibrium.
Or with solar ellipse, when sun was blocked, one got immediate cooling.
gbaikie says:
“Or with solar ellipse, when sun was blocked, one got immediate cooling.”
Maybe 10 F.
Why not much much more? Why not much more cooling by 3 am?
snape…”Would more IR radiation in the atmosphere lead to higher atmospheric/surface temperature?””
If you had a significant INDEPENDENT radiator of IR at a HIGHER TEMPERATURE than the surface, that was equivalent in size to the surface, the surface would likely warm.
As it stand, based on AGW theory, any IR absorbed in the atmosphere comes from the surface and is located at an altitude cooler than the surface. That necessarily makes the temperature of the GHGs less than or equal to the surface temperature. The amount of GHGs, especially CO2, is very small. Under such conditions, it’s not possible for IR from the atmosphere to warm the surface.
See 2nd law of thermodynamics and perpetual motion machines.
Gordon
No need to think about the radiator. My question is a hypothetical:
” Snap your fingers….. there is more IR radiation in the atmosphere.”
What happens next?
Snap.
Is it a permanent thing? If, however, you add more IR but don’t have a constant radiation resupplying it, it will dissipate shortly.
The atmosphere will return to ‘normal’ in the time it takes the radiation to dissipate in its normal fashion. How long is this? Not very. It happens every night. If you had doubled the amount of IR, it would dissipate more quickly, because of the differential with the sink of space.
Lewis
Is it a permanent thing? Good question, Lewis. I left that part out. The answer is yes, the additional IR radiation in the atmosphere is permanent/constant, even as IR is lost to the “sink of space” in the usual fashion.
Snape,
Here’s a hypothetical for you.
Snap your fingers, and every self styled climatologist in the world vanishes in a puff of smoke.
What happens next?
Real scientists heave a collective sigh of relief!
Cheers.
Another hypothetical.
Mike makes a straightforward, substantive reply to someone from the other ‘side’ with respect and good humour. No snark, no politics.
snape…”No need to think about the radiator. My question is a hypothetical: Snap your fingers.. there is more IR radiation in the atmosphere.”
You are defining a sci-fi world so anything is possible in sci-fi. Take your pick.
In reality, it is not possible to specify extra IR without specifying extra mass as the source. Also, you need to specify the temperature of the source. Adding IR from a cooler source than the surface accomplishes nothing. The surface won’t absorb it (2nd law).
Snape
The way you wrote your question would be inconclusive. Each IR photon carries some energy but in that form it does not add energy to something. Something has to absorb this energy to warm or emit it to cool.
It seems opposite. A warmer surface will lead to more concentration of IR. I will keep thinking on it.
Norman
You wrote:
” Each IR photon carries some energy but in that form it does not add energy to something. Something has to absorb this energy to warm or emit it to cool.”
So I’m wondering if more IR photons were constantly present in the atmosphere, would the atmospheres temperature increase? There is already an ample supply of CO2, water vapor, land area, etc. that will absorb IR
Snape says on September 14, 2017 at 12:19 PM
There is already an ample supply of CO2, water vapor, land area, etc. that will absorb IR.
1. What ‘ample supply’ ?
It takes not much more than some 100 ns for a WV or CO2 molecule to absorb and reemit a photon emitted by Earth in response to Sun’s short wave radiation having reached it.
Thus the molecule is free to accept the next photon.
Saturation is an invention (maybe exceptionally g*e*r*a*n agrees in viewing saturation as ‘psiudosciens’, but I’m not sure).
2. What ‘land area’ ?
Land (or sea) areas don’t absorb emitted IR: they do themselves emit it (unless their albedo factor prevents them to do, causing Sun’s radiation to be reflected to space).
Land (or sea) areas without albedo rather are the inverse problem: what happens with IR photons emitted by Earth and reemitted down into them?
No idea.
Every warmista probably will think these photons ‘warm the surface’.
That is definitely bare nonsense.
The only thing I understand is that reemission of photons by molecules certainly does not depend of the temperature difference between these molecules and the photons’ targets (e.g., Earth’s surface or outer space).
That would be even more nonsense.
Bin
I’m just wondering if the question, “what if there was more IR in the atmosphere” even makes sense? It’s sort of treating light/energy like a substance. If it actually does make sense, does “more IR” mean higher temperatures?
Norman pointed out that IR in the atmosphere needs to be absorbed by something in order to create heat, and I pointed out that plenty of stuff (CO2, water vapor, the Earth’s surface, etc) is available to do that. Hence, there is an “ample supply”.
Here’s my uneducated guess, maybe you could correct me? IR is light that warms up the things it shines on. So an IR “light bulb” would warm up a room when you turned it on. Energy would be bouncing around the room at a greater “brightness”. The room before would have been darker/colder. I’m guessing more photons (little units of energy?) would also be bouncing around.
Bin
In other words, by “ample supply” I meant there are plenty of substances available to do the job of absorbing. Just the opposite of saturation.
Snape, I am not sure what you are even asking here. That is doubly true when you postulate ‘magic’ (ie ‘snap your fingers’) as part of your set-up.
Within the realm of real physics, I can image three ways to increase the amount of IR “in the atmosphere”:
1) You could add some independent IR sources (like some IR lasers or IR heat lamps). This would naturally raise temperatures because it is adding independent energy sources.
2) You could increase the temperatures of existing radiators (like the ground or the atmosphere itself) so they would produce more IR. But … we assumed elevated temperatures, so there would a priori be elevated temperatures!
3) You could increase the emissivity of the radiators. For example, you could add some GHGs that absorb within the “atmospheric window” so that more IR would be coming and going within the atmosphere (rather than escaping straight form the surface to outer space.). Here standard GHE effect theory (ie standard radiative heat transfer theory) would clearly conclude that temperatures would rise.
Tim
I realize I might be asking a stupid question. Maybe my reply to Norman (above) makes it more clear?
David Appell,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn
You were asked WHAT PEER REVIEWED PAPER WAS THIS.
Please respond.”
Demands, demands.
Why should I provide you with information merely because you are too lazy or incompetent to find it for yourself?
Are you claiming that I was wrong, but not prepared to state a reason because you will be shown to be wrong again?
Or is your question a “gotcha”, and you are going to point to a tweet from that undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt trying to cloud the issue by claiming one of the graphs in the paper is mislabelled?
I need a little more information. Until I am convinced of the purity of your motives, I’m disinclined to acted to your demands. Take as much offence as you like. I don’t mind.
Cheers.
Whoops.
David Appell,
I meant to say I’m disinclined to accede to your demands, of course. You can take even more offence, if you wish.
Cheers.
No offense taken. Just a note that you won’t answer legitimate questions. But then, you never can.
Before I start smiling again (I’ll try not to laugh), bindidon wrote –
“I think it is now time for me to stop reacting to your comments, g-e-r-a-n. Your pseudoscience claims are simply unbearable.”
Does this mean they are simply too much for a bear of small brain to understand? Come now bin, I’m sure you can bear such claims if you really try! Bearing up under the strain might have some bearing on how others perceive you. Maintaining your bearing in the face of adversity might barely be better than baring your ignorance, but who knows?
You may have misunderstood the SAS motto as “Who Bares Wins.” It’s actually “Who Dares Wins.”
I can just barely bring myself to advise you to bear up, assuming you aren’t pregnant, in which case you might need to bear down – or just grin and bear it. I’d hate to be the bearer of bad news.
Cheers.
As written so often, Mr Flynn: comments written by trolls and clowns are simply discarded.
The only effect of your and Robertson’s ‘comments’ is that Roy Spencer’s threads get more and more full of your common waste, and that therefore looking at useful comments becomes more and more difficult.
But I know, Mr Flynn: quite as the Robertson troll, you never and never will stop writing. Why should you?
Egozentrik ist eine unheilbare Krankheit.
Bindidon,
I’m very glad you are discarding anything you don’t like. It doesn’t seem to be having any effect – very much like the mythical GHE. It doesn’t have any effect either.
I’m a little curious, though. Why do you bother wasting space by replying to something you have no interest in looking at? Do you suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder? Do you feel compelled to waste your valuable time, doing things you know will have no effect?
Have you no self control at all?
You could avoid wasting your precious time by tossing a fact or two into this fantasy fight. Maybe you could produce the amazing missing GHE hypothesis – the scientific version, capable of being disproved by reproducible experiment.
Or you could just continue to try to deny, divert and confuse, if you wish.
Up to you, of course.
Cheers.
Snape on September 13, 2017 at 9:49 PM
‘Would more IR radiation in the atmosphere lead to higher atmospheric/surface temperature? Not talking about a higher rate, just MORE of this type of energy. A greater concentration, so to speak.’
Snape, I am no physicist, so I can’t do more than a humble layman’s reply.
1. IR belongs to EM waves: these you may of course amplify by increasing the number of frequen-cy bands.
2. But if your IR radiation, whatever the frequen-cy, reaches outer space, nothing will happen of course.
3. Thus you need molecules in the atmosphere absor-bing and re-emitting exactly the radiation emitted:
– if Earth emits e.g. mostly at 10 mi-crons, mole-cules absor-bing at 100 or 1 mi-cron are of no interest;
– conversely, if the mole-cules do not have the necessary properties (e.g.: electro-nic / vibra-tional / rota-tional state transi-tions), they wont abs-orb;
– each state transi-tion mode has its preferred frequen-cies (electronic transi-tions are initiated by U-V below 0.4 mi-cron, vibra-tional ones prefer 0.7 up to 20 mi-crons).
Within the troposphere, N2 and O2 for example do not abs-orb any IR: these symmetric molecules do not ‘stre-tch’ or ‘be-nd’ either, and therefore do not experience vibra-tional or rota-tional energy state transi-tions.
4. Due to the fact that a certain amount of the IR re-emission is not directed to space, the remaining radiation must contribute to some heat accumulation between the re-emitting molecules and the surface.
5. How this is done is considered by some commenters to belong to ‘pseudoscience’. This is their choice.
I prefer to hear to experienced scientists like e.g. Roy Spencer (just because unlike warmists and denialists, he reflects some ‘sound skepticism’).
This counterproductive polemic imho isn’t interesting at all: interesting is that through absor-ption & re-emission by molecules in the atmosphere, not all IR can escape to outer space.
6. Conclusion: more temperature in the atmosphere will not be induced by ‘adding’ IR, how ever you want. The IR is there, continuously emitted by Earth as a response to Sun’s short-wave radiation, at frequencies defined by Physics’ rules.
What increases atmospheric temperature imho is solely the amount of molecules able to decrease the amount of IR emitted by Earth to space, either directly or through re-emission chains.
*
Of course, a professional physicist certainly will apply critique to what I write here: a layman is a layman.
The lecture of ‘The greenhouse effect’ in the document
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
written by
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/
was helpful for me. I like sobriety.
Wow. That was a hard job to get it in, bypassing the filter…
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“Within the troposphere, N2 and O2 for example do not abs-orb any IR: these symmetric molecules do not stre-tch or be-nd either, and therefore do not experience vibra-tional or rota-tional energy state transi-tions.”
If that was the case, you wouldn’t be able to measure the temperature of the air, would you?
If N2 and O2 didn’t absorb any IR, they would remain at absolute zero.
Liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen would not absorb IR, and remain liquid forever.
Warm expired air would not come out of your lungs. Your lungs would freeze up.
You are a little delusional – maybe severely afflicted with foolish Warmism!
Carry on.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I know you do not like anyone telling you what to do but could you please read some actual physics from a textbook. I know you have read a few popular books on physics to get some general ideas, but a more detailed study could not hurt you.
How is it that you don’t understand that N2 and O2 can gain energy via molecular collisions? They do not have to absorb IR to gain energy. They do not emit, individually, IR at the range the Earth emits. Conglomerates of molecules can produce very weak emissions (multiple molecules of N2 in air can create slight alterations of electric fields that can induce IR emission, it is very very tiny amount compared to H2O, CO2 or methane…it is so small that it does not need to be considered as a player in energy dynamics)
The delusion is you see in others is a mirror reflection of your own mind. You really do not understand physics but pretend you have this advanced knowledge of the subject and go around calling people who have knowledge delusional and foolish.
Norman,
Maybe you could quote me if you disagree with something I said.
Instead, you launch off into something such as –
“How is it that you dont understand that N2 and O2 can gain energy via molecular collisions? They do not have to absorb IR to gain energy.”
Where did I say anything from which you could draw that conclusion? Nowhere, I believe. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
May I just point out that assuming that atoms and molecules can “collide” – they can’t and don’t, but I don’t expect you to believe me – then you are faced with a problem. Where did these faster moving particles obtain the energy which they passed on?
If you start with all your molecules of, say O2, at rest, they cannot even “collide” with each other – they are at rest. Absolute zero. However, if you supply enough photons with an energy level corresponding to that of the IR emitted by a human body, (around 9.5 um), then the O2 will absorb the IR, and finally reach a temperature at equilibrium with the IR source.
And no more. You might think that an object would continue absorbing radiation until it reached any arbitrary temperature, but you would be wrong. Hold a pin in your clenched fist, or place it in your armpit. It will not get any hotter than your skin, no matter how. long you leave it there.
Any matter, including N2 and O2, will spontaneously and continuously radiate energy at a wavelength dependant on its temperature (and subject to the operation of quantum mechanics), and cool – all the way to absolute zero, if allowed. Liquid oxygen, nitrogen, and so on, are produced by this method – allowing the gas to cool. These liquid gases, if subjected to infrared radiation – say in a darkened enclosed space held at 20 C – will absorb the IR to such an extent they will rapidly boil, and eventually stabilise at equilibrium with their environment and each other – 20 C.
Still no GHE. You can’t even produce a disprovable GHE hypothesis. You may read as many convoluted textbooks as you like. It won’t help. But thanks for your interest – I’ll ignore your exhortations as usual.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOUR OWN WORDS: “If N2 and O2 didn’t absorb any IR, they would remain at absolute zero.”
CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM YOUE OWN WORDS!
YOUR CLAIM: ““How is it that you dont understand that N2 and O2 can gain energy via molecular collisions? They do not have to absorb IR to gain energy.”
Where did I say anything from which you could draw that conclusion? Nowhere, I believe. Please correct me if I’m wrong.”
YOU: “Any matter, including N2 and O2, will spontaneously and continuously radiate energy at a wavelength dependant on its temperature (and subject to the operation of quantum mechanics), and cool – all the way to absolute zero, if allowed.”
What is your source for this information you peddle as fact? You just made it up. No source except your own imagination which sees Unicorns in every post.
You make stuff up and think it true because you posted it.
Why does your opinion make it a fact when actual evidence clearly shows you are wrong.
norman…”Mike…Any matter, including N2 and O2, will spontaneously and continuously radiate energy at a wavelength dependant on its temperature (and subject to the operation of quantum mechanics), and cool – all the way to absolute zero, if allowed.
Norman…What is your source for this information you peddle as fact?”
Come on Norman, now you are sinking into the abyss of pseudo-science. Do you think atoms radiate EM by magic? I have explained it to you, it’s the electrons in atoms that radiate EM as they drop from higher energy states to lower energy states. The amount of energy emitted is equivalent to the difference in energy of the states.
Atoms are the source of all EM in the universe.
That is basic physics, if you don’t understand it you need to take a course in physics.
All atoms (as Mike claims, all mass…atoms are mass) radiate EM when the temperature difference between the atom and it’s surroundings is negative. That is, the surroundings are cooler.
Gordon says: “Atoms are the source of all EM in the universe.”
Nope. Any accelerating charge will emit EM radiation. For example, you might read up on “free electron laser” or “synchrotron radiation”. Neither involved radiation from atoms.
“its the electrons in atoms that radiate EM as they drop from higher energy states to lower energy states. “
That is one way for atoms to emit radiation. That is the process related to Balmer lines and the Bohr model. This produces visible (and UV and “near IR”) light.
But that is NOT the process related to thermal IR from gas molecules. That radiation comes about from VIBRATIONS of the molecules. I know you have been told this before. Please go read up on it before making this same mistake again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
“All atoms (as Mike claims, all massatoms are mass) radiate EM when the temperature difference between the atom and its surroundings is negative. “
Things radiate when they have energy — regardless of the temperature of the surroundings. If an electron is in an excited state or a molecule is vibrating, they can radiate away energy in the form of photons.
Tim Folkerts on September 14, 2017 at 3:53 PM
Tim, I am afraid your efforts are in vain.
Neither Robertsons nor a fortiori Flynns would ever accept what you point out here. They simply deny it and will do again and again.
Mike Flynn on September 14, 2017 at 7:50 AM
Though this reply is full of the usual overabundance of arrogant, useless sarcasm perfectly characterising you, it nevertheless contains for the very first time a bit of prosa worth to be read and replied.
*
You are absolutely right, Mr Flynn.
N2 and O2 indeed ab-sorb IR, in rather tremendous amounts, however, if we agree in Spectral-Calc being a valuable source for comparison using the HITRAN-2012 database:
http://tinyurl.com/y9rxxacl
(But maybe you prefer to conveniently consider all these people be some laughable Warmism Agency, n’est-ce pas?)
*
Choosing the usual parameters (scaling by atmospheric abun-dance, etc etc) gives you the following absorp-tion line plots:
1. O2 + N2, loga-rithmic scaling (to make them visible a bit)
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170914/ifqte5he.png
2. H2O + CO2 + O2 + N2, loga-rithmic scaling
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170914/b79x5whg.png
3. O2 + N2, linear scaling
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170914/on7z9k32.png
4. H2O + CO2 + O2 + N2, linear scaling
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170914/gxohsgb9.png
Even when extending the frequency area up to 100 mi-crons you wouldn’t obtain anything different.
Thus what do we compare?
– N2 + O2 have, though having a far bigger abun-dance, an inten-sity by far smaller than that of H2O + CO2 (about 0.000001 cm^-1/cm compared with 0.01); even if considering the 100 % more abun-dance here again, H2O alone still beats N2 + O2 by far;
– N2 + O2 together account, in the sum of their absorp-tion lines, for no more than 0.5 % of what H2O + CO2 give us.
Thus comparing the absorp-tion integrals over 0.7-20 mi-crons should tell us even more.
*
It was very funny to read you comparing human breathing with a 10 km high atmospheric column. You are really a magician in communication.
What is for me quite satisfactory: the atmospheric window is, apart from a few tiny H2O absorp-tion lines and a bigger O3 spot, nearly empty. That’s good, isn’t it?
Ooops!
I forgot to add some more trace gases for the atmospheric window check:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170914/m35b22tw.png
Bindidon,
And yet, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Cessation of sunlight tends to result in cooling. Winter is generally colder than Summer. The arid tropical deserts (characterised by the absence of H2O) are the hottest places on Earth.
Maybe you’re misinterpreting your graphs? Maybe supposed GHGs have no magical properties, but follow the same laws of physics as all other matter?
Your graphs are meaningless, in terms of supporting the non existent GHE hypothesis. The specific heat, or the density might be represented as an equally colourful and impressive chart. Just as irrelevant.
Cheers.
“And yet, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. “
And yet, this still doesn’t matter in the current discussion — no matter how many times you drag out this dead horse, this red herring, this wild goose chase.
If you look deep within the interior of the earth, sure there has been cooling going on for 4.5 billion years. Nobody doubts this.
But nobody lives deep in earths interior. Climate does not extend into earth’s interior. People live at the surface (give or take a few meters), and it is surface temperature that are under discussion. It is surface climate that matters.
This surface climate has NOT cooled continuously for 4.5 billion years. Surface climate has both warmed and cooled multiple times. “Global warming” — ie global surface temperatures trending upward — has occurred many times in the past. “Global warming” — ie global surface temperatures trending upward — has been occurring now for a century.
Tim, you’re right, of course.
But MF’s claim is also false. There were global glaciations (“Snowball Earths”) in the Precambrian, 700-800 Myrs ago. And another possible at 2.3 Byrs ago.
And the Eocene saw an ice-free planet, about 50 Myrs ago.
With many variations in between. In all of them, CO2 played an important role (of course).
Bin starts: “…I am no physicist…”
Bin, you should have stopped there.
No! One of the many reasons not to stop is e.g. your absolute unability of doing the same job.
But that manifestly you are not about to have understood. Because otherwise you wouldn’t have written your usual nonsense.
Thanks , Bin
That’s a lot of material to go over. For a layperson, you seem to know a lot about physics. It may be a while before I get back to you.
BTW, I’ve been thinking about something and the question I just asked has been a big roadblock.
You’re welcome, Snape.
But I repeat: lay(wo)man is lay(wo)man. Spending 30 years with computer science and software engineering by no means could make a physicist out of you or me.
Snape,
Had a crack at answering you here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262762
Barry
I need to spend some time googling the stuff I didn’t understand from the comments today (a lot). Like I mentioned to Bin, I’ve been trying to figure something out and the question I asked has had me stumped. I understand very little about radiation.
For simple-minded persons thinking that the deduction of tropospheric temperatures by examining O2’s microwave emission in devices driven by satellites is a process perfectly solved since decades, I strongly recommend the entire lecture of the following document:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.01Dec2011
Yes, it’s an ongoing issue for all satellite data sets.
I don’t know what people gain by denying that.
barry…”Yes, its an ongoing issue for all satellite data sets. I dont know what people gain by denying that”.
State the issue(s). Elaborate. All you present is generalities which are basically misleading.
ps. all the errors have been revealed and fixed by UAH more than a decade ago. There are no ongoing issues.
Gordon, you didn’t notice UAH’s huge adjustments going from v5.6 to v6? How could you have missed them??
A few monthly adjustments as large as 0.3 C! (In 2015)
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html
barry on September 14, 2017 at 8:09 AM
UAH5.2 seems to be the oldest revision visible to us for the LT layer. In the memorandum ‘Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere’, chapter 2 (convening lead author: John Christy), even older revisions were mentioned (named A, B, C, D and 5.0). UAH5.1 isn’t there.
But that is not interesting anyway. Simply because the troll replying to you inimaginably writes
… all the errors have been revealed and fixed by UAH more than a decade ago. There are no ongoing issues.
How is it possible to stay so incredibly ignorant: if there had been ‘no ongoing issues’: why then to inform the whole climate community with threads like
1. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
introducing a warming UAH5.6 in July 2011, withdrawn after no more than 45 little months by a complete 180 degree turn with
2. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
introducing UAH6.0beta in April 2015 with a drastic cooling wrt 5.6.
Most incredible is the troll’s idea we would be against UAH in any sense! That is simply paranoid.
binny…”For simple-minded persons thinking that the deduction of tropospheric temperatures by examining O2s microwave emission in devices driven by satellites is a process perfectly solved since decades, I strongly recommend the entire lecture of the following document:”
It would help if you’d elaborate by telling us what is wrong with satellite AMSU telemetry. You post this article without indicating that you understand anything about it at all.
I don’t think you do understand what is written in the article. You are a simple-minded alarmist yourself who is willing to indulge in pseudo-science while speculating something is wrong without specifying what it is.
‘Comment’ writen by a troll specialised in discrediting. Discarded.
Bindidon,
What are you doing with all these “discarded” comments? Are you making paper copies so that you can throw them into the waste bin? What would be the point?
Have you considered the possibility that no one really cares whether you pretend to “discard” a comment or not?
I can’t read your mind (some foolish Warmists claim they can, of course), so I’m interested to find out why you bother saying “discarded” when it would seem to be nothing more than a mindless first of pique.
I quite understand if you don’t enlighten me.
Do you think you might employ yourself more profitably by finding the missing disprovable GHE hypothesis? I find facts generally more useful than fantasy, although fantasy often provides an opportunity for warranted laughter. In my opinion, a rational person prefers happiness to misery, whereas many foolish Warmists seem to enjoy wallowing in misery, with incessant strident wailings of impending doom.
Oh well, wallow if you must! I’ll sit and watch, laughing. That will no doubt allow you to feel even more miserable. No need to thank me. It’s my pleasure.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Have you considered the possibility that no one really cares whether you pretend to discard a comment or not?”
This is MF’s shtick — pretending he doesn’t care about anyone’s response or opinion, all the while being sure to respond to all of them.
Until this period of time in the climate is unique, until some of the basic premises come about that AGW is based on the theory is all smoke with no fire.
Salvatore, I like your comments. They are so relaxing.
For warming to be unique in the history of the planet, the surface must get hotter than 1000C.
Think your bar is a little to high there.
Barry temperatures today are not even close to Holocene Optimum temperatures.
And probably will not reach Holocene Optimum temperatures within a few centuries.
Though humans within a few centuries may get the ability to rise global temperatures to the Optimum temperatures, and may want to do that.
And in the meantime it looks like LA NINA , but more importantly it looks like overall sea surface temperatures are on the decline.
If this holds say goodbye to AGW.
Salvatore Del Prete on September 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM
I’m so terribly sorry, Salvatore for this horribly inconvenient news:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170915/yfi6iaz4.png
I am afraid your la Nina baby was born a bit too early. No more than one week ago everything still looked so pretty!
And even worse: NOAA’s crazy ENSO man Klaus Wolters doesn’t want to help you as well:
2017 -.055 -.056 -.08 .77 1.455 1.049 .461 .027
The MEI index incredibly refuses since months to move into the la Nina status.
O tempora! O mores!
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Scusi per favore…
Bin
I like to guess what’s going to happen by looking at a trade wind chart (every Monday). To me, cool/neutral looks likely in the coming months but I agree, not a la nina.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
If you’re interested, this is how the “trade wind” chart is labeled:
Low-level (850-hPa) Zonal (east-west) Wind Anomalies (m s-1)
Blue tones are associated with la nina, orange tones (especially on the left side!) are associated with el nino. Bottom of chart is most recent.
Sorry, a bit ridiculous of me to explain what the blue and orange tones mean.
Bindi: How are these calculations done? What does it mean to have 60% of an El Nino? All I’ve ever seen is that means ENSO neutral….
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“And in the meantime it looks like LA NINA , but more importantly it looks like overall sea surface temperatures are on the decline.
If this holds say goodbye to AGW.”
Salvatore: ENSOs are a natural variation. Hence they can’t say anything about AGW. AGW occurs on top of them.
When are you ever going to learn????
Salvatore today:
And in the meantime it looks like LA NINA
Salvatore a week ago:
forecasting ENSO is pathetic
La Nina needs 6 months of Nina conditions to be called one.
You are forecasting ENSO. Is that pathetic?
At that time (5000 BP), Salvatore, there were probably not much more than 10 millions of humans on Earth.
We are now moving up to 8 billions.
If you and/or me we would belong to the people responsible for the actual Mankind as well as for the infrastructures Mankind created and has become highly depending on: what would we do?
Would we say ‘No problem! Move along!’ ?
I’m not so sure… and even the Trumpy changes his mind every week concerning that problem.
Bin, is that the 3rd or 4th bottle of wine tonight?
Bindidon,
The obvious action to take as the population increases, is to ensure that per capita food availability does not fall.
This means more useable crops. CO2 is plant food. More plants need more food themselves. Not replacing CO2 in the atmosphere from the stores laid aside previously by a kind and beneficent Nature, would appear churlish in the extreme.
You may have good and sufficient reasons to wish a lingering, brutish death by starvation on much of the world’s population, but you haven’t mentioned what they might be.
What’s wrong with trying to avoid starvation?
Cheers.
–…If you and/or me we would belong to the people responsible for the actual Mankind as well as for the infrastructures Mankind created and has become highly depending on: what would we do?
Would we say No problem! Move along! ?
Im not so sure and even the Trumpy changes his mind every week concerning that problem.”
First, the last interglacial became warmer than our present interglacial period {Eemian vs Holocene Optimum] by at least couple of degree, or entire bulk of ocean was +2 C warmer. And there was millions of people living during that time also.
Second, the West developed the technology of efficient power generation with less pollution- which China hasn’t caught up yet, but as it’s economy advances it’s moving more in that direction, as with all other countries. Or broadly, first England developing coal power and had it had a lot pollution and wasn’t very energy efficient, then US ramp up it’s energy production and also suffered from lack of efficiency and excessive pollution. And both these countries are small fraction of entire population of Earth. Anyways currently majority of Earth population can use more efficient and less pollution causing technology which has been developed over many decades.
In addition nuclear power technology has been developed which very safe and produces little pollution and doesn’t emit CO2 to generate electrical energy.
Third it’s the majority of the Earth population which is in the driver seat in terms the amount CO2 emitted in the future- or China and India emits more CO2 than the West and seems this difference will grow in coming years.
Regarding Trump or any US president, it seems that a good course would to prevent nuclear weapons to used by countries like N Korea and Iran, and encourage peaceful use of nuclear technology. There no way you say, that Iran and N Korea focus on making nuclear weapons is vaguely useful in the promotion of additional use of nuclear energy.
One may wonder when other countries are going to do anything to produce energy with higher efficiencies and less pollution in similar the US has already developed- and thereby like the US reduce all global pollution and CO2 emissions.
g*e*r*a*n on September 14, 2017 at 5:51 PM
Bin, is that the 3rd or 4th bottle of wine tonight?
Not quantity is important for me as far as wine is concerned: quality is!
Mike Flynn says:
“This means more useable crops. CO2 is plant food.”
If CO2 were only plant food, then Venus and Mars would be erupting with vegetation, since their atmospheres are each about 96% CO2.
“…The results consistently indicate that rising temperatures will lead to reductions in crop yields. An increase of 1C would be more severe for global maize yield (7.4% decrease) than for rice (3.2% decrease), and decreases in maize yield in the United States would be twice those seen in India (10.3 and 5.2%, respectively). Although this work points to worrying consequences of a warming world, it remains very difficult to predict the cumulative impact of multiple factors related to climate change, such as elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and precipitation….”
Crop yields expected to fall as temperatures rise, Emily Morris, Science
08 Sep 2017: Vol. 357, Issue 6355, pp. 1012-1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.357.6355.1012-f
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6355/1012.6
Salvatore says: “temperatures today are not even close to Holocene Optimum”
Marcott et al say:
“Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.”
https://tinyurl.com/y9nvb78m
We might be past it “because their reconstruction is not optimally aligned with instrumental data”:
https://tinyurl.com/y7yc6kwh
Svante,
You wrote –
“Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values . . .”
I take this to mean that peak interglacial values were higher than current global temperatures. In other words, current to the breathless claims of some that a particular recent year was “The hottest year EVAH!”, Marcott et.al. appear to be characterising this assertion as unverifiable.
However, Marcott et. al. then go on with the usual foolish Warmist practice of treating a guess as future fact, by saying –
“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
Complete nonsense, of course. There is no GHE (even the IPCC cannot provide a disprovable GHE hypothesis), so talk of “plausible . . . scenarios” are just so much wishful thinking.
Claims about the future remain fantasy until they occur. Any fool can “predict” the future, and foolish Warmists often do. Nostradamus, Mother Shipton, or your friendly local fortune teller’s predictions are just as good – and far cheaper.
And if you tell me I’m wrong, on the basis that you have seen the future, I’m likely to point out that you can’t even “predict” the past. Endless “corrections” of history don’t change a single fact.
No GHE. I know of no proven benefit to man or beast from the amateurish toy computer games produced at vast expense by so-called climatologists. Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less.
Enjoy your membership of the Climate Cargo Cult while it lasts. I hope it will provide you solace as it slowly dies, to be replaced by the next popular delusion.
Cheers.
From the 2nd link:
‘In the 5,000 years following that, up to about 1800, global temperature declined a total of nearly 0.7 deg.C, culminating in the depth of the little ice age. From then until 2000, it rose by about 0.8 deg.C, and now exceeds temperature during any prior period of the holocene.’
The UAH trend is 0.13 C/decade, so the flyby is fast.
How can you expect that hockey stick to turn around before it exceeds the Holocene maximum?
Yes, the future is not a fact, so we can disagree about that.
Svante,
“In the 5,000 years following that, up to about 1800, global temperature declined a total of nearly 0.7 deg.C,”
I should be too polite to point out that neither you nor anybody else can even define the “global temperature” to which you refer, but I’m not.
More unverifiable assertions by foolish Warmists, who just assume that saying something makes it a fact. As an example, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 to be unreliable. There’s a chunk of land roughly the size of the contiguous US with officially certified lack of reliable temperature records. Little accuracy there, according to the professionals.
Foolish Warmists apparently assume that they have a magical talent for peering into the past in places such as the continents of Australia and Antarctica, Africa, Asia, and similar, not to mention areas such as Canada, Russia, India, Mongolia, etc, and divine temperatures from an undefined “surface” with great accuracy. Oh, I forgot. About 70% of the “surface” happens to be covered with ocean!
Dream on. Pretending to have knowledge doesn’t mean that you actually do. Guesses about the past are about as useful as guesses about the future, in this case.
Not only is the future unknown, so is the past – at least in your case.
Maybe you could pursue phrenology or astrology when you get sick of failed climatological predictions – past and future.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“I should be too polite to point out that neither you nor anybody else can even define the global temperature”
Astronomers define the “global temperature” as the brightness temperature.
But climatologists calculate the “global average X temperature,” where X = {surface, or lower troposphere, or lower stratosphere, or SST, etc.}
–But climatologists calculate the global average X temperature, where X = {surface, or lower troposphere, or lower stratosphere, or SST, etc.}–
Sea surface is close, but the oceans average temperature is Earth’s average temperature, and we have started doing that.
gbaikie says:
“Sea surface is close, but the oceans average temperature is Earths average temperature, and we have started doing that.”
No, SST isn’t close.
We live on land, on the surface. Not on the sea surface. Land is what’s relevant.
Ocean heat content is the true sign of manmade warming, but its corresponding temperature change is unimpressively low. We aren’t fish.
Mike Flynn says: “About 70% of the surface happens to be covered with ocean!”
Marcott et al. say: “our stack is largely derived from marine archives (~80%).”
Barry temperatures today are not even close to Holocene Optimum temperatures.
Your basis for that is warmer temperatures in Greenland. That’s not global temps.
+1
Greenland records that stop 100 years BP (1950), or 1900 at best? Well before modern warming.
Yep, those ones.
The wight of opinion, as far as I can make out, is that it was probably warmer then than now globally.
Nuance tends to be overlooked when one is peddling one’s preferred vision.
I agree.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Barry temperatures today are not even close to Holocene Optimum temperatures.”
Where’s your data, Salvatore?
Salvatore, where is your global data showing the so-called Holocene Optimum was warmer?
And so what if it was?
Gordon,
On problems with satellite record:
State the issue(s). Elaborate. All you present is generalities which are basically misleading.
I have stated them and cited them for you many times. Why do you disappear whenever I do that?
all the errors have been revealed and fixed by UAH more than a decade ago
That’s simply not true. Revision 6 included a significant correction for diurnal drift, for example – this is one of the factors Christy explicitly said had been ‘fixed’ 10 years ago.
This is from Spencer and Christy 2016…
A 0.03 C/decade reduction in the global LT trend from the Version 5.6 product is partly due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT to land surface skin temperature (est. 0.01 C/decade), with the remainder of the reduction (0.02 C/decade) due to the new diurnal drift adjustment, the more robust method of LT calculation, and other changes in processing procedures.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
Why are they still correcting for diurnal drift if it’s already fixed a decade ago?
And I’ve shown you the difference between the previous version and version 6.
http://tinyurl.com/ya7a6pz3
Differences in trend to 2015:
UAHv5.6: 0.14
UAHv6.0: 0.11
The previous version was closer to the surface records than it was to RSS. RSS then was the odd one out.
Here’s what happened to the 1998-2015 period:
http://tinyurl.com/yb3vxzvh
UAHv5.6: 0.09
UAHv6.0: -0.01
That’s a change of -0.1 C/decade.
The revision of 2 years ago was significant.
The problems you (and John Christy) say were fixed 10 years ago were still being corrected for 2 years ago.
Why do you deny that the UAH satellite record continues to be challenged by the same factors that challenge the other satellite data sets?
Christy in Washington in 2016:
“the so-called diurnal drift problem … was dealt with for LT 10
years ago.”
Christy in revision 6 paper in 2016:
“the remainder of the reduction (0.02 C/decade) due to the new diurnal drift adjustment”
Why are they making a new diurnal drift adjustment if it was ‘fixed’ 10 years ago?
I have no problem with UAH specifically, just with your false ideas about it.
These issues are ongoing. Not just for UAH, but for all the satellite data sets.
Bindidon,
You provided a link to a source for your belief in the GHE.
From your source –
“In order to maintain a stable climate, the Earth must be in energetic equilibrium between the radiation it receives from the Sun and the radiation it emits out to space. From this equilibrium we can calculate the effective temperature TE of the Earth.”
A couple of points. The concept of a stable climate is scientific nonsense. Even the IPCC acknowledges the atmosphere acts chaotically, and climate is merely the average of the chaotic behaviour of the atmosphere over an arbitrary time period. Climate is never stable.
The second point is that your source claims that the Earth “must be” in energetic equilibrium . . .
Another nonsensical statement. The Sun in theory cannot maintain the Earth’s surface at anything like its present temperature. There exists a geothermal gradient such that the surface is the coolest part of the Earth – the interior is far hotter. Energy must therefore flow from hotter interior to the cooler surface, and thence to the nominally much colder outer space. No heat trapping demonstrated over the last 4.5 billion years!
The Earth emits more heat than it receives from the Sun – otherwise it would still have a molten surface.
Your source is quite simply suffering from a delusion, where his fantasy does not accord with observed scientific fact. You will find that any “source” promoting the non-existent GHE is equally silly, if examined in detail.
Cheers.
Flynn
I can’t find words for how silly your logic is. I agree with the person who thinks you might be a “warmist” posing as a nutty “denier”.
“No heat trapping demonstrated over the last 4.5 billion years!
The Earth emits more heat than it receives from the Sun otherwise it would still have a molten surface.”
Similar thinking: As a toddler I was only 3 feet tall. I’m 6 feet tall now, so that proves I’m still growing!
Snape,
Foolish Warmist.
You can’t actually find a fact to support your contention, and so you turn to the tired old foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert, and confuse. Irrelevant analogies don’t seem to work so well any more – maybe you could try overcoats, tobacco, influenza, or anything else to avoid inconvenient facts!
If you choose to claim the Earth is either heating up, or has miraculously decided to cease cooling as the radiogenic heat sources within decrease, due to the operation of a non-existent GHE, maybe you provide a fact or two.
Merely saying it is so, does not overcome the readily observable fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled since its creation. If you claim that the Earth is now increasing its temperature, it might be handy for you to provide a disprovable hypothesis for the GHE for a start.
Of course you can’t. This might appear insurmountable to rational scientists, but I’m sure you can attempt to avoid the scientific method if you try really hard! Maybe you could create some global warming with the power of your mind? Call upon the magical and mystical heat creating powers of CO2? Maybe even invoke the awe inspiring names of Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann?
Nope. Still no GHE. Pity. Keep worshipping – fantasy may become fact one day, and then you’ll have the last laugh! Who knows?
Cheers.
Flynn logic: Earth was once molten lava, but now it’s not. Therefore, it’s been cooling for 4 1/2 billion years.
Similar logic: I made a hot cup of coffee this morning but didn’t have time to drink it. When I got home this evening, it was much colder. At this rate, it will be frozen by morning!
Snape,
Flynn assumed fact (I know, I wasn’t there at the time, but still . . .) –
The surface of the Earth was once molten.
Flynn observation now –
The surface is no longer molten.
Conclusion – the average temperature has dropped. This seems to fit the definition of cooling.
Snape observation – his cup of coffee has cooled. Started hot, now no longer as hot. I agree.
Irrelevant Snape attempt to perceive the future – His coffee will freeze by morning. However, he may, in fact be correct if he lives in Iceland, or Antarctica, or even an arid tropical desert where the Romans and Indians (Aryans) used to make ice by freezing water in the desert.
However, he predicts the future no better than an insect who predicts that the temperature will drop after the Sun starts to set.
Unlike you, I assume certain things, without believing I can predict the future. So far, so good.
Until you can produce the disprovable hypothesis relating to the GHE, I assume it doesn’t exist. You may claim it will pop into existence tomorrow. If it does, I’ll accept it exists. Until then, the GHE remains a fantasy.
Cheers.
Hello Snape
Why do you loose your time with such an arrogant person?
His only interest here: to provoke.
The more you will reply to his arrogant blah blah, the more he will reply again. That never ends.
All he writes is in my opinion just good enough for the waste bag. Let him laugh at you!
Bin
To me, Flynn is like a character from Monty Python’s, “Argument Clinic”. Have you seen it?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrbOVeRonQ
Bindidon,
I appreciate that you are not fluent in English, but that is your problem, not mine.
I’ll help you – the word is “lose”, not “loose”, although I suspect you really mean “waste”. Maybe your command of English is even less than your understanding of physics. Let me know, if you want to help me out. I cannot read your mind.
I’ll also let your you know that your foolish Warmist mind reading abilities are woefully deficient. You have no idea of my interest – unless you can convince me of your ability to discern my interests better than myself!
Your advice to Snape is appropriate, though. Maybe he’ll accept your demand to let me laugh at him. Keep it up. I appreciate the support, although I don’t really need your permission as to who is allowed (or not allowed) to be the object of my laughter!
Maybe you could find a copy of the disprovable GHE hypothesis. I might have to stop laughing quite so raucously.
Thanks for the help. Who else is worthy of my laughter? Let me know at your convenience ,if you wish.
Cheers.
Mike,
I wonder, have you ever had the pleasure of reading Jack Vance? If not, you may find his style entertaining.
Lewis
lewis,
Thanks for the heads up.
Emphyrio is on my list. I was thinking of Stephen Donaldson for some reason. I’m sure I’ve read Jack Vance before, but nothing else seems to ring a bell.
Too many books to read, too much stuff to do, too little time. Not to mention Islay single malts, and some wines.
I came across audio of some of Feynman’s lectures. I discovered that listening while trying to visualise what he’s writing on the blackboard makes you realise what you’ve forgotten.
Dang. I suppose I have to re read his physics lectures and some books again – sometime.
I should probably thank you for reminding me that I could always stop spending time commenting here. There really are better things on which to spend my time. Decision made – no more commenting until Emphyrio read (and some Feynman lectures read again, I suppose.)
The foolish Warmists will have to find someone else to vent their collective spleen on. For a little while anyway.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Great news! Hope you learn something in your reading. Now if we could just get g*e*r*a*n to do the same!
So right away the Con-man starts venting on me.
Not a problem….
g*e*r*a*n
No, not venting, offering advice. You are lacking in knowledge of physics. You seem to think you have a lot of value to offer people on this blog because you feel you understand science and physics. You really have great lack of any type of scientific knowledge (despite your overwhelming arrogance and derogatory tones, generally used to duck and cover your enormous ignorance of science).
I suggest reading a physics textbook so you can open your mind and realize you have many flawed and incorrect thoughts on physics and insulting people who do have knowledge is not an effective tactic. Far better to demonstrate flaws or errors in their thoughts with some real and valid physics. Something you currently are very lacking.
Since you have ADD and can’t read more than 10 word posts.
Less than 10 words. STUDY PHYSICS!
Mike Flynn
Please (I will even say pretty please) read a textbook on heat transfer. Your arrogant stupidity is nearly unbearable (for your sake not mine, you are looking like a blathering nincompoop with a child’s mentality on scientific issues). Time to grow up and let the boy go.
Here is a good start.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
Norman,
What is your point? Your link does not contain a disprovable hypothesis relating to a so far non-existent GHE.
Maybe you could quote words of mine with which you disagree, and present facts which show I am wrong. One possible method to overcome the unbearability of someone’s arrogant stupidity might be to present facts which demonstrate that they are wrong, in a rational manner, supported by experimentally verifiable theories.
I appreciate your concern for my welfare, but you are wasting your time. As Feynman famously said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You don’t even have a GHE hypothesis, let alone having reached the stage where it’s evolved as far as a theory. Maybe you could post the GHE hypothesis here. You don’t even need to link to an irrelevant publication – even Einsteins special theory of relativity can be copied and pasted with little effort.
The GHE theory is supposed to be simple. It’s great pity, then, that it also seems to be invisible!
Have you any facts to produce, or is fantasy fighting more your forte?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Please read a heat transfer textbook an quit quoting Feynman as if you somehow gain his equivalent physics knowledge by quoting him. He was a brilliant physicist not because he quoted other physicists but because he put out hard work and effort to learn the material.
He learned the physics before he started talking about it. You should do the same. It is not possible for anyone to point out your many flaws to you because you have no understanding of the physics and just repeat some of your favorite sayings over and over to convince yourself you are smart and know what you are talking about.
If you read the physics books I can have a chance to discuss issues with you. If you think you already know physics because you quote Feynman or read one of his books then how can I discuss the many errors in your understanding of physics (and they are numerous and constant and I have pointed them out many times on various threads).
Norman,
Thank you for your continued interest. I’ll ignore your requests – feel annoyed if you wish. I certainly don’t care what you feel. Why should I?
Still no GHE hypothesis I see. Obviously your vast self proclaimed ability in the field of physics has not served to enable you to actually describe what phenomena cannot be satisfactorily explained by normally understood physics, and why a disprovable GHE hypothesis is necessary.
I’m guessing that Richard Feynman wasn’t awarded a Nobel Prize for making an effort to learn the material of others. He may have actually had original thoughts, and even decided that discarding the firmly held beliefs of others might serve to advance the cause of physics. Do you think that may have had something to do with his Nobel Laureate in physics?
If you prefer to slavishly follow the ideas of second raters such as Hansen, Schmidt and Mann, be my guest. Mann claimed to have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, I believe, but even that turned out to be untrue. He might be your hero, but he’s certainly not mine!
I’m not interested in discussing the many errors in my understanding of physics you claim, but which you studiously manage to avoid actually quoting. Why would I bother wasting my time when you can’t even quote what you are complaining about?
Maybe you could seek out the missing disprovable GHE hypothesis – I’m not sure how you can rationally discuss something that doesn’t exist, or even complain about my lack of understanding of your imaginary fantasy world.
Still no GHE. Feel free to take out your frustrations on me – it might make the GHE a reality. Your devotion and faith don’t seem to have worked too well so far. I generally decline to take offence, and you certainly give me no reason to make an exception in your case.
Maybe you could make a list of physics books you are certain I haven’t read. Please note the editions, and let me know where you qualified in mind reading. You might also care to list all the physics books I have read, just so people know that you’re just not making wild guesses.
How hard can it be for a person such as yourself?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Out of curiosity. Why do you want to ignore the decent and valid request for you to study some actual physics on heat transfer from actual textbooks? Why is this something you do not wish to pursue? There are good textbooks available free online, libraries should also have good copies of valid heat transfer physics.
On Feynman, he could not come up with new or original ideas in physics if he had never took the time and effort to learn it.
It is not “mind reading” that convinces me you have not read (by read I mean understand the concepts not just look at the words) physics textbooks. It is your ignorance of the subject. I have pointed out errors in your thoughts, in fact just a few posts up.
Norm, you might benefit from prefacing each future comment with a disclaimer, such as:
“Norm has no formal education in physics. He has a low-level BA degree from a college that no longer even offers such a worthless degree. He works at a dead-end job, as a “lab-tech”, which means he basically washes dishes for a living. He normally has to wash about 2 hrs a day, which leaves him 6 hrs a day to pound on his keyboard, attempting to convince people that he is a physics professor. The fact that he has so much time at work indicates he probably works for some state agency, testing mouse urine, or see such menial task.”
Such honesty would make it harder for people to call you a con-man, when you are pushing your pseudoscience.
Glad to help.
g*e*r*a*n
I do have one class in college physics (general). That the degree is worthless is your own opinion on the matter and has zero support. The degree is in Chemistry which is the “Central Science” based upon the same logic and techniques as used in physics (scientific method). Unlike yourself, I realized I did not have good knowledge of physics. I was reading the PSI blog regularly a few years ago and I thought what they were writing made sense and the GHE was false. Then I started reading this blog and intelligent people like David Appell, Tim Folkerts, Curtis, Roy Spencer and others challenged my posts and views and so I did what any person who really likes science would do. I started to read textbook material on Heat Transfer. I kept reading until I had a good understanding of the basic physics.
I would suggest you try the same. You will be amazed at how wrong your current thought process is. It will be a good wakeup for you.
You are completely wrong about my job and that is all I have to say to you no that topic. You really have no clue as to what tasks I perform or what value I provide to the company I work for. Your derogatory statements about my employment indicated your own ignorance.
Wake-up! Read some real physics.
Norm, another long meanngless ramble.
Just use the disclaimer–saves electrons.
g*e*r*a*n on September 15, 2017 at 6:46 AM
With this comment far below the belt, you are reaching a disgusting niveau.
You attack here a person while conveniently keeping behind a nickname. The fact that Norman is a nickname too doesn’t change anything.
I called you a coward recently: what you have written here is the definite proof I was right to do.
Bin, you have no clue.
Your “person” has attacked me repeatedly.
In your flagrant leftism, that is of no concern to you.
Funny how that works, huh?
test
8th try. cut it in half:
— Snape says:
September 14, 2017 at 4:12 PM
Kristian
Here is the unspoken trick of the Congo/Sahel argument:
Lets demonstrate that an increase in water vapor, a GHG, does not necessarily lead to global warming.
That will cast doubt on whether an increase CO2, a very different GHG, will lead to global warming.–
Hmm, I read it as water vapor doesn’t increase the average temperature as much as thought it does.
other half:
Of course what, “it thought it does” can varying according to theory:
water vapor, 3670%
carbon dioxide, 926%
Or maybe it’s 36%.
And maybe CO2 is 9%
Or both CO2 and H20 gas would be:
33 time .45 = equals 14.85 C
I think both of them do less than that.
But I think Richard Lindzen believes it’s somewhere
around there and perhaps, Kristian does also.
Also some think clouds are responsible for 1/2 of
greenhouse effect.
I would not say [33 times .5 = 16.5 C] that clouds
cause around 16 C to global average temperature,
but I would say that clouds probably have larger
warming effect than both H20 and Co2 gas.
oh yeah something to do with hyphens can cause problems with posting. Anyhow, correcting it
water vapor, 36 to 70%
carbon dioxide, 9 to 26%
See:
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature, Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
–David Appell says:
September 15, 2017 at 6:21 PM
See:
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature, Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html–
Lacis et al are ones who believe Earth can become like Venus.
CO2 is not the control knob.
The tropical ocean is the control knob.
CO2 doesn’t seem to control tropical ocean temperature.
The tropical ocean always has constant warm temperature
and is dominated with high water vapor.
Or the issue of water vapor being condensing gas has little to do with a region with high temperature, both day and night, and century after century.
And as anyone should know, if familiar climate, the tropics is the heat engine of the world.
gb, is that supposed to be a convincing response, when you try to discredit widely accepted science while offering not a shred of data or science of your own in response?
Sorry, man, that’s now how it works.
gbaikie says:
“And as anyone should know, if familiar climate, the tropics is the heat engine of the world.”
How does it gain heat?
— David Appell says:
September 15, 2017 at 8:02 PM
gb, is that supposed to be a convincing response, when you try to discredit widely accepted science while offering not a shred of data or science of your own in response?
Sorry, man, thats now how it works.–
And:
–David Appell says:
September 15, 2017 at 8:03 PM
gbaikie says:
And as anyone should know, if familiar climate, the tropics is the heat engine of the world.
How does it gain heat?–
If you on a sphere and the sun is at zenith, you in region on the sphere that has the most amount of sunlight per square meter.
If a sphere spins on zero degree axis, the region near the equator receives the most amount of sunlight per square meter.
If a sphere spin at 23.5 degree angle to the orbital plane of sphere orbiting the sun, like Earth does.
The sun at noon at either of the equinoxes, will at zenith at the equator. At summer solstice for northern hemisphere
the sun will be at zenith at noon at 23.5 degree north latitude [June solstice].
At summer solstice for southern hemisphere, the sun will be at zenith at noon at 23.5 degree south latitude [December solstice].
And these are marked on globe and called the Tropic of Cancer and tropic of Capricorn. And the lines of Cancer and Capricorn are the boundaries of the tropical region. And this region receives the most sunlight.
gbalkie: My obvious question was: How is it GAINING HEAT in order to explain modern warming?
–David Appell says:
September 15, 2017 at 10:59 PM
gbalkie: My obvious question was: How is it GAINING HEAT in order to explain modern warming?–
I would say that’s a complicated question.
Part of why it’s complicated, is it’s confusing question,
it’s quite possible that instead gain heating, we are losing less heat.
But we are gaining heat in the sense or to the degree that heat is being “lost in the ocean” which could be short term loss, but generally it’s a longer term process than the time period of “modern warming”.
I would also say it’s simple question, in that roughly it has to do with ocean circulation.
But also think greenhouse gas, CO2 could add to global temperature- I just don’t think it’s a control knob.
Or I am lukewarmer and see no evidence proving CO2 doesn’t cause some warming, and such warming can be applicable to short time period of “modern warming”. Or it’s an immediate effect rather a longer term process of warming the entire ocean- which may be occurring.
In terms of losing less heat, the cooling or not warming of Antarctica, probably has to with ocean circulation and probably is it part of “modern warming”.
Of course there is other short term effects [things which have immediate effects] which could related to modern warming.
gb, that’s just a lot of speculation with no data or science to back it up.
By the way, UAH data says the lower troposphere over Antarctica has warmed by 0.25 C since 1979.
But this blog won’t let me link to UAH’s own data pages. Brilliant.
–David Appell says:
September 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM
gb, thats just a lot of speculation with no data or science to back it up.
By the way, UAH data says the lower troposphere over Antarctica has warmed by 0.25 C since 1979.
But this blog wont let me link to UAHs own data pages. Brilliant.–
Hmm, ever seen, “The 13th Warrior” if so:
Grow stronger.
If not, grow some brain cells and use:
http://tinyurl.com/
In terms of speculation, it’s just basic stuff.
For instance the Moon’s temperature depends upon where the sun is, the further from Equator the lowerer it’s noon temperature is. And everyone knows that tropics is heat engine of Earth.
The specific thing you mentioned: “Antarctica has warmed by 0.25 C since 1979”
Are trying to suggest that Antarctica has warmed as much as elsewhere- because no one will agree with you. Or are agreeing with me that Antarctica basically hasn’t warmed over last 40 years?
I am tolerant of religious people, but I can get impatient when they don’t understand the religion they fervently are adhering to.
gb: You denied that Antarctica has warmed.
I showed you, using observed data, that it had.
Admit you were wrong, and I’ll continue the conservation.
gbaikie says:
“Or are agreeing with me that Antarctica basically hasnt warmed over last 40 years?”
Why is it you are unable to consult the data?
Do you have some particular handicap in that area?
gbalie wrote:
“I am tolerant of religious people, but I can get impatient when they dont understand the religion they fervently are adhering to.”
Stop your whining. If you can’t address the scientific questions, that’s your fault, not mine.
[Second try post, not including wiki adress that a space
or underline symbol in the link.]
Anyways numbers of greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases
are from wiki
And was going to say something else, before getting distracted
with trying post. Oh, yeah
I think the wetter ground of Congo/Sahel has greater addition to global temperatures.
Or I think wet land surfaces though locally may be cooler temperature, add more warmth to atmosphere as compared to dry land.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“Things radiate when they have energy regardless of the temperature of the surroundings. If an electron is in an excited state or a molecule is vibrating, they can radiate away energy in the form of photons.”
You’re getting there. I’ll let you figure out what you need to correct. I’d suggest Feynman’s little book about the strange interaction between light and matter as a basic primer, but I’m reasonably certain that you’d rather ignore me than correct your errors and lack of knowledge – in my opinion, of course.
All you have to do is dig up the disprovable GHE hypothesis, demonstrate a little reproducible experimental evidence in support, and I’d probably support efforts to develop a GHE theory.
On the other hand, you could say that I’m obviously stupid for not accepting the assertions of Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann without question, as an unquestioning gullible worshipper.
On the one hand, people might believe you, being such an eminent authority on the calculation of averages of past weather events (climate). Please correct if you actually cannot calculate averages – it doesn’t seem that hard to me. On the other, people might expect a little science mixed in with their faith.
It’s a free world. You may believe as you wish. Nature doesn’t care, and I do my best to ensure that I direct funds away from the amateurish preoccupation with completely pointless computer programs dedicated to producing colourful fantasy animations. I’m quite content if you choose to beggar yourself in the pursuit of such silliness.
I wish you well. If you need any help to comprehend quantum mechanics (or quantum electrodynamics), you only have to ask. Alternatively, you can claim to understand the subject. I’m sure there are any number of foolish Warmists prepared to believe you.
Cheers.
” but Im reasonably certain that youd rather ignore me than correct your errors and lack of knowledge”
It would be much easier to listen and not ignore if you said something substantive. What do you think my “error” is? I stand by what I wrote — ” If an electron is in an excited state or a molecule is vibrating, they can radiate away energy in the form of photons..
Maybe you should start by helping Gordon, who insists that electrons jumping from one level to another are responsible for thermal IR.
“I have explained it to you, its the electrons in atoms that radiate EM as they drop from higher energy states to lower energy states. The amount of energy emitted is equivalent to the difference in energy of the states.”
My (very cautious) predictions for the horizon 2100
– oceans release hugest amounts of both heat and CO2
– temperature moves about 3.5 C above the 1981-2010 mean, both at the land / sea surfaces and in the troposphere up to 10 km;
– Greenland’s inlandsis melting at a rate of 10000 Gt/year
– all glaciers melted down, Himalaya completely ice-free
– sea level rise above 2 m
– Arctic ice-free.
The Thermohaline Circulation experiences a total breakdown in the Northern Atlantic due to salinity levels below any expectation.
Harsh, speedy cooling starts in Western Europe with winter temperatures below 40 C from Germany down to southern Spain.
You made a prediction which is good but what is your prediction for 2020 -2030?
Salvatore,
Foolish Warmists always make predictions which cannot be verified in any reasonable time frame. Nostradamus and Mother Shipton employed the same tactics.
Anything which can actually be checked is called a “projection’, and thus of no value at all.
It’s a well known fortune telling tactic to predict everything, and then take credit when an event occurs. People tend to forget your failed predictions, if you’re a skilled practitioner.
Foe example, if you predict that mankind will experience floods, droughts, hot weather, cold snaps, famines, plagues of boils, financial disasters, and marriage to an independently wealthy tall dark stranger, you cannot help but be right – sometimes!
Just don’t commit yourself to a specific time. location, or occurrence, and you’re good to go.
People such as Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann have been wowing Governments with their skills as illusionists for years. The problem with Bindidon’s “predictions” is that they are of no more practical use than yours or mine. Just more pretence of psychic powers to delude the gullible.
Still, he’s not charging for his show. Just as well, I suppose. I wouldn’t pay to attend.
Cheers.
you are so correct.
Mike Flynn says:
“Anything which can actually be checked is called a projection, and thus of no value at all.”
So specify all the relevant parameters, say, monthly, for the next 30 years, and you’ll get a prediction:
* CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption
* also from land use changes, including their latitude
* all other manmade GHG emissions
* changes in solar irradiance
* volcanic emissions
* air pollution emissions, including their latitude
* ozone emissions
Let us know.
Indeed Davie, let us know your predictions
.
Whoosh = the sound of all that information passing right over your head.
Bin
I hope you saw these:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/?replytocom=262931#comment-262931
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/?replytocom=262930#comment-262930
Yes I did Snape, but… nothing to add.
Canada now investigates ‘climate denial’
But the way to decide these issues is through public debate, not running to an agency of the federal government to shut up people we disagree with, particularly a government that itself makes false and misleading claims about man-made climate change all the time.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/13/canada-now-investigates-climate-denial
Again by accident I (re)discovered Roy Spencer’s old revision of his GHE thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
In the winter in Alabama, when the humidity is low, my FLIR routinely bottoms out at -40 deg F., even when the air temperature is in the 60s. Yesterday, in a humid atmosphere, is was +25 deg. F. So thats a 65 deg. difference, far larger than the air mass temperature difference.
There are upward-viewing radiometers making measurements at hundreds of wavelengths, clearly showing CO2 emission and water vapor emission at the wavelengths more sensitive to these gases. There is no other possible explanation for these things.
I know, this is impossible!
Because some anonymous superscientist pretends it doesn’t exists by refuting every existing formal explanation.
But conversely (and not so surprisingly) they don’t give any formal explanation for the phenomenon’s inexistence.
Some vague reference to Feynman, or to the fact that Earth cools since billions of years (actual emission to outside: less than 100 mW/m2) punctuated by ‘No GHE! Foolish warmists!’.
That’s all.
The reason I ask about “more energy in the atmosphere” is this:
Whether the earth was in a very warm period, like the Paleocene, or a frigid ice age, the rate of energy output to space was virtually identical. What was different was the time it took energy to move from surface to space.
Distance from surface to space/time gives a VELOCITY. This is what changed between a warm and cold planet. It seem to me, this velocity is what determines the temperature of the planet. Still can’t figure out why something so basic is never mentioned on this blog, and why someone like me, with virtually no science background, is the only person who brings it up.
In other words, this velocity is the earth’s thermostat. Change the setting on the thermostat and rate of output will only temporarily change, but the resulting change in earth’s temperature will be permanent (until thermostat changes again).
I realize I forgot to mention something critical and feel like a dummy. The above statements are only true when there are no changes to INPUT. So if ice age/warm periods were the result of changes in solar input, the above statements are totally incorrect.
I stand by my claim given a CONSTANT INPUT TO SURFACE. Albedo and other things would affect surface input.
Snape
I totally agree with Kristian on this one. The velocity light travels would not determine the temperature of a planet.
If you had a diamond shaft with a surface of 1 m^2 extending thousands of meters up, situated above the Earth’s surface, it would in no way alter the Earth surface temperature. Diamond slows down light by a significant amount. The surface emission rate is dependent upon the surface temperature and the emissivity. The bottom of the diamond surface would receive 390 W/m^2 and if there were no losses in transmission, the top would lose 390 W/m^2.
Kristian and I disagree after that. I state the DWIR adds energy to the surface allowing it to reach a higher temperature when it has a constant input of solar energy.
The IR emitted by the surface does not slow down and accumulate in the air. It is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted through. If it is absorbed that photon of IR is gone. A new one can be reemitted in any direction or the energy can be thermalized via collisions and the energy spread out among many molecules banging around.
I am not totally following your line of reasoning on this issue.
Norman
Thanks for the diamond idea, I need to think about that one.
By velocity, I mean distance from surface to TOA/ time it takes a unit of energy to get there. Up, down and sideways is not as fast as a straight line.
If you timed someone running a 100 meter dash, and they ran all over the the place on route to the finish line, they would have a very slow time. If you used this metric to calculate their velocity, it would be much slower that their actual rate of movement (also a velocity).
I’m not sure what the terms are when measuring these two different types of velocity. Actual speed vs overall speed?
Norman
You: “The IR emitted by the surface does not slow down and accumulate in the air.”
This is not at all what I’m trying to say. I need to come up with a clearer way of explaining my thinking on this, so that:
A: You and others can clearly explain why I’m wrong.
B. You will be forced to acknowledge the brilliance of Snape! (just kidding)
snake admits: I realize I forgot to mention something critical and feel like a dummy.
QED
snape…”By velocity, I mean distance from surface to TOA/ time it takes a unit of energy to get there. Up, down and sideways is not as fast as a straight line”.
Who said IR travels directly from the surface to the TOA? That is a logical idea that has no place in quantum theory. The movement of IR through the atmosphere requires sophisticated techniques as in Feynman diagrams.
A lot of the ‘energy’ you mention drifts up their fairly slowly in updrafts comprised mainly of nitrogen and oxygen molecules. Then it is radiated to space. And yeas, N2 and O2 are quite capable of radiating energy to space and it won’t be seen on the IR band instrumentation used in satellites.
I’ll go one further, IR theory has been totally overblown by alarmist scientists and their acquaintances.
Gordon Robertson says:
Explain how that is possible Tim. Where is the heat being transferred to? Heat required another mass in order for heat transfer to take place.
So how does the heat of the Sun get to Earth?
Gordon Robertson says:
“The movement of IR through the atmosphere requires sophisticated techniques as in Feynman diagrams.”
No Gordon, no. Not at all.
It merely requires knowing the ab.sorp.tion and emiss.ion coefficients of CO2. Provided by the HITRAN database.
But I’m sure you don’t know or understand the difference. I’m sure you have never calculated a Feynman diagram in your life.
Snape says, September 15, 2017 at 10:37 AM:
So it’s never occurred to you that the reason why might simply be that you THINK you’ve spotted something that isn’t really there?
Seeing that you evidently STILL haven’t understood my water tank analogy, I would strongly suggest that you think this whole issue through at least a couple of more times before you simply accuse everyone else of not getting it.
We DO get it. YOU don’t.
Kristian
Given a constant rate of water entering the tank, the velocity of the water moving upward is determined/constrained my the dimensions of the tank. The thermostat (velocity) is stuck on one setting.
Did you not see my recent comments about this?
The height of the water tank is obviously how far water, entering from the bottom, has to travel to get out. Keep input the same, but make the tank wider, and water will spend more time mixing sideways, and it will take longer to reach the top. It’s upward velocity has decreased. When the tank is full, rate of output will be exactly the same as before.
The width of the tank is how you change it’s thermostat. Greater width equals slower velocity equals more water.
Here’s another example. Gather a bunch of people at one end of a football field. Instruct them to run, leaving one at a time, to the opposite end zone. Let’s say one runner starts each second. The longer it takes them to get to there (to the other end zone) the slower their velocity, and the more people will end up on the field at any given moment.
Now increase their to velocity to the speed of light, like IR with a free path to space. Most of the time, nobody will be on the field!
Notice these runners could actually move really fast, like IR, but if they moved in any direction other than the end zone, their overall velocity would be much slower. Lots of people would accumulate on the field.
snake, you should seriously hook up wth the con-man.
He has nothing to contribute either.
Snape says, September 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM:
Yes, I did. That’s why I wrote what I wrote.
You’re not interested in actually understanding what my analogy tells you. Because you’re really only interested in pursuing your own idea, that you yourself find so clever and as result is so infatuated with.
Kristian
Your water tank analogy addresses how an equilibrium is reached given a constant rate of input. It’s a simple concept.
It seems like the concept I mentioned regarding velocity is just as simple, and seems almost as relevant, but nobody talks about it.
snape…”Gather a bunch of people at one end of a football field. Instruct them to run…”
The mass emitting IR cares only about the temperature of its surroundings. The velocity of emitted IR has nothing to do with how quickly the mass will cool. If the temperature gradient between the mass and its surrounding becomes greater, it will likely cool more quickly, but not due to the velocity of IR leaving it. It will cool more rapidly due to the number of electrons in the atoms of the mass jumping to lower energy levels.
Snape says, September 15, 2017 at 3:51 PM:
No. This is not at all what my water tank analogy is about, Snape. Which is my point exactly.
Snape: Global warming, or warming, is not due to any delays of how long it takes IR radiation to escape the Earth. It’s about where the IR is directed.
You are seriously barking up the wrong tree on this one.
David,
That’s a good comment and something I’ve been thinking about. The thing is, the longer IR spends being absorbed and re-emitted, from molecule to molecule or between atmosphere and surface, the more “new” energy (from solar input) has been emitted. This creates a greater overlap of energy.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The mass emitting IR cares only about the temperature of its surroundings.”
False.
A blackbody “cares” only about its own temperature. See the Planck Law.
Not that I agree with Snape’s “velocity of heat” concept being central to the GHE, but there certainly is precedent for such a concept. It is common to talk about the time it takes energy to work its way from the core of the sun to the surface.
“The high-energy photons (gamma rays) released in fusion reactions take indirect paths to the Sun’s surface. According to current models, random scattering from free electrons in the solar radiative zone (the zone within 75% of the solar radius, where heat transfer is by radiation) sets the photon diffusion time scale (or “photon travel time”) from the core to the outer edge of the radiative zone at about 170,000 years.”
(Wikipedia)
IR radiation does need to diffuse through the atmosphere, which happens at a speed much less than the speed of light. Similarly, convection carries thermal energy upward at a finite speed (usually pretty slow, but it can get quite rapid in a thunderstorm).
Tim Folkerts says, September 16, 2017 at 10:39 AM:
Well, not really. It seems you’re confused when it comes to Earth’s energy/heat budget, Tim.
The atmosphere doesn’t warm along the path of an IR photon moving from the surface to space, and the longer it takes, the warmer the atmosphere becomes. This seems to be Snape’s basic idea.
The atmosphere warms when there’s an imbalance between its average heat input, from the Sun and from the surface, on the one hand and its average heat output, to space, on the other.
This is not about “delay”. It’s about temperature. Earth’s heat loss to space (the average total all-sky OLR at the global ToA) is a direct radiative effect of (primarily) tropospheric temperatures.
Earth’s heat gain is continuous, just as its heat loss is continuous. The exchange (in/out) for the system as a whole is immediate. The crucial point being: The heat that Earth at any given time sheds to space is NOT the same as the heat simultaneously coming in from the Sun, or the one passing from Earth’s surface to Earth’s atmosphere. It’s not like Earth has to wait for the surface heat to travel up through the troposphere before it can release the amount of energy associated with this heat from the system. The Earth already has energy elsewhere always ready for departure. Contained within. Internal energy. Temperature.
It’s like with the open water tank analogy, where you fill new water in from the bottom, but where, as an immediate response to this, water from the (already brimful) TOP spills over and out of the tank. It’s not the same water entering and exiting, but the net result is an immediate response – we didn’t have to wait for the specific volume of water introduced at the bottom itself to travel all the way up to the top of the tank in order for the tank to adjust its total volume accordingly.
Atmospheric “back radiation” isn’t surface IR that’s captured by “GHGs” on its way out to space and reemitted/redirected back down instead. The IR that you “see” is just a radiative effect or expression of tropospheric temperatures. IR emitted from the surface and absorbed in the air layers above for all intents and purposes isn’t reemitted at all. It simply hasn’t got the time. It is rather conducted away through molecular collisions and converted into internal kinetic energy, mostly stored inside nitrogen and/or oxygen molecules. In short, it makes up part of the continuous heat transfer from the surface to the troposphere, maintaining the TEMPERATURE of the troposphere by constantly supplying it with new (internal) energy.
The photons that are being emitted by the atmosphere and that make up the atmospheric “photon cloud” are simply thermally generated.
Kristian,
“Its like with the open water tank analogy, where you fill new water in from the bottom, but where, as an immediate response to this, water from the (already brimful) TOP spills over and out of the tank.”
Let me make a few suggested improvements to your analogy.
It is actually much more like a very tall tank, which empties not from the TOP, but from various leaks at the BOTTOM. The deeper the water gets, the faster the leaks, until the water leaks out as fast as it fills. If the input is increased, the output does NOT increase identically immediately. The depth and pressure have to build, causing the leaks to gradually increase until a new equilibrium is achieved.
The atmosphere can be modeled as an additional tank around the first tank, with its own leaks ….
(You can actually make a better analogy if the tank is filled with AIR, not water, but that is not worth getting into right now.)
Kristian says:
“The photons that are being emitted by the atmosphere and that make up the atmospheric photon cloud are simply thermally generated.”
Of course. Agree 100%.
“The exchange (in/out) for the system as a whole is immediate. …
Its not like Earth has to wait for the surface heat to travel up through the troposphere before it can release the amount of energy associated with this heat from the system. The Earth already has energy elsewhere always ready for departure. Contained within. Internal energy. Temperature.”
If I understand this statement then I disagree. If I understand this statement, then high noon should be the hottest time of the day. An IMMEDIATE reaction (like your tank analogy) would mean that any extra energy would immediately be shed, but this is not the case.
All systems have some “thermal inertia”. There is some “time constant” related to how quickly the system can respond to any changes. If the surface warms, it takes a while for the energy to get into the atmosphere to warm the atmosphere. It takes a while for the extra energy to work its way up through the troposphere before it can get radiated to space.
Tim
Good comments, especially liked the upside down tank. I’m not sure how accurate the velocity idea I mentioned is, or if it’s important to the GHE. Could be just a consequence. In any case, I overstated it to provoke some feedback.
You might be interested in my reply to Kristian:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/?replytocom=263199#comment-263199
Tim Folkerts says, September 16, 2017 at 3:44 PM:
There’s no need to make yourself obtuse, Tim. You KNOW I’m talking about GLOBAL ANNUAL AVERAGES. Like in Trenberth’s diagram. I’m not talking about the diurnal cycle. I’m very close to a facepalm here.
Kristian, It is quite possible — and quite valid — to talk about various time scales. Snape’s “energy flow up through the atmosphere” is pretty clearly a process with timescales of minutes or hours. When surface temperature changes, it takes some time for those changes to ‘trickle’ up though the mesosphere. Changing the characteristic time by minutes or hours could be a major impact.
If you are only thinking of annual timescales, then perhaps you need to rethink what everyone might be discussing
Tim Folkerts says, September 16, 2017 at 9:37 PM:
Ok, the facepalm has officially been planted.
Tim, we’re talking about why the T_s is what it is, how it got there and how it’s kept there. Earth’s T_s is its annual average surface temperature, the +/- 289K figure.
I think you need to reread my original comment. It should be pretty clear what I’m talking about:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263195
Are you seriously suggesting that I’m not aware of the leads and lags of the diurnal cycle, thus trying to educate me on it!? It really does appear so …
If you’d read my previous exchanges with Snape about his “velocity theory”, you would’ve seen what we’ve actually been discussing, and you would’ve understood that he’s ultimately making a claim about T_s and why it’s so relatively high.
You state: “Snape’s “energy flow up through the atmosphere” is pretty clearly a process with timescales of minutes or hours.”
Yes, you would think so, wouldn’t you? I did too to begin with, and sort of went along with what he said. Then it turned out that it wasn’t really at all what he was getting at. He was making an attempt at postulating the “real” greenhouse mechanism for warming, basically what I (a bit crudely) described above: That the atmosphere somehow warms along the path of the IR photons moving out from the surface to space, and that the longer they take, the warmer the atmosphere becomes as a result.
Snape says:
“The thing is, the longer IR spends being absorbed and re-emitted, from molecule to molecule or between atmosphere and surface, the more new energy (from solar input) has been emitted.”
I suggest you put some real numbers behind your claim.
What is the mean free path of an IR photon emitted by the surface?
How many times, on average, is IR absorbed by a CO2 molecule?
What is the lifetime of CO2’s excited states?
At what average altitude does an IR photon escape to space?
This is how to evaluate your claims.
snape…the temperature of the atmosphere is dependent on the average kinetic energy of it’s air molecules. The temperature is affected by molecular collisions and the pressure. Obviously, at air pressures closer to the surface the air pressure is higher therefore more collisions are available and the temperature is higher.
The atmospheric temperature can also be affected by warmer air parcels moving convectively through it.
The surface temperature is dependent on the average kinetic energy of the mass making up the surface. Each day, that mass has it’s temperature replenished by solar energy. However, the mass will continue to emit energy and transfer it to its surroundings, the atmosphere, as long as the atmosphere is cooler than the surface.
Below the surface, if the mass is cooler, the surface will transfer energy to the lower strata till a state of equilibrium is reached.
Nowhere in that description is their a requirement for the velocity with which emitted IR travels through space. It is irrelevant.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Explain how that is possible Tim. Where is the heat being transferred to? Heat required another mass in order for heat transfer to take place.”
So how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?
Sunlight dissociates molecules and heats objects.
Which molecules are those, in the 150 Mkm between the Sun and the Earth?
Some on Earth and some on Venus
GB: You actually think Venus is blocking sunlight between the Sun and Earth?
That is comically and obviously wrong.
-David Appell says:
September 15, 2017 at 9:43 PM
GB: You actually think Venus is blocking sunlight between the Sun and Earth?
That is comically and obviously wrong.-
In rare moments, it does. wiki:
“A transit of Venus across the Sun takes place when the planet Venus passes directly between the Sun and a superior planet, becoming visible against (and hence obscuring a small portion of) the solar disk. During a transit, Venus can be seen from Earth as a small black disk moving across the face of the Sun.”
In *very* rare moments.
That does not explain how heat gets from the Sun to the Earth.
— Snape says:
September 15, 2017 at 10:37 AM
The reason I ask about more energy in the atmosphere is this:
Whether the earth was in a very warm period, like the Paleocene, or a frigid ice age, the rate of energy output to space was virtually identical. What was different was the time it took energy to move from surface to space. —
Nope.
It’s the time from when sunlight reached the ocean surface to the time that energy left Earth.
gbaikie
“Whether the earth was in a very warm period, like the Paleocene, or a frigid ice age, the rate of energy output to space was virtually identical.”
And you have data showing that?
Of course you don’t. None at all.
In fact, solar irradiance was weaker during the Paleocene, by about 0.5%. (Solar irradiance is increasing by about 1% every 110 Myrs.) That’s a huge 7 W/m2.
So the Earth’s outgoing TOA energy was almost surely less. There’s no reason to think it was identical to today’s.
— David Appell says:
September 15, 2017 at 9:47 PM
gbaikie
Whether the earth was in a very warm period, like the Paleocene, or a frigid ice age, the rate of energy output to space was virtually identical.
And you have data showing that?–
If look at it, I was quoting snape.
But did say something like it, at time before snape said this, but snape wasn’t quoting what I said.
As I recall vaguely, I was talking about an atmosphere without clouds reflecting sunlight and of course the clouds in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight, but anyhow… I would say these two periods of time are roughly the same.
Though I would also assume that each day presently, it varies. Or wouldn’t say yesterday was “virtually identical” to today.
Or each day, or each year, or each decade, etc, it varies a bit.
–Of course you dont. None at all.
In fact, solar irradiance was weaker during the Paleocene, by about 0.5%. (Solar irradiance is increasing by about 1% every 110 Myrs.) Thats a huge 7 W/m2. —
That’s not huge.
Though it might be true that roughly “solar irradiance is increasing by about 1% every 110 Myrs”
What we know presently, is that each year the earth gets closest and furthest from the Sun: 1,413 watts and 1,321 watts sunlight yet we are fine to say earth absorbs and emits about 240 watts [in accordance to the hopeless system of averaging sunlight and earth reflection over entire earth surface, so as to have a computer model make grossly inaccurate “projections” of future temperatures].
Yes, 7 W/m2 is *huge.*
Recall that the present energy imbalance of the Earth is 0.7 W/m2.
So we’re talking about 10x that. Huge.
Today I found a Flynn reply to one of my comments:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262095
I had – apologies, Mr Flynn! – missed the reply by accident.
His comment had to do with a Penn State communication I easily found a link to by using good uncle Google:
https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/courses/meteo101/Section4p05.html
Flynn’s comment of course ended as usual with
All readily explicable with normal radiative physics.
No GHE needed. Which is good, because no disprovable hypothesis relating to a GHE which provides an explanation for any observed Natural phenomena unexplainable by current physics, exists.
But surprisingly, half a screen below what he wrote in the comment, I read – incredible but true – the following:
Clouds emit infrared radiation to the efficiently absorbing ground, keeping the ground (and thus the overlying air) warmer.
As a disclaimer, please keep in mind that clouds emit infrared energy in all directions, but, as far as surface-air temperatures are concerned, we’re only interested in the downward direction.
Meteorologists sometimes refer to infrared energy that’s emitted downward by clouds (and also the air) as downwelling infrared radiation.
…
When downwelling IR abruptly and markedly increases during the night, low clouds likely arrived in droves. When downwelling IR abruptly and markedly decreases during the night, the sky likely cleared.
…
So clouds are a source of infrared radiation. In this light, think of clouds as “space heaters”, emitting energy toward the ground.
In turn-about fair play, the ground emits infrared radiation to absorbing clouds, keeping their bottoms warmer (especially low clouds).
Downwelling IR !? Is that not this strange GHE blah blah? I thought that can’t exist in Flynn’s mind.
What would commenter MikeR think (who proposed an interesting theory about Flynn):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262009
when he reads the Penn State College extract above?
*
What I keep after having read the Penn site till end is this: if IR downwelling stops upon the sky getting clearer, then we might well assume that downwelling IR due to CO2 (which certainly exists) must be minimal compared with that of water vapor.
Flynn can’t even keep up with his own trolling. He’s also written:
—
Mike Flynn says:
May 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM
“Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247260
—
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
—
… then we might well assume that downwelling IR due to CO2 (which certainly exists) must be minimal compared with that of water vapor.
Here I made the typical mistake of comparing a single, local experience with the entire Globe.
Bin says, then Bin doesn’t say.
No wonder he’s so confused….
+1 Bin.
Davie loves confusion.
omg you are banal
You are so confused.
CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT “heat the planet”.
But, enjoy your confusion.
More proof you are not just banal, but also stupid. No wonder you hide your real name.
That word does not mean what you think it means.
Davie now resorts to calling me “stupid”.
He can’t resort to science, for obvious reasons.
In winter, g*e*r*a*n doesn’t wear any clothes.
Because clothes are NOT a heat source. They can NOT heat g*e*r*a*n.
Mickey, have you been peeking again?
Or is my nudity your fantasy..
Therapy is available
Mickey, notice he won’t say why he wears clothes….
UAH data file has been updated to the latest month.
and….
People upthread were wondering why it hadn’t happened upthread. It just got posted. I’m letting them know.
Thanks barry…
I don’t look every day at it, and conversely I don’t want to setup some giant automatic download machinery as has (and of course needs) e.g. Nick Stokes.
–esalil says:
September 15, 2017 at 8:23 AM
Kristian:
So you think that two plates with equal temperature and equal power supply will insulate each other when they are near enough and become hotter? Or in my example the knife tips insulate each other to become hotter?–
Couple comments.
Metals are good conductors of heat. Water is not a good conductor of heat.
If your knife is touching bottom of pot- the knife tip could hotter than water, because metal is good conductor of heat and water isn’t.
Two heated plates have more surface area compared to two plates touching each other.
Or it’s one plate with slight increase in surface area but having twice the heating power.
3 questions for GHE enthusiasts.
In waves per meter squared:
What is the emissivity of Earth’s surface?
What is the upwards emissivity at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)?
Why are they different?
barry, I think you mean “Watts”, not “waves”.
And also, I think you mean “emission”, not “emissivity” Emissivity is a dimensionless quantity, basically a “percentage”.
Watts – yes. It was late when I posted.
I suppose I could use the term ’emittance’, but I’d hope people know what I mean when I ask for the value in W/m2.
If we’re done with the semantics, do you know the values and can you explain why there is is a difference?
Barry
A significant portion of solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere by clouds, aerosols, dust, water vapor, etc. and emitted at the TOA, never reaching the surface. For this reason I think the TOA would emit at a higher rate in W/m2.
On the other hand, the earth has a smaller surface area than the TOA, and would therefore need to emit more watts/m2 to transfer the same amount of energy.
Do you know the actual values in W/m2 for the surface and TOA?
Thanks Kristian.
From the graph it looks like the surface has a higher flux than TOA (and much higher flux than ground-striking solar radiation) because of longwave atmospheric radiation going Earthward. “Backradiation”
Is this how you see it?
barry says, September 15, 2017 at 11:45 PM:
The surface radiative flux* is about [398-345=] 53 W/m^2.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
The ToA radiative flux is about 240 W/m^2.
At the surface, the energy/heat budget looks like this (from Stephens et al., 2012: https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif ):
Q_in(sfc) = Q_out(sfc)
Q_rad(SW) = Q_rad(LW) + Q_cond + Q_evap
165 W/m^2 = 53 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2
At the ToA, however, the energy/heat budget looks like this:
Q_in(toa) = Q_out(toa)
Q_rad(SW) = Q_rad(LW) or ASR = OLR
240 W/m^2 = 240 W/m^2.
barry, emissivity is a pure number between 0 and 1 — it is not measured in waves/m2, whatever *that* means….
Thanks Kristian.
From the graph it looks like the surface has a higher flux than TOA (and much higher flux than ground-striking solar radiation) because of longwave atmospheric radiation going Earthward. Backradiation
Is this how you see it?
The surface has an emissivity. The TOA does not — it’s not a physical surface.
Which is why it has an emissivity of one, by definition.
No, it is NOT how I see it. And it is NOT what’s actually going on in the real world. Like I made clear in my previous post (there’s a much larger radiative flux out through the ToA than from the surface, and the radiative loss of the surface is much smaller than the radiative gain from the Sun).
However, it is how “Climate Science” insists on “seeing” it, basically like this (adapted directly from the Stephens 2012 diagram above):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
A description of things that is in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics …
It is pretty well accepted that greenhouse gases (ghg) ab-sorb infrared (IR) radiant energy being emitted from the liquid and solid surfaces of the planet. It should be apparent that there must be some elapsed time between when a molecule ab-sorbs a photon and when it emits one because, if the elapsed time was zero, there would be no way to tell that the photon had been ab-sorbed. This elapsed time for CO2 molecules has been measured and is about 6 microseconds.
Fine, but surely the lifetime depends on the frequency. And CO2 absorbs at thousands of different IR frequencies. HITRAN has their Einstein A and B coefficients.
None of the references I found mentioned frequency dependence. They gave 6 microseconds or slightly longer for the 15 micron band. If you know of any other data, I would appreciate seeing it.
Look in the HITRAN database.
There are thousands of CO2 IR bands. Look in the HITRAN database.
I have looked and used the HITRAN calculator at http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
There is only one CO2 BAND at 15 microns ranging about +/- a micron in earth emitting IR range. This is easily seen using a linear plot at the HITRAN calculator. That one band has lots of transitions aka lines resulting from a quantum mechanics assessment. You probably already know all this. At least you should know it (because you talk about it) and refrain from trying to mislead people.
HITRAN does not address the elapsed time
HITRAN gives the Einstein A coefficient for CO2 and other GHGs. From that you can easily calculate the lifetime.
DA – Again, you should know better.
The Einstein A & B coefficients are referring to probability of electrons changing energy levels. The 15 micron CO2 band has to do with molecule spin not electron energy levels.
Conduction of heat in a gas, sometimes called thermal diffusion, results as molecules bump into each other. This jostling of molecules is observed as temperature and pressure and is accurately described by the well-known Kinetic Theory of Gases. Calculation of the time between collisions has determined that contact between atmospheric molecules at sea level conditions occurs, on average, at about 0.0002 microseconds.
Thus it is about 6/0.0002 = 30,000 times more likely that the energy and mo-mentum in a photon will be converted into heat energy and shared with the molecules which surround the molecule that ab-sorbed the photon.
Dan Pangburn
Does not the reverse also work. The kinetic energy of molecules is transferred to a GHG in collisions which raise the vibrational state to higher levels promoting emission of IR in any possible direction.
I think the empirical measured values will show this to be the case.
As the surface warms rapidly during the day from direct sunlight, the DWIR does not keep up because the rate of atmospheric emission is based upon temperature not rate of surface emission.
If DWIR was a product of immediate reemission from the surface IR the two would correlate but this is not the case. I think most of the DWIR is a result of atmospheric temperature (which you have pointed out).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59bd0261ebbf5.png
Here is an image of the effect.
Nor – The reverse absolutely must work. If it didn’t, there would be no way for the non-ghg molecules to cool down.
Thanks for the link. I would have subtracted the small (down) from the larger (up) to get a positive net up but . . . shrug.
Dan Pangburn
In heat transfer equations a negative value means that the system is losing energy. I think if they put a positive it would confuse things. -200 W/m^2 shows the loss of this energy.
Solar activity is still high. Another strong geomagnetic storm.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00933/4w5jcyxaqlkp.png
Snape,
Upthread I wrote (September 15, 2017 at 5:09 PM):
I refer you to this comment of mine from about a month ago, on this very blog:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258860
Please read it (and try to understand it) if you want to know my position on this particular issue.
Kristian
Thanks for reposting that comment. I had missed it earlier. I read it very carefully. Here’s something to think about. I use the water tank again, but realize I am using it to explain something different than what you were using it for:
Input/output are measured as a rate. You could say they are “increasing or decreasing”, “higher or lower”, but it wouldn’t make sense to say a rate is “delayed”. A delay is when you’re trying to get somewhere, and it takes longer than usual. “The train was delayed”, makes sense. So WRT the water tank, the water entering at the bottom mixes in and travels to the top where it overflows. If this journey takes longer than before, you could say the water was delayed, but you wouldn’t say the output was delayed.
If you were studying the “water balance” of the tank, you might measure the rate of inflow compared to outflow. If the rate of outflow suddenly changed to zero, you would say there’s a positive water imbalance……but you wouldn’t know why!
Let’s say it was because the diameter of the tank had inexplicably increased. Water, on its way to the top, would be forced to make a horizontal detour. It would take longer to get to the top. It would be delayed getting to where it had been going. This delay would be permanent. Water leaving from the bottom would now always take longer to make it to the top.
But here’s the important thing. The delay would EXPLAIN why there had been a temporary decrease in outflow (the wider tank would explain the delay). By following what happened with the “micro” flow of water through the tank, you are now able to explain why there had been a change in the the “macro” (the tank’s water balance).
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 16, 2017 at 3:10 PM:
Hmm, ok …?
Yes …?
See, this is where I’m starting to lose you. But let’s move on.
Ehm, ok …?
Huh!?
The volume of the tank is suddenly larger than it was before. That’s why the outflow abruptly drops to zero. Nothing to do with water from the bottom being delayed on its way to the top.
No, Snape. You stated yourself just above that: “A delay is when you’re trying to get somewhere, and it takes longer than usual.”
What on earth does this definition have to do with you simply widening the tank, thus lowering the water level!?
And how do you “widen the tank” in the Earth system?
Absolutely not.
You seem to believe that in order for the water level to rise as you supply the tank with more water from the bottom, the specific volume of water that you introduced at the bottom itself has to travel to the top of the tank. That the total volume of water in the tank somehow remains unchanged until this new additional volume has climbed to the surface at the top. Which goes against the whole logic of the analogy. Not to say the least, against physics and reality itself. Why does the new water have to go to the top at all? There’s water there already!
Kristian
You: [ “No, Snape. You stated yourself just above that: ” A delay is when youre trying to get somewhere, and it takes longer than usual.”]
Yes. Water in the tank had been moving upwards at a constant velocity and rate to the top. When the tank suddenly widened, the water began flowing sideways and down instead of up. This was a serious detour on its journey. It would now be delayed getting to where it had been going – the top of the tank. Of course, it would still get there eventually.
During this delay, the gauge that measures outflow would have dropped to zero.
You: “And how do you widen the tank in the Earth system?”
That’s a good question. I’ve already mentioned that energy/heat isn’t like water. It doesn’t require more space to accumulate. Anything in the atmosphere that causes the energy moving to space to make an additional detour (all the current/past detours are already reflected in the Earth’s temperature) could be thought of as “widening the bucket”. CO2 obviously fits the description.
Kristian
If you’re still not following this analogy, I’ve thought of another, much better one that uses simple math (the only kind I can do) to explain the same thing.
Kristian
You: “The volume of the tank is suddenly larger than it was before. Thats why the outflow abruptly drops to zero.”
The wider tank (larger volume) allowed water to take a sideways/down detour. This movement had been constrained by the narrower tank.
Oceans control the climate what controls the oceans? The SUN.
. . . and water vapor.
So, Salvatore, why is the ocean warming so quickly?
https://is.gd/H9wXag
Well I couldn’t believe anybody might be dumb enough to write such nonsense:
… And yes, N2 and O2 are quite capable of radiating energy to space and it wont be seen on the IR band instrumentation used in satellites.
Ill go one further, IR theory has been totally overblown by alarmist scientists and their acquaintances.
Manifestly, there seem to be some special, top secret wavelenghts used by N2 and O2, all invisible to detectors operating on satellites!
*
Let us first have a look at what SpectralCalc manages to extract out of the HITRAN2012 database for N2-O2 and H2O-CO2 in the range between 0.16 and 10,000 (!!) microns:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170916/3kanp67r.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170916/3vrvraei.png
We see that
– N2 is completely absent
– O2’s absorp-tion sticks are about 10,000 times smaller than those of H2O / CO2, and that
– O2 has about 13,000 absorp-tion lines, whereas CO2 / H2O have nearly 700,000; i.e. over 50 times more.
Nota bene: the scalings visible here were made according to the gases’ respective atmospheric abundance.
Frenchies love to say in such cases: il n’y a pas photo.
*
But isn’t it better to present results aged aby about 150 years, obtained in a time where there were no crazy warmistas at work?
Let us for example look at what Prof. Tyndall told us around 1860, in a book ‘Heat a mode of motion’, about the (relative) absorp-tions and emis-sions of some gases:
http://m.uploadedit.com/bbtc/1505594723690.pdf
At hat time already, Mr Tyndall discovered that neither N2 nor O2 absorb or reemit anything relevant.
Olefiant gas (what a beautiful name) is ethylene (C2H4); nitrous oxide is N2O.
Note that in this experimental comparison, we have to understand under air dry air; water vapor was not part of the experiment.
Mr Tyndall made a completely separate experiment about it, whose result was that, if I well did understand, water vapor is responsible for the absorp-tion of 10 % of what Earth emits in the IR range.
CO2’s absorp-tion in the usual abundance of 0.04 % together with a concentration around 285 ppm was at that time, in dry air, clearly insignificant.
The role it plays today is a matter reserved to those people having the necessary knowledge to determine it. I clearly do not belong to them.
Time to read again the article ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground’ written by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, on the base of work by Fourier, Pouillet, Langley and… Tyndall.
*
Thanks one more time to Google Desktop Search: the tool helped me in finding back a pdf file containing Tyndall’s book I stored years ago!
… At hat time already, Mr Tyndall discovered that neither N2 nor O2 absorb or reemit anything relevant.
I mean here of course vibrational / rotational absorp-tion in the IR spectrum. O2 absorbs UV via electronic transitions.
Bindidon,
H2O won’t work either. Death Valley, Libyan desert, not much H2O, but probably the hottest places on Earth.
More GHGs make the surface cooler, not hotter. Just as Tyndall demonstrated by experiment.
Cheers.
What are the temperatures of these deserts at night, when there is no solar radiation?
And how do night time minima for these locations compare with night time minima in places with high humidity, like the tropics?
If GHGs cool the surface, very humid places should be colder than arid places at night.
I know for a fact, having spent many months there, that the tropics are warm enough at night to make you sweat.
Barry,
1. Below freezing at times. Depends on season and location, like anywhere else.
2. Much lower. As I said arid tropical deserts. Tropical.
3. Why is that? Maybe I wasn’t clear. Cooler during the day, warmer at night – with GHGs that is. No heating at night, just cooling. Warmists tend to ignore nighttime. It doesn’t fit their heating story too well. I live in the tropics, on the coast. Move 20 km inland, where it’s drier, and daytime temperatures can be several degrees C higher, and nighttime temperatures several degrees C lower.
4. Having spent a little time in arid tropical regions, I can assure you that ice can form in a pan of water left out overnight. Not much sweating there.
I’m surprised you were unaware of such things. Now you’re not.
Cheers
Remove sunlight from the equation and you’re left with purely surface/atmosphere effects.
If “more GHGs make the surface cooler, not hotter,” then after the sun goes down very humid regions should be much colder than arid ones.
Why is this not so?
Barry,
Maybe you didn’t – or can’t – read.
I said –
“Cooler during the day, warmer at night with GHGs that is.”
Generally, the Sun going down signifies night, at least where I live.
Maybe you’re not seeking knowledge, but rather “gotchas’. You’ll get none here.
If you want or quote something I said, and provide facts to support your opposing opinion, fine. As to removing sunlight “from the equation”, you’re just being silly. You can’t even state what equation it is from which you are supposedly removing sunlight! Ignoring a fact won’t make it go away, will it?
Still no GHE. Given that you can’t even provide a disprovable GHE hypothesis, I’m surprised you seem to claim that something that you can’t even describe actually exists.
Maybe you could stick with the Al Gore “manbearpig”. Just keep insisting it can’t be proven not to exist. No GHE. No manbearpig either. You can believe in either or both, if it makes you happy. Why not?
Cheers.
Clear evidence of the GHE:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Mike Flynn is afraid to address it. Watch him make some lame excuse….
(Death Valley is not in the tropics)
barry,
Maybe you could tell me something I don’t know?
You could even try quoting where I said Death Valley is in the tropics. It’s not my fault that you suffer from a mental defect that apparently renders you incapable of the ability to comprehend English.
Nope – still no “gotcha”.
No GHE, either.
Cheers.
Death Valley was the first desert you mentioned.
I don’t think you have an answer for this.
You narrowed your comment down to daytime only. Does the GHE cooling effect reverse at night?
Then you tried to specify tropical deserts only. Why?
You’re squirming. Let’s try again and see if you can answer the question.
The difference between a desert and a humid region is the water vapour in the air – the humidity.
If more GHGs cool the surface, then deserts should be warmer than humid regions (like Malaysia) at night.
We’ve removed the effect of the sun and isolated only the atmospheric effect on surface temps.
You know that deserts – which have little water vapour – can get to freezing at night. Even in the tropics
But it doesn’t get to freezing point in regions of high humidity – like Malaysia.
So why does higher humidity (more GHGs) keep the surface warmer at night than arid regions?
Please explain, without recourse to bafflegab, why this is the case. What’s the physics behind it?
I missed this comment:
Cooler during the day, warmer at night with GHGs that is.
Why is it warmer at night with GHGs? What do GHGs do?
Mike Flynn
You are not correct in your conclusion that GHG’s make the surface cooler. Water Vapor does act as a complex agent both acting as a powerful GHG but also a coolant with clouds and evaporation.
I searched for some relative sunny days so one could compare apples to apples.
Here is a radiation and surface air temperature graph of Goodwin Creek Mississippi. A fairly wet area.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59bdd896da93a.png
Look at the net radiation during the day and night cycle. It is nearly 0 net at night and rises to 800 W/m^2 at peak levels of sunshine.
Now look at the drier desert radiation graph.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59bdd8cd657be.png
Nevada desert. Look at the night day cycle. The net radiation might be close to -100 W/m^2 at night and rises to only 400 W/m^2 at high noon. Yet it gets about 4 C warmer than the moist location.
The radiant GHE is definitely stronger in the moist location by a large factor. Yet the location is cooler. You need to consider water also cools with evaporation. Deserts have two situations that allow them to get much hotter even with less radiant energy. Deserts are in locations of dry sinking air that creates a cap and minimizes convection (evident by lack of cloud formation) and there is very little evaporative cooling.
Now with carbon dioxide, it has no cooling action on the surface like water vapor. It does not form clouds to cool restrict solar energy from reaching the surface, it does not cool the surface by evaporation. Where as water has competing action (which is why I question that it is a net positive in the feedback equations of climate models) of warming via increased DWIR and cooling via cloud formation and evaporation. I still do not know what the overall effect of water would be. Water can also act as a cooling action when it becomes ice or snow and reflects a large portion of solar energy or a warming action when in liquid form and it absorbs a large percentage of incoming solar energy.
Flynn wrote: “Death Valley, Libyan desert, not much H2O, but probably the hottest places on Earth.”
Antarctica has even lower relative humidity than either Death Valley or the Libyan desert, and is without a doubt the coldest place on earth.
http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/atmosphere-weather-and-climate/key-factors-behind-antarcticas-climate/
Exactly.
Physics at work. Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction. Towards Earth, hotter. Away from Earth (at night, or other general lack of Sun), colder.
Arid tropical deserts – can have extremely hot days, extremely cold nights.
Antarctica doesn’t get a lot of Sun due to obliquity, but certainly manages to radiate what little heat it receives very effectively. Very little GHG to get in the way.
Thanks for agreeing. I thought you might disagree. A lot of people don’t want to accept that Berbers, firemen, race drivers etc. wear heavy clothing to keep cool. GHG blanket analogy not so good.
Teapots and ice buckets are often highly polished – to keep the tea hot, and the champagne cold.. They will work the other way round if you choose – although the absolute temperature to the fourth power can effect the form of the container, if cost effectiveness is a concern.
Cheers.
Mike
I admit the stupidity of my last comment. Antarctica and Death Valley are so far apart in latitudes that any temperature comparison WRT humidity levels is nonsense.
I should stop blogging after my 12th beer (not really).
Eh?
I’m not sure what your point is.
Maybe you could quote me, and indicate why I am wrong, if that’s what you are trying to say.
Temperatures obviously vary widely. Are you implying that surface temperatures are proportional to the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere between the surface and the Sun?
Or are you agreeing with me? At least one of us is confused, and I can’t read your mind, so it must be me!
Cheers.
Mike
I didn’t actually read your reply to my silly Antarctica/Death Valley comparison.
Sir Isaac,
Thanks – I think.
Cheers.
Sir Isaac,
You wrote –
“I didnt actually read your reply to my silly Antarctica/Death Valley comparison.”
I don’t think it was silly at all. Some people don’t realise the same physical laws apply in both places. Thinking about both and asking about the role of the supposed GHE seems fair to me.
Based on observations, it seems to me that the GHE is neither necessary nor evident.
Cheers.
Flynn says:
“… but certainly manages to radiate what little heat it receives very effectively. Very little GHG to get in the way.”
True.
And if it had more GHG in the way, it would radiate away what little heat is receives LESS effectively.
And if it radiated heat away less effectively, it would be retaining more thermal energy.
And if it were retaining more thermal energy, it would be warmer.
“Physics at work.”
Yep! Thanks for succinctly summarizing how the GHE works!
[I suspect you will sputter and spout, but can you argue against the physics of any of statements above? Didn’t think so. ]
“And if it had more GHG in the way, it would radiate away what little heat is receives LESS effectively.”
Tim believes two molecules of CO2 will not radate more than one!
Tim Folkerts says, September 17, 2017 at 8:03 AM:
Not how it works. How it’s supposed to work. In theory. A very important distinction.
For those following along …
FLYNN : Antarctica doesnt get a lot of Sun due to obliquity, but certainly manages to radiate what little heat it receives very effectively. Very little GHG to get in the way.
TIM : And if it had more GHG in the way, it would radiate away what little heat is receives LESS effectively.
G: Tim believes two molecules of CO2 will not radate more than one!
No, that is not what I said or what I believe. Two molecules of CO2 will INDEED radiate more than one! Specifically, two molecules will radiate more to the surface from the atmosphere than one molecule (which radiates more than zero molecules).
We are talking about the ability of the surface to shed energy. With two molecules instead of one, there will be more IR radiated back to the surface from the atmosphere. Thus the SURFACE will lose energy less effectively.
But Tim, two molecule are radiating more to space than one.
But G, two molecules of cool CO2 in the atmosphere are radiating LESS to space than two molecules in the warmer surface.
I don’t expect you to understand the significance, but it might help others who might be reading.
Tim Folkerts says, September 17, 2017 at 2:31 PM:
Yes, but you see, here’s the funny thing, Tim. This is IN THEORY only!
And this is where the Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel comparison comes in handy.
The surface situation in the two regions looks like this:
The Congo
Heat IN (Q_in(SW)): 175 W/m^2
Radiant heat OUT (Q_out(LW)): 40-50 W/m^2
Missing: 125-135 W/m^2
Sahara-Sahel
Heat IN (Q_in(SW)): 175 W/m^2
Radiant heat OUT (Q_out(LW)): 100-105 W/m^2
Missing: 70-75 W/m^2
(Rounded numbers.)
Despite the ‘missing’ heat OUT, after the radiative portion has been accounted for, we know that the heat IN from the Sun is balanced by the total heat loss in both regions. The surface heat loss, after all, is not restricted to radiation alone. We also have conductive and evaporative losses: Q_out(cond) and Q_out(evap).
Which means that, in the Congo, these other heat loss mechanisms will have to ‘take care of’ the 125-135 W/m^2 that are not able to be shed via IR radiation. In the Sahara-Sahel region, however, they will only have to rid the surface of an additional 70-75 W/m^2, that is, 55-60 W/m^2 less.
So what kind of effect on the average surface temperature would such a striking difference have? If the radiant heat loss of the surface is that much reduced from having an atmosphere on top with a much higher level of IR opacity, then wouldn’t we expect this to somehow result in substantial surface warming? Wouldn’t the surface naturally have to warm in this case to enable the non-radiative mechanisms to work at a higher level of efficiency, simply forced to by the severe reduction in the radiative loss?
Isn’t this exactly the idea of how an “enhanced GHE” is supposed to force the surface to warm towards a new and higher equilibrium temperature, to make up for a reduction in radiative heat loss?
So how come the average surface temperature in the Congo is 3-4 degrees LOWER than in the Sahara-Sahel region!? With as much heat coming IN, but with much, much less radiant heat going OUT. Why hasn’t this circumstance forced the average surface temperature in the Congo to be much HIGHER than in the Sahara-Sahel? As per standard AGW ‘logic’.
Tim Folkerts,
Warmer does not mean hotter.
You might put some hot tea in a thermos. It would lose heat more slowly than if you left it in a cup. A foolish Warmist might say “Ah, the tea is warmer than otherwise would be. GHE in action.” The tea has still cooled. Without Tim’s magic internal heat source, it will continue to cool, until it is in thermal equilibrium to the environment surrounding the thermos.
No amount of semantics, thought experiments, or wishful thinking will stop it.
No sputtering or spouting just facts. Your thoughts about my response appear to be wrong. Foolish Warmist mind reading failure, yet again.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
“Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.”
Another admission of the GHE!
I’ll add it to the list.
‘Physics at work. Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction. Towards Earth, hotter. Away from Earth (at night, or other general lack of Sun), colder.’
So you seem to be agreeing that the GHE works? That without GHG more radiation escapes Earth, and it gets colder? With GHG less radiation excapes and Earth remains warmer.
So when visible sunlight heats the Earth, and GHG are present, less radiation escapes and Earth remains warmer!
Halelujah! Mike Flynn finally gets it.
It’s weird. He posts stuff like that, and then in another post he says, “No GHE.”
It isn’t hypocrisy, as David says, it’s simple self-contradiction.
The nicest way to say it is “incoherent.”
Nate,
Foolish Warmist, there is no GHE. With GHG, less radiation reaches the Earth. Result – lower temperatures than arid tropical deserts.
An example would be a fireman wearing thick clothing to prevent overheating from external radiation. Or a space shuttle – heavily insulated to keep the occupants from burning up.
Not analogies, just insulation in action. Examples.
I don’t expect you to understand.
Cheers.
MF,
You only ever seem notice that insulation keeps things cooler, but not warmer. Odd.
‘With GHG, less radiation reaches the Earth.’
Do you dispute that a gas can absorb some wavelengths and not others? Do GHGs equally absorb IR and visible light?
‘ lower temperatures than arid tropical deserts.’
Deserts are hotter, but do they contain more heat energy than moist places? Remember waters latent heat..
Norman,
What you are presenting contradicts nothing I say.
Radiation from a frozen glacier or ice cap may exceed 300 W/m2. What difference does it make? What does it tell you about the GHE? Completely irrelevant.
Maybe you could quote something I said, and present facts to show that I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong.
Just telling me that reducing the Sun’s radiation by 30% won’t result in cooling, doesn’t make it so. People tend to accept that stepping into the shade feels cooler, and thermometers are often placed in louvred boxes to measure “shade” temperature.
Just as a matter of interest, Arizona is well outside the tropics. I know, I know – so is Death Valley. My point still stands – very dry, very hot. Or take the other extreme, Antarctica – very dry, very cold.
Zeno GHE required. Ordinary physics will do.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
May 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM
“Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247260
—
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
—
Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222
“My point still stands very dry, very hot. Or take the other extreme, Antarctica very dry, very cold.”
What you are talking about is the effect of insolation at different latitudes. this ‘rebuttal’ doesn’t remotely impact on the GHE.
You could remove solar from the equation by discussing night-time temps, and for GHE purposes, compare arid regions (deserts) with humid (more GHGs).
With the result that deserts are colder at night than places with high humidity.
Because the GHE is real.
barry,
The “GHE” is not about day vs. night, T_max vs. T_min. It’s about the AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.
And there is no question that arid regions, away from ocean influences, will have a significantly LOWER average T_s than humid regions with ~ equal average annual solar heat input.
Which means than the vastly “stronger greenhouse MECHANISM” (as defined) in those humid regions is unable to cause any sort of “stronger greenhouse EFFECT” (as defined). Rather the opposite is the case.
Which poses a problem both for the idea of the “GHE” itself and (especially!) for the idea of its “enhanced” version (AGW).
barry,
Or you could just be really, really stupid, and ignore days or nights, depending on which suits you best. For example, you could banish the Sun.
You’d have to find an alternative heat source to raise the Earth’s temperature above the 40 K or so it would sit at, without an external heat source. No GHE. Both your CO2 and your H2O are frozen solid.
Cheers.
lewis,
I read (or rather, re-read Emphyrio, by Jack Vance). Thanks for the advice.
After a couple of pages, I realised I’d read it before. I read it again, anyway. A good read, and the ending wasn’t as I remembered from years ago, so it was even better!
Thanks. Another book I accidentally re-read fairly recently was “Grass”, by Sheri S Tepper. I enjoyed it just as much the second time round. You might like it.
Cheers.
Watch all the global warming everyone as sea surface temperatures drop, but how could that be, I thought CO2 was going to warm the oceans ,I mean AGW theory says so.
CO2 after all is the dominate climate driver or THEE climatr driver even though it is a trace gas with a trace increase but it drives the climate while the sun which is the engine for earth’s climatic system has NO effects.
That is amazing bring on the global warming.
Perhaps your short term focus obscures the big picture?
https://tinyurl.com/h8efgs5
Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 5:22 PM
1. H2O wont work either. Death Valley, Libyan desert, not much H2O, but probably the hottest places on Earth.
By accident I know of Death Valley, just because that pretty nice corner has a GHCN station installed, exactly as has… Verhoyansk, for example.
So, as I managed to reconstruct absolute temperatures out of UAH anomalies by using their climatology data, I had some fun in comparing exactly these two (together with the diametrally opposed comparison of Berlin with Sydney), all on the base of anomalies wrt a common mean as well as of absolute values.
But: what do these local phenomena with either very warm or very cold behavior like in Death Valley or Verhoyansk have to do with the diffuse, global absorp-tion of IR emitted by Earth through gases?
I don’t know what you want to say here.
Why should we all be more interested in geographically or chronogically punctual extrema than in the sum of absorbed radiation averaged by some substances over a decade or a century for the entire Globe?
Makes few sense to me. No se!
*
2. More GHGs make the surface cooler, not hotter. Just as Tyndall demonstrated by experiment.
To my own surprise, I’m actually rediscovering something what had thoroughly disappeared out of my ‘mental radar’:
http://m.uploadedit.com/bbtc/1505647727538.pdf
Thus I suppose that you mean a quite different ‘place’ in his so marvellously precise and concise work.
Maybe you are willing to show me a link to the source of exactly that Tyndall experiment you mean? I would be grateful.
Bindidon,
Although they can’t produce a disprovable GHE hypothesis, foolish Warmists seem to claim that the Earth is heating up, somehow related to the quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere – as indicated by bizarre statements such as “Hottest year EVAH!”
I point out that the “hottest” places to be found are those with the least amounts of supposed GHGs in the atmosphere – H20 having been acknowledged as the most “important” supposed GHG.
You might waffle –
“Why should we all be more interested in geographically or chronogically punctual extrema than in the sum of absorbed radiation averaged by some substances over a decade or a century for the entire Globe?”
The answer is that climatologists resort to using “science talk” to avoid addressing the fact that there is no disprovable (by reproducible experiment) GHE hypothesis. Your bafflegab contains no substance, or even reference to the supposed GHE!
Cheers
Disprovable statements about the greenhouse effect:
Hypothesis: if there were no greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of a planet would be specified by its albedo and solar irradiance.
Hypothesis: if there were no greenhouse effect, a planet’s outgoing radiation spectrum would be a blackbody spectrum at the planet’s surface temperature.
Hypothesis: A planet’s greenhouse effect means its average surface temperature is greater than its brightness temperature.
Hypothesis: A planet’s greenhouse effect means a measurable increase in the downwelling infrared radiation reaching its surface.
Bindidion,
As to Tyndall, my edition of “Heat a mode of motion” is the 6th Edition, Appleton and co., 1906.
All his experiments relating to the blocking of IR by vapours, gases etc. are relevant.
If you closely examine page 328, you will find the care with which Tyndall compensated for various things. Generally overlooked is the statement on p.329, where Tyndall says –
“Here, then, we have two powerful and perfectly equal fluxes of heat, falling upon the opposite faces of the pile, one of which passes through our exhausted cylinder. If air be allowed to enter the cylinder, and if this air exert any appreciable action upon the rays of heat, the equality now existing will be destroyed ; a portion of the heat passing through the tube being intercepted by the air, the second source of heat will triumph ; the needle, now in its most sensitive position, will be deflected ; and from the magnitude of the deflection we can accurately calculate the a******n.”
This is just a start. However, the main point is that the reference source of heat will deflect the galvanometer, as the heat through the vapour being tested reduces due to being a******d.
You have no doubt come across the part where Tyndall substitutes a brass plate for a particular vapour, and finds no changes the deflection of the needle. All reference heat, none travelling through the tube.
Think as you will. Tyndall describes what he did in great detail. If you choose not to believe, that is your decision.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn on September 16, 2017 at 5:22 PM
Just as Tyndall demonstrated by experiment.
Or to bring it more directly to the point, I could ask you if by saying that you rather mean something like
http://principia-scientific.org/john-tyndalls-experiment-not-prove-greenhouse-gas-effect/
instead of referring to Tyndall’s experiment itself.
In that case I would understand you much better.
Bindidon,
No.
Cheers.
A thought experiment
* Two identical, very large, perfectly insulted volumes. No energy can leave or enter the volumes, unless we allow.
* Both volumes contain exactly the same amount, and type, of mass.
* Both volumes contain exactly the same atmosphere, same as Earths average atmosphere, (except only 200 ppm CO2.)
* Both volumes have the same temperature, everywhere60F (15.6C), at a pressure of 1 Atm.
Call volume 1: Earth ONE
Call volume 2: Earth TWO
Now, add pure CO2 (also at a temperature of 60F) to Earth 2, until the concentration is 800 ppm. (Atmospheric gas is released from the volume to maintain a constant pressure of 1 Atm.)
Now, allow sunlight to heat both volumes. When Earth ONE reaches 100F (37.8C), the sunlight stops.
To summarize, two identical volumes, Earth ONE and Earth TWO, are at an initial temperature of 60F. CO2 is added to Earth TWO until it has 4 times the ppm as Earth ONE. Then, both volumes are heated by the Sun until Earth ONE reaches a temperature of 100F.
Will the temperature of Earth TWO then be higher, lower, or the same as Earth ONE?
The same I say!
That hardly could be the answer to the question!
Since no energy can leave?
g*e*r*a*n on September 17, 2017 at 8:09 AM
Two identical, very large, perfectly insulated volumes.
…
Will the temperature of Earth TWO then be higher, lower, or the same as Earth ONE?
1. What disturbs me above all here is the word ‘insulated’. Earth isn’t a glass greenhouse.
2. In theory one should say, according to the sum of all what John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius have already found: TWO!
But in practice, a layman like me, having not half a bit of experience in physics and chemistry either, only can answer: I don’t know.
And so do I, g*e*r*a*n.
By the way: didn’t you tell us here and there in Roy Spencer’s threads about your huge experience in physics?
If so: why don’t you give us the answer?
— Bindidon says:
September 17, 2017 at 11:36 AM
g*e*r*a*n on September 17, 2017 at 8:09 AM
Two identical, very large, perfectly insulated volumes.
Will the temperature of Earth TWO then be higher, lower, or the same as Earth ONE?
1. What disturbs me above all here is the word insulated. Earth isnt a glass greenhouse.–
What about changing it to having two large greenhouse?
Or Earth ONE and Earth TWO are roughly impossible to make.
And making a very large greenhouse is merely expensive.
First:
“A geodesic dome is a hemispherical thin-shell structure (lattice-shell) based on a geodesic polyhedron. The triangular elements of the dome are structurally rigid and distribute the structural stress throughout the structure, making geodesic domes able to withstand very heavy loads for their size.” -wiki
So two hemisphere with diameter of 10 km, giving height of 5 km. And to be political correct make structure out of recycled plastic which given UV resistance coating. Or say 20 cm or 8″ diameter pipe with pipe wall thick enough to withstand the structural load- so the triangular elements are make of hollow plastic pipes- which are all made the same size, then fitted together to form hemispherical dome.
These could built on the ocean and it’s foundation could a single 30 cm or foot diameter plastic pipe which has diameter of 10 km. And if foundation sinks below the water from structure mass added to it- this isn’t a problem. One could design it to sink, in order to not have structure not being very high above sea level while constructing it. And after built add air to have foundation rise to have it float close to sea level.
So got Dome One and Two and add more Co2 to Dome Two.
“…foot diameter plastic pipe which has diameter of 10 km”-
should be: …foot diameter plastic pipe which has circumference diameter of 10 km.
After the experiment, you could use it for housing. In numerous ways:
You give it a floor and have floating city. Which float 100 meter above water or say 1/2 km above the water.
Or could leave it without floor and they structures within it,
which float- and might instead add submerged curtain which reduces waves within the structure.
Or to make structure work, one has have strong enough base to withstand waves- but doesn’t mean you have to stop waves, but if people living in it, you probably want the water to be calmer within it.
g*e*r*a*n
Because the difference between the two is not significant you may not be able to measure the temperature difference between the two. But as you set up the conditions Earth TWO should have a slightly higher temperature than Earth ONE.
The reasoning is both containers are receiving energy at the same rate and none can leave.
The heat capacity of air (at the temperatures used) is 1.005 KJ/(Kg K) and the heat capacity for carbon dioxide is 0.846 KJ/(Kg K).
You removed some air to make room for the CO2 in Earth TWO so the heat capacity of Earth TWO will be slightly less than Earth ONE.
You need so much energy input to get to 100 F for Earth ONE. It takes less energy to warm Earth TWO so since the conditional is 100 F for Earth ONE then Earth TWO will be a slight touch warmer.
Odd that you spend multiple threads making fun of a David Appell link saying the Earth would reach 800,000 K if no energy could leave the system and then you devise an idea with the same premise.
I concur with Norman. Except Earth two would be much warmer!
The following experiment could “shed some light” (no pun intended) on g*e*r*a*n’s question. It could be performed using the sun as the heat source instead of a lamp. Someone should try it!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
Check out this one. Real science is a bitch, isn’t it g*e*r*a*n?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
Sir Isaac Snapelton
The video you linked to warms the items until an equilibrium temperature is reached. g*e*r*a*n’s test does not have an equilibrium condition, just a condition where Earth ONE reaches 100 F. His idea is not at all valid since it has physics that is not real (no energy loss) but it is one to think about.
Under his conditions I do not think Earth TWO would be much warmer since the GHE is not a factor. That factor exists in equilibrium states. His seems to do more with the specific heats of gases since it would not matter if the gas or surrounding walls absorbed the energy. The amount of energy entering both systems is the same. Earth TWO could not get much warmer under these conditions since it only receives the same amount of energy as Earth ONE, the major difference is the slight heat capacity variation. My sources indicated air has a higher heat capacity so would take more energy to reach 100 F than air with a bit more CO2. As Svante points out the effect would be very, very small.
Norman
You could be right. I hadn’t really thought things thru when I posted those videos.
Did you watch the first one as well? Doesn’t match his thought experiment (how could it?) but very interesting!
Norman,
As noted by Gordon, CO2 is such a tiny part of the atmosphere that it would have negligible impact here.
It’s great that we can leave your last paragraph behind us.
Svante says:
“As noted by Gordon, CO2 is such a tiny part of the atmosphere that it would have negligible impact here.”
Svante, what says small concentrations can have no physical effects? Is that some kind of law of nature?
No, not really.
Norm attempts another con: “Odd that you spend multiple threads making fun of a David Appell link saying the Earth would reach 800,000 K if no energy could leave the system and then you devise an idea with the same premise.”
Nice try Con-man, but my objection to the 800,000K was that it violates the laws of physics. The effective heating by solar flux is limited by the emitting temperature of the Sun, and the inverse-square law. But, neither you, nor Davie, understand such things.
“The effective heating by solar flux is limited by the emitting temperature of the Sun, and the inverse-square law.
Both are assumed by my calculation.
dT = dQ/mc
dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s (given) => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core.
so
=> dT = 760,000 K
QED
“Both are assumed by my calculation.”
Davie, about 5800K is the emitting temperature of the Sun, and the inverse-square law reduces the flux reaching Earth. Maximum temp Earth could reach is about 400K.
Of course you must hold to your pseudoscience. I understand.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Maximum temp Earth could reach is about 400K.”
Idiot. Read RPh’s article, which says, “…if Earth had no way of getting rid of it [incoming heat].”
Davie, you keep saying the same thing over and over, completely unaware that you are revealing your lack of knowledge.
You believe a “cold” can warm a “hot”, with IR!
Hilarious.
Glad to see you’ve given up with lying about RPh’s article.
Your other crap isn’t worth replying to.
Attempted insults and false accusations–the refuge of pseudoscience.
I have proved you wrong on this every which way from Sunday. You know it. Time to stop bleeting.
In your dreams, Davie, in your dreams.
They will both be the same temperature. (Actually, Earth 2 will be ever so slightly cooler since CO2 has a higher specific heat).
But this has nothing to do with how the real earth behaves. You make an assumption (“perfectly insulted volumes”) that is not only impossible to do, but also directly contradicts what the real earth is like and directly contradicts the premises of the Greenhouse Effect. Earth is NOT perfectly insulated from space — it constantly loses energy via IR radiation and constantly gains energy via sunlight. The loss via IR radiation is an integral part of the greenhouse effect theory.
Basically you are saying “let’s assume that the greenhouse effect is not involved”. Thus any conclusions will not tell you anything about the greenhouse effect!
Tim Folkerts
Are you sure about your statement that CO2 has a higher specific heat?
This chart shows air has more carbon dioxide less.
http://catalog.conveyorspneumatic.com/Asset/FLS%20Specific%20Heat%20Capacities%20of%20Gases.pdf
Norman,
There are two ways to measure and present specific heat (SI units) — per mole or per kg. Looking at air vs CO2:
air = 1010J/kg*K ; CO2 = 845 J/kg*K
air = 29 J/mole*K ; CO2 = 37 J/mole*K)
As you can see, air is higher for J/kg*K, but CO2 is higher for J/mole*K. This is because the molar mass of CO2 is higher than the (average) molar mass of air.
* If you took out 1 kg of air and added 1 kg of CO2, then the total heat capacity would drop (as you were saying). But the pressure would also drop because you are adding back fewer molecules than you removed.
* If you took out 1 liter of air and added 1 liter of CO2, then the total heat capacity would increase. And now we would be back to the same pressure and the same number of molecules.
The scenario presented is pretty clearly the second (removing and adding equal numbers of moles = equal numbers of liters). So in this setting, CO2 does indeed have a higher specific heat.
Tim Folkerts
A very detailed and well thought out post. Thanks for the post.
Tim Folkerts says, September 17, 2017 at 3:26 PM:
What “pressure” are you talking about here?
Kristian, I am talking plain old air pressure.
Tim Folkerts says, September 18, 2017 at 4:53 PM:
Well, internal air pressure inside a box or surface air pressure under the weight of an atmospheric column?
At best the bottle experiment (or the ice experiment in the youtube video) won’t tell you anything. More likely these experiments will mislead you into believing CO2 has a significant effect on climate. The lack of free circulation on atmosphere scale is a major factor.
ger*.
Good effort, but perfectly insulated makes it irrelevant to Earth. Ghe is related to how imperfect is the insulation.
Troubling, huh?
I can’t wait to hear the excuses AGW enthusiast will make as global temperature drop and the lengths they are going to go to,in order too defend the defunct theory.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Yes Dave
“Yes Dave?”
(BTW, my name is David.) So you agree you were wrong. Good to know.
Global water vapor has been increasing 1.5% per decade (8% since 1960) and has more than countered the average global temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring. WV increase is about twice what it should be based on the temperature increase of the liquid water. Eventually cloud cover will catch up and the disaster for humanity of average global temperature decline will proceed.
Water vapor only increases if the atmosphere warms first.
You’re quoting an effect of AGW, not a cause.
David Appell,
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of water vapour over the hottest places on Earth – the arid tropical deserts.
Have you considered that burning hydrocarbons creates at least carbon dioxide and water vapour?
Maybe burning more fossil fuel puts more water vapour into the atmosphere? Fossil fuels are certainly claimed to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Just a thought.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe burning more fossil fuel puts more water vapour into the atmosphere?”
Doesn’t matter. The atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor, which is a function of its temperature. Any more, and the water vapor condenses and rains or snows out.
See: Clausius-Claperyon equation.
David Appell,
Dan Pangburn wrote –
“Global water vapor has been increasing 1.5% per decade (8% since 1960) and has more than countered the average global temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring.”
Is he wrong?
The arid tropical desert atmosphere are very hot, and very dry. Antarctica is very cold and very dry. Are you sure that aridity is related to temperature, or “maybe, maybe not”?
Do you also think that CO2 is not absorbed from the atmosphere by plants, and sequestered by natural physical chemical processes? Have you faintest idea of what you’re trying to say, or just furiously attempting to deny, divert, and confuse?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
See: Clausius-Claperyon equation.
Good grief David. You should know better. That (WV only increases if the atmosphere warms first) is only true when the relative humidity is already 100%. When RH gets to 100%, clouds form.
WV is increasing about twice as fast as it should be based on increase of the temperature of the liquid water (feedback). Its a simple calculation based on the assumption that % increase in WV is the same as the % increase in vapor pressure of the liquid water due to temperature increase of the liquid water.
Dan Pangburn says:
“Good grief David. You should know better. That (WV only increases if the atmosphere warms first) is only true when the relative humidity is already 100%.”
Wrong — we’ve been through this before.
Look at the derivation of the Clausius-Claperyon equation. It does not depend on any partial pressure being saturated.
Yes, we have been through this before. My statement is absolutely true. By definition, partial pressure equals vapor pressure at 100% RH.
The statement you make is also true but is not relevant.
The CC equation “gives the exact relationship between the change in volume and the latent heat (enthalpy change) when a liquid changes to a vapor.”
The answer to the “2 Earths” scenario is “both would be at the same temperature”. “Heat capacity” is of course, a real issue, but the “800 ppm” would result in no measurable effect on the system temperature.
Svante got it right, even mentioning that both received the same energy.
The point of the exercise was to emphasize that adding CO2 to an earth-like system will not cause an increase in temperature, as some want to believe.
No, the point is that this is NOT even close to an “earth-like scenario” and hence has no predictive value whatsoever for the real earth.
Tim, it’s hard to spin your way out of this one, huh?
No “spin” necessary.
The Greenhouse effect is all about radiation — specifically including radiative loses of thermal IR from the earth to space. You have explicitly removed those radiative loses of thermal IR from your scenario.
So, now you need “losses” to make the pseudoscience work?
More spin, please.
“So, now you need losses
The earth loses energy to space. These losses are necessary to explain earth’s energy balance and earth’s temperature. Of COURSE these losses are needed — and need to be included in any explanation of the earth’s temperature.
But Tim, whatever happened to “trapping heat”?
More spin, please.
Tim Folkerts
I do think the problem with g*e*r*a*n and all the other PSI groupies is they do not think in terms of continuous energy supply being added and what you get is an equilibrium temperature based upon how much energy is entering and how much is able to leave.
I do not see it possible to explain this difference to them no matter how many different approaches you take.
Like the knife example in boiling water. As the knife tip warms the heat flow from the boiling water to the tip slows down. It is not a constant. In the Earth system the added energy is a constant quantitiy. You can alter the surface temperature by restricting the rate NET energy is able to leave the surface.
The only option they have to maintain their false physics is to determine that DWIR can’t be absorbed by the surface and is not a player at all. They misunderstand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to mean NO energy can move from a cold object to a hot one. Nothing in any standard textbook on heat transfer even considers this notion and it is actually contrary to Kirchhoff’s Law. They are going against established physics with this made up explanation and they cling to it like superglue.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to post. You can help educate those who desire to learn actual physics. For those clinging to the make believe physics of the PSI Slayers, they will refuse to learn from you or textbooks and years from now they will still peddle this made up physics and pass it off as if it was somehow established.
He Con-man, you forgot to present your qualifications.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262968
Glad to help.
G*e*r*a*n, stop with the trivial complaints about words like “loss” and “trap”.
Get back to us when you can explain something about earth’s energy balance and temperature and outgoing IR spectrum WITHOUT thermal IR from the warm surface getting blocked by the atmosphere and WITHOUT the cool atmosphere radiating to space (BOTH of which are conspicuously missing from your scenario).
All of a sudden, Tim does not like “thought experiments”.
It’s sad what pseudoscience can do to a person.
Still wrong, G*.
I like thought experiments. I even like yours. Thought experiments should isolate out specific bits of science — in this case, specific aspects of physics related to the climate. Yours does that rather clearly.
In this case, your thought experiment shows that when there is no outgoing thermal IR from the system, there can be no greenhouse effect — no extra warming by extra CO2 completely sealed inside a perfectly insulated system. No one should think there would be, but you helped confirm that.
Your scenario also allowed a discussion on the impact of heat capacity. In this case, the higher molar heat capacity of CO2 would case Earth 2 to be (infinitesimally) cooler than Earth 1. Againm this has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, but it is still some interesting physics.
Tim, you are still trying to spin.
The CO2 does not know the heat is “trapped”. One “earth” has 200ppm, and the other has 800ppm. They are heated substantially. But both end up with the same temperature!
It’s a huge problem for pseudoscience.
I feel your pain.
G, see
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263446
The entire physics of your scenario is Q = mcΔT. This is no problem at all for the greenhouse effect, since Q = mcΔT does not explain the greenhouse effect.
Tim Folkerts says, September 17, 2017 at 4:02 PM:
+1
g*e*r*a*n on September 17, 2017 at 2:58 PM
‘Heat capacity’ is of course, a real issue, but the ‘800 ppm’ would result in no measurable effect on the system temperature.
Independently of the fact wether or not CO2 is an important GHE factor (this is completely irrelevant for my reply), you do not seem to see that one more time you simply pretend things without giving any valuable proof.
This lack of proof is exactly what you call everywhere ‘pseudoscience’.
Come out with formulas, and we will believe you.
But I’m afraid that you have no formuulas, even no real observations!
Tyndall and Arrhenius for example brought no formulas concerning what they so carefully observed.
But as opposed to you, they at least did observe, and published the results.
Where are yours?
Bin, if I told you not to walk on a surface that was at a temperature of 500C, would you need formulas?
Sometimes people just want to reject things that conflict wth their beliefs.
As usual: you don’t answer with facts.
I only reject those things somebody presents as settled without any proof, and not because they might conflict with my beliefs.
The latter is your invention.
Bin clams: “I only reject those things somebody presents as settled without any proof…”
Great! That means you have rejected the GHE nonsense.
Bindidon,
I agree with Einstein who said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Why do you disagree with the scientific process as currently practiced by real scientists?
If you can’t devise a disprovable GHE hypothesis, you are not practising science, but rather Scientism – supposed “facts” determined by assertion or consensus.
No disprovable GHE hypothesis, no GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says on September 17, 2017 at 4:45 PM
If you cant devise a disprovable GHE hypothesis, you are not practising science, but rather Scientism supposed facts determined by assertion or consensus.
No disprovable GHE hypothesis, no GHE.
But… I do not disagree at all with that above!
I disagree for example when people pretend
– that N2 and O2 are able to radiate terrestrial heat to space;
– that hot deserts and freezing Antarctica are proofs that GHE either does not exist or is superfluous;
etc etc.
I have read your reply concerning Tyndall, and will reread the start of lecture XII (which mea culpy I read a bit quickly).
Hypothesis: if there were no greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of a planet would be specified by its albedo and solar irradiance.
Hypothesis: if there were no greenhouse effect, a planet’s outgoing radiation spectrum would be a blackbody spectrum at the planet’s surface temperature.
Hypothesis: A planet’s greenhouse effect means its average surface temperature is greater than its brightness temperature.
Hypothesis: A planet’s greenhouse effect means a measurable increase in the downwelling infrared radiation reaching its surface.
Hypothesis: All of Dave’s hypotheses can be nullified by a rotating planet with oceans and an atmosphere.
David Appell,
None of these are disprovable, and therefore are pointless, in a scientific sense.
They’re all simple assertions of the form “If my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle”.
You’ll have to try harder, I think. Maybe looking up the structure of the scientific method might help, along with the defintion of an hypothesis.
Nope. Even the IPCC wouldn’t be so silly as to accept what you wrote as hypotheses. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the IPCC is that silly.
Cheers.
MF: All are disprovable, of course.
Just tell us what the Earth’s outgoing IR spectum is.
Does it disprove the greenhouse effect hypothesis?
binny…” that N2 and O2 are able to radiate terrestrial heat to space;”
If N2/O2 can warm through heat transfer from the surface, you are claiming neither can ever cool. Even if both warm at the surface and rise as hot air, you are claiming neither can ever cool.
That would be a very neat trick if it were true.
GR: How do N2 and O2 absorb the IR given off by Earth’s surface?
binny that N2 and O2 are able to radiate terrestrial heat to space;…part 2
Here’s a formula for heat transfer from a body at Th radiating to its cooler surroundings at Tc. As you can see, the determining factors are the temperature difference and the area of the radiator.
********
If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = e s (Th4 – Tc4) Ac (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ac = area of the object (m2)
GR: Again, how do N2 and O2 absorb the IR given off by Earths surface, since their molecular properties tell us they don’t absorb IR?
PS: Have you noticed that all GHGs consist of molecules with 3 or more atoms?
PPS: Wonder why?
DA…”GR: How do N2 and O2 absorb the IR given off by Earths surface?”
It’s called heat transfer by conduction. Any atoms/molecules in contact with the surface will acquire it’s heat by conduction. That includes contact with the oceans.
Lindzen laid out an explanation for it when he talked about heat being transferred from the tropics poleward via clouds.
Hot air rising from the surface is 99%+ N2/O2 and when the hot air rises, cooler air replaces it, warms, and rises.
Far better explanation for heat transfer from the surface than radiation.
DA…”Have you noticed that all GHGs consist of molecules with 3 or more atoms? ”
Why are you stuck on heat transfer by radiation? Only radiation requires IR, heat can be transferred perfectly well to N2/O2 by conduction. A molecule of N2 or O2, once heated by conduction can transfer heat to other N2/O2 molecules through collision.
Since N2/O2 accounts for 99%+ of the atmosphere and all CO2, only 0.04%, it’s highly unlikely CO2 could make a significant contribution to atmospheric warming.
You alarmists need to shelf the theories of Tyndall and Arrhenius and get into the other methods of heat transfer by conduction and convection. That’s pretty well how the atmosphere works, not by radiation, as misrepresented by climate modelers.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why are you stuck on heat transfer by radiation?”
Because it exists and is fundamental to a planet’s climate.
You’re dumber than a rock for not understanding this or even admitting that radiation transfers heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Since N2/O2 accounts for 99%+ of the atmosphere and all CO2, only 0.04%, its highly unlikely CO2 could make a significant contribution to atmospheric warming.”
What calculations show this?
Of course, you have none whatsoever.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Its called heat transfer by conduction”
THINK, would you?
How does conductance explain MODERN WARMING?
Is there suddenly more conductance? IF so, why? Conductance of what?
Tim
I’m not totally convinced about the answer. The two earth’s are not just heated to 100 degrees, they are specifically heated by the sun. Solar radiation would somehow be absorbed and re-emitted as IR, right. This would be better absorbed by CO2 than the gasses it replaced. The CO2 would be continually heating “other stuff” like the walls, aerosols, water vapor, dust, etc. whereas nitrogen, oxygen would be less active in this respect.
Correction: Earth One gets heated to 100 degrees, but both are specifically heated by the sun.
Sir Isaac,
Tim loves adding internal heat sources as necessary. You might recollect I mentioned something to the effect that an object eventually reaches thermal equilibrium with the environment – say a teapot of hot tea, regardless of how good the tea cosy, or other insulation, works.
Tim immediately imagines a “constant heat source” within the tea pot.
Cannot accept reality. Placing more GHG between the Sun and the surface doesn’t add heat, no matter how Tim tries to convert the Suns external heat to an “internal heat source” heating the Earth. No magical one way insulators, no trapping or accumulation of energy. Anything that can be heated will also cool, if external heat sources are removed.
Just as an object on the Earth’s surface at night. It cools. No sunlight. No internal heater.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Placing more GHG between the Sun and the surface doesnt add heat”
Yet, Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
“Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222
David Appell,
And your point is? Are you disagreeing that either statement is true?
Have you located a disprovable GHE hypothesis yet, or still just trying the worn out foolish Warmist tactics of trying to deny, divert and confuse?
Newtons Law of universal gravitation can be expressed in one sentence. Nobody can express the GHE in any useful form, let alone that of a physical law, in any number of sentences.
That’s because it doesn’t exist (unless you have a rational alternative explanation, of course).
By the way, I’d require you to prove that you are rational, seeing as how you’re so keen on silly proofs.
Still no GHE – not even a disprovable GHE hypothesis!
Cheers.
Mike, my point was clear.
Even you understand that.
Though I’m sure it hurts to realize you’ve been caught in your own lies and inconsistencies.
Mike Flynn says:
“Nobody can express the GHE in any useful form, let alone that of a physical law, in any number of sentences.”
Already done:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263359
“Tim immediately imagines a constant heat source within the tea pot.”
… because in all of the analogies with teapots representing the earth, there needs to be a heat source to represent the sun.
Snape,
” Solar radiation would somehow be absorbed and re-emitted as IR, right.”
Not really. CO2 does not absorb well in any of the wavelengths emitted strongly by the sun.
Besides, it is not really material here. “Earth 1” would need to absorb a certain total number of joules of sunlight to warm to 100 C (depending on the mass, size, & composition). Where that energy gets absorbed doesn’t matter.
“The CO2 would be continually heating other stuff like the walls, aerosols, water vapor, dust, etc. whereas nitrogen, oxygen would be less active in this respect.”
Since it is postulated to be perfectly insulated, the energy will eventually spread out until everything is the same temperature. CO2 might hasten the route to equilibrium, but it doesn’t add any energy of its own. But it the energy was not absorbed by the CO2, it would be absorbed somewhere else.
Is this what you were referring to ?
“* Two identical, very large, perfectly insulted volumes. No energy can leave or enter the volumes, . . .”
The location of the temperature at which the insulation is presumable replaced is not stated. Is it the surface? Is it the average of the enclosed volume?
There are a few other defects. In my opinion, the question is ill defined. If you believe you can calculate an answer, and are willing, please do so, showing your assumptions. I won’t be all that surprised if you’ve made at least one assumption which was not specifically stated in the original “thought experiment”.
Do you disagree?
Cheers.
Mike,
Certainly many specific numbers are missing, but I wouldn’t call it “ill-posed”. Basically, G*s “two earths” problem boils down to applying:
Q = mcΔT.
ΔT was given. We were told there was only one Q (perfect insulation eliminates losses/gains other than the postulated solar input). We would need to be given m & c for EARTH 1 and then we could calculate the required Q from the sunlight.
By changing the m & c slightly (by changing the atmosphere), we would need a slightly different Q to achieve the same ΔT.
That is the entire physics of his scenario. No radiative properties or conductive properties or convective properties are needed to solve the problem. Just Q = mcΔT.
Tim,
We may be at crossed purposes.
I said “ill defined”, which you changed to “ill posed”, for purposes known only to yourself. I assume you had a particular purpose, otherwise you would just have quoted what I wrote.
I’m not sure what you are saying. I infer you are claiming that you have a simple answer to the question of what the temperatures would be for each scenario.
Is my assumption correct? Or are you saying in a roundabout way that you have insufficient information to provide a definitive answer. All the equations in the world plus $5 will buy you a cup of coffee in most airports. Equations by themselves are quite useless. Can you use the one you have to solve the problem in a provable fashion?
I didn’t believe so, but I’ll certainly examine your answer minutely to see if I can find fault with it. If I can, it’s not much use, is it?
No assumptions not specifically stated in the original question allowed, of course. Otherwise, you’ll no doubt invent some that favour yourself, I imagine.
Care to give it a try?
Cheers.
“I infer you are claiming that you have a simple answer to the question of what the temperatures would be for each scenario.”
I thought my comment was clear — no inference needed. G* proposed a thought experiment here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263253
He asked about final temperatures in two scenarios with identical heat input and slightly different mass & specific heat.
And I just told everyone how to solve that thought experiment. It is a freshman level calorimetry problem that any undergraduate physics, chemistry or engineering student could do using Q = mcΔT. The statement of the thought experiment says we know everything except T_final, so we can solve for that. The only semi-difficult part would be summing m(i)c(i) for each individual object in his world to get the overall mc (but this skill is also part of any good freshman calorietry experiment).
Tim
Ok, You’re probably right , but I’ll think on it a little more.
PLEASE NOTE: I didn’t say CO2 would absorb the sunlight, I said the sunlight would get absorbed “somehow”. CO2 would then absorb the resulting IR better than the gasses it had replaced.
Instead of the experiment proposed above, I would far more appreciate the following altermative based on three flat, closed buildings (1,000 m2, 5 m high) containing each
– an enclosure able to let all radiation escape outside (no greenhouse);
– a flat Earth simulation with 70% water and 30% land and a similar albedo of 30%;
– no poles, no tropics, they are superfluous in this simulation;
– a sun simulation whose temperature is such that evaporation, condensation and precipitation can be simulated where H2O is present.
We have then
– one Earth with as atmosphere: 78% N2, 21% O2, 1% Ar;
– one Earth with as atmosphere: 78% N2, 21% O2, 0.9% Ar, 0.1% H2O;
– one Earth with as atmosphere: 78% N2, 21% O2, 0.9% Ar, 0.096% H2O, 0.04% CO2.
And then we let the three systems ‘work’, and measure, during some period of time:
– temperature at the surface;
– IR:
— emitted by the surface;
— reaching the ‘TOA’, i.e. the enclosure;
— radiated back by the ‘atmosphere’.
What would we see?
Bindidon,
You would see whatever you wanted to see. Just like the multitudinous computer games posing as climate models will produce any desired result.
You could try consulting an astrologer or fortune teller. Or just guess.
Do you have point? Have you tried using physics to obtain an answer?
Deny, divert, and confuse?
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. That might be a good place to start, if you could find it.
Cheers.
THree times, at least, that MF has admitted the greenhouse effect:
Mike Flynn says:
May 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM
“Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247260
—
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
—
Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222
David Appell,
What relevance do your your random postings have to the lack of a disprovable GHE hypothesis?
You’re not disagreeing with anything I wrote, apparently.
The GHE exists only in your fevered fantasy. In the real world, the GHE does not exist.
I’ve just quoted fact. If there was a disprovable GHE hypothesis, I’m fairly sure you would have triumphantly waved it around by now. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Still no GHE!
Cheers.
Mike, I knew you’d flake out. You always do.
Meanwhile, everyone else here will read my comment and see your hypocrisy.
David Appell,
I don’t know about hypocrisy, but others can see you can’t even find anything wrong with what I wrote.
You might the find the facts inconvenient, but that won’t make them go away, will it?
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis, David? Too simple to write down? Maybe too complicated for anyone in the world to comprehend?
Science is not about agreement or democracy. It’s about fact. Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics. Bad luck for Einstein. It didn’t make quantum mechanics go away.
Where’s your disprovable GHE hypothesis? Do you think it’s hypocritical to pretend that the GHE exists, without even the need for some sort of disprovable GHE hypothesis?
Definitely sounds like Feynman’s Cargo Cult Science to me, rather than real science.
Maybe you can wish the GHE into existence if you concentrate hard enough, but I’m a little doubtful.
Cheers.
There wasn’t anything wrong with what you wrote about the greenhouse effect!
That’s the whole point, pal.
David Appell,
Thank you for your support. You wrote –
“There wasnt anything wrong with what you wrote about the greenhouse effect!”
I presume you were referring to me writing –
“The GHE exists only in your fevered fantasy. In the real world, the GHE does not exist.”
If you keep agreeing with me, pretty soon you won’t find anything to complain about.
Still no GHE, thanks for agreeing.
Cheers.
No, I was referring to all these claims of yours, where you described the mechanism of the GHE.
Gotcha! {smirk}
—
Mike Flynn says:
May 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM
“Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247260
—
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
—
Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
“Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222
Maybe you can add this to the list, David.
warmer at night – with GHGs that is
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263232
Good. Thanks barry.
Another nomination (‘lesser’ compared to the warmer source I guess):
“For fun, replacing CO2 with a thin piece of wood results in even greater opacity. Nobody seriously proposes wood as having temperature raising properties (unless you burn it, I suppose). So where does the blocked radiation go? It heats the wood, of course, which proceeds to radiate at a lesser intensity in all directions. Just as CO2, or anything else.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251146
Mike Flynn on September 17, 2017 at 4:59 PM
You would see whatever you wanted to see.
I disagree. Simply because I would never start such an experiment with all contributors, engineers and spectators thinking the like.
I have no idea of how you think. But don’t forget that the inverse holds as well.
Have you tried using physics to obtain an answer?
Which physics?
Maybe only the one you prefer, which seems to view all physics trying to explain GHE as a ridiculous joke?
Chamberlain, Pierrehumbert, to name only two examples: do such people even exist for you?
Bindidon,
Disagree as much as you like – it makes no difference at all.
Which physics? The same sort supposedly used to come up with the nonsense generated by the multitudinous so-called “climate models”. Maybe you’re right. Maybe the models are based on fantasy, rather than physics.
Chamberlain, Pierrehumbert exist, as far as I know. What’s your point?I assume you are talking about the geologist T C Chamberlain, and the physicist R Pierrehumbert.
Chamberlain speculated, as far as I know. Pierrehumbert stated “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.” From memory, Pierrehumbert calculated the insulating effect of the atmosphere to be equivalent to one-seventh of an inch of polystyrene. Not much heating effect there, placed between yourself and the Sun, is there?
No sign of a disprovable GHE hypothesis anywhere. If you are trying to appeal to authority, maybe you need to find a convincing authority.
Still no GHE. You’re right, the whole thing is ridiculous – if it’s a joke, it’s a very, very, expensive one, with no obvious punchline.
Keep trying to deny, divert, and confuse. Have you tried shouting “The GHE exists!!” very loudly, while jumping up and down, and vigorously waving your hands in the air? In the absence of a disprovable GHE hypothesis, it might work – what do you think?
Cheers.
Mike…”…and the physicist R Pierrehumbert”.
That’s a stretch.
https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/pierrehumbert
“I am engaged in a wide variety of theoretical and computation investigations concerning the climate dynamics of exoplanets, of Solar System planets, and of the Early Earth”.
Apparently, just the background you need to be an expert in climate science [/sarc off].
Sounds a lot like the background of James Hansen when he applied his physics degree to astronomy, then climate modeling.
Then you have real climate scientists like John Christy, who has a bona fide degree in climate science plus indisputable data to go with it. Based on both, John Christy claims ‘little or no warming’ the past 38 years, whereas Pierrehumbert, with a background in the atmosphere of exoplanets, raves on about catastrophic warming.
Plus the fact Pierrehumbert has a silly beard.
Gordon, the world’s best theoretical physicist of the last 20 years has a bachelor’s degree in history.
Discuss.
GR, You only whine about people’s degrees because you can’t disprove their science. All of them are smarter than you, and way more accomplished… and, ironically, you’re just an engineer who has no qualifications whatsoever for opining about climate science. So it’s past time for you to shut up.
David Appell,
you wrote –
” . . .who has no qualifications whatsoever for opining about climate science.”
This would be similar to the pretend scientist Gavin Schmidt, I suppose? I believe that the IPCC was headed by an engineer initially – Pachaury. At least he was a Special Class Railway Apprentice – I don’t believe even James Hansen could aspire to that.
Given that climate is the average of weather events which have already ocurred, and the IPCC states that it is impossible to predict future climate states, what qualifications would be needed to opine on the climate?
Still no GHE, though David, qualifications notwithstanding.
Cheers.
No — Gavin is smarter than you, Gordon, and g* put together.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“1+1=3”, except he mentioned the GHE.
Which is just as idiotic as always.
David Appell,
You wrote –
“No Gavin is smarter than you, Gordon, and g* put together.”
Gavin’s not terribly bright if he think a 38% chance makes 2014 the “Hottest year EVAH!”.
50% is better, and you can get that by something as simple as tossing a coin.
You’d have to be just a bit dim to claim 38 chances in a hundred was better odds than 50 chances in a hundred. Ah, the wonders of “climate science”.
Maybe Gavin is smarter than Einstein, Newton, Kelvin, and Tyndall all put together!
They all got things wrong, so he would no doubt make even better mistakes – like the belief in the non-existent GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Gavins not terribly bright if he think a 38% chance makes 2014 the Hottest year EVAH!.”
Gavin made a scientifically accurate claim.
Naturally, that confused people like you.
David Appell,
You wrote –
“Gavin made a scientifically accurate claim.” – of probability, after the event!
May I point out that if something occurred, it has become a fact. There is no probability involved. Whether someone like Gavin Schmidt thought is was likely or unlikely is irrelevant. It happened. It’s now in the past.
Maybe what you meant to say is that Gavin plucked a figure out of the air to seem less silly than he appeared. Or maybe he meant to say he didn’t have a clue about the “Hottest year EVAH!”, so thought obfuscation was the best tactic.
On the other hand, he did chair the “First International workshop on Climate Informatics”, I believe. I presume there wasn’t a Second International Workshop on Climate informatics.
Or you might say that Gavin was making an unsupported supposedly mathematical assumption, unproven and pointless though it might be. You might even claim that Gavin Schmidt is smarter than three ordinary people together. That would give him an IQ of 300, I guess.
Pardon me while I snort derisively! At this point, I’d be inclined to say “Good luck with proving THAT!”, but I’m far too couth.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn on September 17, 2017 at 5:44 PM
I assume you are talking about the geologist T C Chamberlain…
No. I’m talking about Joseph W. Chamberlain:
Chamberlain, J.W., Hunten, D.M., 1987. Theory of Planetary Atmospheres: An Introduction to their Physics and Chemistry.
http://tinyurl.com/m2ad2r3
Up to you to discredit such work; I don’t.
Mike Flynn says:
“May I point out that if something occurred, it has become a fact. There is no probability involved.”
This is a profoundly unscientific statement, revealing you do not understand the essence of science at all.
binny…”Chamberlain, Pierrehumbert, to name only two examples: do such people even exist for you?”
Pierrehumbert, the resident guru at realclimate. Why is it the physics of Pierrehumbert disagrees with basic physics in general?
Gordon, are you ever going to explain how the Sun heats the Earth, since, according to you, heat transfer can only take place through mass?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why is it the physics of Pierrehumbert disagrees with basic physics in general?”
Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.
“Gordon, are you ever going to explain how the Sun heats the Earth…”
Davie, you’ve been preaching the Earth heats the Sun.
It does. It’s a matter of degrees.
David Appell,
Apparently, you believe the Earth heats the Sun. In response to someone querying this, you wrote –
“It does. Its a matter of degrees.”
May I politely ask that you practice what you preach, as in when you wrote to someone else –
“Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.”
Just a suggestion.
Cheers.
David Appell
I think the semantics is what is driving this point. I do not know if you should use the word combination that the Earth “heats” the Sun. Based upon the accepted definition of heat (net energy flow between objects of different temperature), the Earth will not heat the Sun. But the existence of the Earth in the solar system will allow the Sun to reach a slightly higher equilibrium surface temperature to balance the energy generated at its core by fusion. The NET energy exchange between Sun and Earth is less radiant loss for the Sun than if the Earth was not present. The Sun heats up a bit to shed the same amount of energy not lost by having the Earth present. And the amount is extremely small. Once the new equilibrium is reached the Sun doe not change temperature so the Earth does nothing more to the Sun’s temperature besides an initial effect of an Earth not present to one with the Earth present.
Norman, this isn’t complicated:
The Earth radiates EM radiation.
This radiation carries energy.
Some of this radiation will strike the Sun.
When radiation strikes a blackbody like the Sun, all its energy is absorbed.
Absorbing energy increase a body’s temperature.
David Appell
Your thought process is almost correct but not quite. It is not a foregone conclusion that a black body absorbing incoming radiant energy will increase in temperature.
Temperature increase requires a NET increase of energy. A black body receiving a constant amount of incoming radiant energy will initially rise in temperature but once an equilibrium temperature is reached with input radiant energy equaling outgoing radiant energy. there will be no more temperature change.
The Sun and Earth have already reached an equilibrium state hence the Earth will no longer raise the Sun’s temperature. It would only be a one time condition based upon no Earth present to one with an Earth present. Once established there will be no further warming taking place.
DA…”When radiation strikes a blackbody like the Sun, all its energy is absorbed”.
No one said the Sun is a blackbody, only you. A blackbody is a theoretical concept that represents a perfect absorber/emitter. The Sun can be claimed to approximate a BB since it has such a broad EM spectrum but no one has ever proved it is a perfect absorber or anywhere near it.
The 2nd law claims that heat can be transferred via radiation only from hot to cold, under normal conditions. Transferring energy to a body in excess of a million degrees C is hardly normal and presuming that hot body would absorb energy from the Earth is even more abnormal.
The core of the Earth is close to the temperature of the surface of the Sun. Next you’ll be telling us surface heat penetrates the crust and mantle, against the flow of the 2nd law, and warms the core.
DA…”Gordon, are you ever going to explain how the Sun heats the Earth, since, according to you, heat transfer can only take place through mass?”
The explanation requires some thought and you won’t find it in anything written by Pierrehumbert.
True, heat is not transferred through space from Sun to Earth. On the Sun, heat (thermal energy) is converted to EM as it radiates. EM does not have heat as a property and it is quite content to flow through space doing nothing till it contacts mass.
If the solar EM contacts the Earth’s surface it is converted back to heat by electrons in the atoms of the surface. Heat transfer in that context means a slight decrease in solar energy on the Sun and a slight increase in heat on the Earth’s surface.
Elementary my dear Watson.
binny…” an enclosure able to let all radiation escape outside (no greenhouse);”
Good grief, you don’t think greenhouses work by trapping IR, do you? That was disproved in 1909 by Woods, who concluded greenhouses warm due to a lack of convection.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html
If you want to talk about heat trapping look no further than a real greenhouse. The glass traps molecules of air that accumulate heat due to being trapped. There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere, where convection is rife.
Nobody believes that Woods’ paper. You’re looking desperate.
If it was all due to convection, this curve would be that of a true blackbody. It isn’t.
“Taking the measure of the greenhouse effect”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
It’s telling how all of you deniers are so afraid of addressing this simple piece of evidence.
Bin,
There is a lot missing from your scenario. For example, are these buildings on earth with regular earth atmosphere above? Are these buildings floating independently in deep space with nothing above? something else? There are a few other things you might specify too (like how you can have 70% water on the surface, but no water vapor in the atmosphere!)
In any case, you would see very little effect in any of these cases! To have a significant effect on outgoing radiation (and hence on temperatures within the system), the top of the atmosphere must be a significantly different (lower) temperature than the surface. In an atmosphere, this difference is basically limited by convection and the adiabatic lapse rate. In a 5 m tall building, the temperature difference will be minimal from top to bottom. As such, the GHE would be minimal.
Tim Folkerts on September 17, 2017 at 7:49 PM
I guess our today’s measurement instruments are precise enough to tell us about even microscopic differences.
The main goal anyway would be to show to ignorants the differences in IR at ‘TOA’ between field 1 (N2/O2/Ar) and the two others.
Where is the problem of slightly increasing H2O/CO2 in order to see if there is a level where the differences begin to be visible, and where that level is.
Maybe my idea is nonsense! No se.
If I would know it isn’t, I would tell why.
AGW is now in the process of ending.
But said that it ended 15 years ago.
You have the credibility of a walnut.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Come now David, define “over the coming years”.
It’s well established in foolish Warmist tradition, that if a prediction does not come to pass in a certain period, the period is lengthened.
One must be even-handed, surely.
The usual predictive period is that which will end after the retirement or death of the predictor.
Take this 1988 prediction by James Hansen –
The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. Hansen didn’t demur when a time frame of 20 years was proposed. 20 years passed. West Side Highway apparently hadn’t flooded.
Then, he stated the event would happen in 40 years. Now we have to wait until 2028.
I can give other examples if needed, of course.
Cheers.
I didn’t write “over the coming years.” Why don’t you ask the author? Or why are you addressing all your own misdeeds and confusions?
David Appell,
I’m not asking the author. You apparently couldn’t be bothered. Who cares? I think you mentioned the commenter had the “credibility of a walnut”, based on your own unsupported assertion.
Others may choose to decide whose credibility to choose.
You can’t apparently bring yourself to quote specific “misdeeds” and “confusions”. If you can’t find any, might I suggest you look under the missing disprovable GHE hypothesis. Alternatively, it could be with Trenberth’s missing heat and Mike Mann’s Nobel Prize.
Good luck. You might need it.
Cheers.
I’ve quoted your misdeeds thoroughly over recent months.
You’re as bad as Salvatore — no problems lying again and again, and always afraid to confront the evidence.
David Appell,
It’s extremely difficult to confront evidence of the non-existent, probably because it doesn’t exist.
You can’t even find evidence of a disprovable GHE hypothesis. Pretending that you have one somewhere, but can’t lay your hands on it just at present, is reminiscent of Rumfeld’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I know in your case you’d prefer Weapons of Mass Distraction, but you can’t even seem to locate any of those.
Maybe you could cry and stamp your feet. Have you asked Gavin Schmidt for some assistance, or is he involved trying to save his sinecure? Maybe the thought of having to do some real work makes him blind to your entreaties.
Keep at it David. Have you thought of trying to buy some respect, if you find you are unable to earn some? I could always lend you a dollar, if you think it would help.
Let me know.
Cheers.
Hypothesis: if there were no greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of a planet would be specified by its albedo and solar irradiance.
Hypothesis: if there were no greenhouse effect, a planet’s outgoing radiation spectrum would be a blackbody spectrum at the planet’s surface temperature.
Hypothesis: A planet’s greenhouse effect means its average surface temperature is greater than its brightness temperature.
Hypothesis: A planet’s greenhouse effect means a measurable increase in the downwelling infrared radiation reaching its surface.
Dave you just do not pay attention. I said if solar parameters meet my criteria following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general that global cooling will take place, due to lower overall sea surface temperatures and an increase in albedo.
Solar did not meet the requirements I said which would be needed to initiate global cooling until THIS year David ,not 5 years ago, 10 years ago or even 1 year ago.
This year solar is slowly getting to my criteria and it is still not all the way there yet, but getting closer and solar should be before this year is out completely within my criteria, therefore my confidence level is quite high.
Solar let me repeat should have not caused any global cooling until year 2017 because prior to this year the solar conditions necessary for having a cooling effect were not present.
At one time I thought solar from years 2010 -2016 was going to be much less active then it turned out to be.
Salvatore, please don’t lie to me — I have you on tape:
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“At one time I thought solar from years 2010 -2016 was going to be much less active then it turned out to be.”
So just say it: “I, Salvatore del Prete, was wrong.”
Seriously, Salvatore: don’t you ever get tired of looking like an idiot? Don’t you have any self-pride?
Don’t you ever get tried of misrepresenting someone?
You were wrong:
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
Salvatore has been asked many times to clarify his prediction in terms of time frames and what he expects to see. It’s hard to pin him down, and often his answers look nothing like a global climate prediction.
Eg,
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
He’s predicting the temperature of one season.
So here’s his most concise long-term forecast.
“HERE IS MY CLIMATE FORECAST…
…So lets say a moderate El NINO develops and last around 9 months that would take us to the end of 2017 /early 2018.
At that time that is when the global temperatures will fall below the 30 year running normal.
It will be fast not slow when it happens.
Now if El Nino should fizzle and major volcanic activity picks up this dramatic cooling below the 30 year avg. will come before the end of year 2017.
So my climate outlook is, this is the end of the warm period. It has one year or less to go and when it ends the global temperatures will fall fast and be below the 30 year running normal and stay there.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/brace-yourselves-snowstorm-to-breed-global-warming-hysteria/#comment-240057
He’s still predicting weather in the first part, but in the latter he’s committed to a long-term (global climate) prediction.
—————————————————–
Trouble is, he’s been making the same prediction – cooling will happen from now (or has been happening since 2002) or from next year – for 10 years.
10 years of shifting the goalposts when predictions fail is why David calls him on it by reminding him of what he’s said in the past.
We can check on Sal’s prediction in a year’s time. I think it’s possible, but unlikely we’ll get monthly global temp anomalies below 30-year means (UAH), and if we don’t, we can see what Salvatore says. He’s basically committed his disbelief in AGW to this prediction, so a failure should produce an interesting post from him.
Or more of what he’s done consistently for years.
Barry,
It was because the sun did not cooperate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245575
Correct Barry, but remember my climate prediction is based on very low solar parameters following 10+ years of sub solar activity and these two conditions have not taken place until year 2017.
I never predicted global cooling to take place if solar activity was above my stated criteria.
I know that, Salvatore. I’ve followed the conversation through the months.
I’m concerned that if temps don’t go as you predict, you will find something else to say that you had not factored for (maybe ENSO or whatever).
Will you commit to your prediction if solar does as you predict?
And, in that regard, could you say with numbers what the maximum solar value would have to be coming up for your prediction parameter to be valid? Ie, anything below ‘x’ amount is within the bounds of your prediction.
Yes for sure, if solar does as I predict and temperatures do not fall I will be WRONG.
solar flux avgerage sub 90
solar wind avg sub 350/km per sec
cosmic ray counts 6500 or higher
euv light less then 100 units
uv light off by 5% or more
ap index avg. 5 or less with random spikes
solar irradiance off .1 or more
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
Mike – from upthread:
Cooler during the day, warmer at night – with GHGs that is.
Why is it warmer at night with GHGs? What do GHGs do?
Barry,
You wrote –
“Why is it warmer at night with GHGs? What do GHGs do?”
That looks like a sorry attempt at a “gotcha” to me!
Do you really not know? If you can provide me with some evidence that you have made a serious attempt to find out the answer for yourself without success, I’ll help you, of course.
I’d suggest you start with basic physics, or apply one of the basic radiative transfer equations, if you already know the physics involved.
Please let me know in more detail what it is that you don’t understand, and what effort you have made to help yourself.
Cheers.
David Appell
You wrote:
Snape says:
[The thing is, the longer IR spends being absorbed and re-emitted, from molecule to molecule or between atmosphere and surface, the more new energy (from solar input) has been emitted.
I suggest you put some real numbers behind your claim.
What is the mean free path of an IR photon emitted by the surface?
How many times, on average, is IR absorbed by a CO2 molecule?
What is the lifetime of CO2s excited states?
At what average altitude does an IR photon escape to space?]
David, I’ve been working on a metaphor that uses really easy math to explain what I think is the GHE. If I used “real” numbers (specific to Earth) like you suggest, it gets messy and confusing, at least for me.
Do you think the GHE would not work on other, similar planets, which would have completely different temperatures and rates?
Yes, of course the greenhouse effects exists on other planet — Venus and Mars that we know of — and it will exist on any planet that has greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.
Because physics.
If you can’t put real numbers to your idea, you idea is not scientific.
David
That’s fair
I’m using real numbers. But the sort kids use in grade school.
Mike Flynn says:
“That looks like a sorry attempt at a gotcha to me!”
Translation: answering your question would reveal how wrong I am. So I’ll just hold my breath until I turn blue.
+1 for barry.
There seems to be a fantasy fight going on here.
The dispute seems to be centred around who can not predict the future better (or worse) than someone else.
Isn’t this all a wee bit pointless? The future remains fantasy until the future becomes the past, and facts are revealed as what they are – not what they might be.
If the future could be predicted accurately, but only benefiting some, then everyone else would take advantage to the benefit of all, not just some, and the future would thereby be changed, demonstrating that the prediction was wrong. Something of a paradox.
What everybody wants, of course, is the ability to predict the future in some secret fashion, to the benefit of the predictor. This is thought to be brought about by sacrifices of virgins, small children, animals, (or your enemies will do, ) or payments to leaders of cults, oracles, churches or magically gifted persons. Devout prayer to the gods, perhaps?
None of it seems to work. Future sellers are all frauds, whether well meaning, or just plain deluded and ignorant. Assumptions based on physics seem to work as well as anything, even when someone comes along and proves you wrong, as happened with Newtons Laws of Motion, after Einstein showed that their predictions weren’t always correct.
And so it goes.
Whatever you call it, prediction, projection, option or whatever, until I believe its as reliable as the prediction that my car will stop when I apply the brakes, it’s of little use to me.
Fight on chaps.
Cheers.
mike…”The future remains fantasy until the future becomes the past…”
The past is as much a fantasy as the future. We humans have a way of ordering the past mentally in a chronological fashion. We can even order the future in our imagination, like talking about the year 2080. We call that ordering ‘time’ and some humans believe it exists external to the human mind and separate from thought.
Another fantasy.
Some humans are in such a deep fantasy that they think time can be moved to the LHS of an equation and stand as an independent variable. Then they can dilate it and claim time stretches with their other fabrication ‘space’, based on coordinate systems we invented.
The only reality is ‘now’ and that now has no time factor. In other words, what we are experiencing now is pretty much what people experienced 2000 years ago. Think parallel and not back (past) or forward (future). All that’s changed is physical features due to corrosion and a lot of buildings, bridges, and things we have erected. We have developed technology as well and different ways of behaving.
None of that has anything to do with time.
Gordon,
From Kung Fu Panda –
“The past is history, the future’s a mystery. All there is, is now, and it’s a gift. That’s why it’s called the present.”
Or something similar. Good enough for me.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
September 18, 2017 at 2:26 AM
“The only reality is now and that now has no time factor”
Wrong. It was 2:26 am when you wrote that.
DA…”The only reality is now and that now has no time factor
Wrong. It was 2:26 am when you wrote that”.
What are you using to calculate the time, a digital watch or a rusty, old alarm clock?
You don’t get it, do you? Your device is generating time, not measuring it. There is no time to measure. Unless clocks are synchronized to GMT they all generate different times.
In your mind there is a time difference between my now and your now. I am claiming neither exist, therefore I am not wrong to live in the real now. If you want to create an alternative reality, fill your boots.
Mike Flynn says:
“Whatever you call it, prediction, projection, option or whatever, until I believe its as reliable as the prediction that my car will stop when I apply the brakes, its of little use to me.”
You never specified all the parameters necessary to predict the future. CO2 emissions, solar variations, volcanic eruptions, etc.
Why not?
Mars has about 25 trillion tonne of CO2 as it’s atmosphere and equals about 28 times more CO2 per square meter than Earth does.
Would there be any warming effect if 25 trillion tonnes of nitrogen gas was added to Mars atmosphere?
How much of effect?
Mars average atmospheric pressure is about 6 mbars or
0.087 psi and so it would double it, and thereby increase the temperature needed to boil water on Mars
gbaikie…”Mars has about 25 trillion tonne of CO2 as its atmosphere and equals about 28 times more CO2 per square meter than Earth does”.
Are they predicting catastrophic warming and climate change on Mars?
Elon Musk believes in catastrophic warming and climate change on Earth, and he wants to go to Mars.
It is thought that in the past, Mars rotational axis has changed.
Now with Earth it is changing a little bit, but with Mars it thought to changed a lot in the past.
But I would add that due to lack of knowledge regarding Mars, the discussion of the past tends to be billions of years ago, so Mars might be quite safe, in terms having any changes in it’s axial spin.
Hmm, though this seems to dispute what I said:
“Modern-day Mars experiences cyclical changes in climate and, consequently, ice distribution. Unlike Earth, the obliquity (or tilt) of Mars changes substantially on timescales of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. At present day obliquity of about 25-degree tilt on Mars’ rotational axis, ice is present in relatively modest quantities at the north and south poles (top left).”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia15095.html#.WcAMFrhuksY
Hmm, what else:
“WASHINGTON — NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) has discovered the total amount of atmosphere on Mars changes dramatically as the tilt of the planet’s axis varies. This process can affect the stability of liquid water if it exists on the Martian surface and increase the frequency and severity of Martian dust storms.
…
The newly found deposit has a volume similar to Lake Superior’s nearly 3,000 cubic miles. The deposit holds up to 80 percent as much carbon dioxide as today’s Martian atmosphere. Collapse pits caused by dry ice sublimation and other clues suggest the deposit is in a dissipating phase, adding gas to the atmosphere each year. Mars’ atmosphere is about 95 percent carbon dioxide, in contrast to Earth’s much thicker atmosphere, which is less than .04 percent carbon dioxide.
“We already knew there is a small perennial cap of carbon-dioxide ice on top of the water ice there, but this buried deposit has about 30 times more dry ice than previously estimated,” said Roger Phillips of Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, ”
https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/apr/HQ_11-118_Mars_Atmosphere.html
AND:
Wobbles in the rotation of Mars swung the planet into about 40 extreme ice ages in the past 5 million years and allowed thick ice layers to remain far away from the poles, an astronomer says.
…
Earth’s rotation axis is tilted by about 23.5 degrees, a slant that is pretty much fixed due to the gravitational influence of our moon. Mostly due to Mars’ lack of a stabilizing moon, its tilt can wobble as much as 10 degrees from the current 25-degree angle. ”
https://www.space.com/4333-wobbles-mars-produced-40-ice-ages.html
Oh, ok, they just talking about 10 degrees, I meant larger.
Note, re earth:
“Obliquity (change in axial tilt)
As the axial tilt increases, the seasonal contrast increases so that winters are colder and summers are warmer in both hemispheres. Today, the Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php
Or roughly Earth has shorter duration and smaller change in degrees, as apparently compared to Mars.
But one could say the slowness of Mars change in axis could seem to be less catastrophic.
More:
“The standard assumptions about how the variations in the Earth’s orbit influences changes in climate are called Milankovitch cycles. According to these principles, the Earth’s tilt influenced ice sheet formation during the Ice Ages, the slow wobble that occurs on a 23,000-year cycle as the Earth rotates around the sun called precession affects the Tropics and the shape of the Earth’s orbit that occurs on a 100,000-year cycle controls how much energy the Earth receives.
“This study was interesting in that when we started doing the spectral analysis, the 41,000-year tilt cycle started showing up in the Tropics. That’s not supposed to be there. That’s not what the textbooks tell us,” DeLong said.
This finding shows that the tilt of the Earth plays a much larger part in ITCZ migration than previously thought, which will enable climate scientists to better predict extreme weather events. Historically, the collapse of the Mayan civilization and several Chinese dynasties have been linked to persistent droughts associated with the ITCZ. This new information is critical to understanding global climate and sustainable human socioeconomic development, the researchers said. ”
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-earth-tilt-climate.html
Got to love the “more than we thought” stuff.
Anyways there is 3 of them- tilt, precession and orbital eccentricity. I was going to say it’s the 3 axis, but it isn’t, right? It makes me dizzy.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Are they predicting catastrophic warming and climate change on Mars?”
Good lord you’re stupid.
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
Are they predicting catastrophic warming and climate change on Mars? Good lord youre stupid”.
Hit a nerve, DA? Are they projecting catastrophic warming on Mars due to it having 4 times the CO2 of Earth?
Tell us why not. Go on, have a go.
28 times as much per square meter as compared Earth.
Mars also has small amount of water vapor- 210 ppm.
Or Mars isn’t water planet, rather it is cold desert world
with average temperature of -50 C or less and has some water
vapor.
re: “The deposit holds up to 80 percent as much carbon dioxide as todays Martian atmosphere.”
So rather than add 25 trillion tonnes of N2. one could add 25 times .8 of CO2 [by nuking it].
Which seems much easier than getting 25 trillion tonnes of N2.
{I spend some time looking around for some nitrogen which would be cheap [or cheaper] to get. Or was looking at moons of Jupiter-
Ganymede was somewhat interesting it that regard, very little is known [and European are planing to go there in 2022 [Not sure of progress of that mission]. But anyhow it has some ammonia- but all it’s strangeness was a bit distracting. And it’s high levels radiation from Jupiter’s magnetosphere and etc.]
Now an advantage of nitrogen is it would stay in the atmosphere- but very expensive compared to a couple dozen nukes.
But also wanted to know if believer or non- believers thought about added a non greenhouse gas to a greenhouse gas- in terms of “warming”.
Am I late to the party? A La Nina seems to be forming according to NOAA:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
This is a NOAA projection based on fudged SSTs and models. Could be a lot worse than they are projecting.
Question: how strong a La Nina is required to offset 2016 and return the no trend condition to 20 years?
Gordon, how does the heat of the Sun get to Earth, with no mass in between?
DA…”Gordon, how does the heat of the Sun get to Earth, with no mass in between?”
Simple, it uses electromagnetic energy to transfer the heat. We call it heat transfer by radiation.
DA…you might ask how a Scotsman warms his bum by lifting his kilt in front of the fire. IR from the fire is absorbed by his skin and raises its temperature.
Meantime, the fire raises the temperature of N2/O2 directly, which tends to warm the entire room via convection. You don’t think radiation could warm the entire room by heating the 0.04% that is CO2, do you?
Mike, it’s a question, not a gotcha. You have posted comments at different times that seem to contradict, so I’m trying to get clarity on your views.
Let’s try again.
Cooler during the day, warmer at night with GHGs that is.
Why is it warmer at night with GHGs? What do GHGs do? Please clarify.
barry,
Maybe you could quote the comments which seem to be contradictory. I can provide clarity, no doubt.
You seem to be reluctant to back up what you say, and have apparently made precisely no effort to help yourself.
Please quote those comments which you find contradictory. I think you’re making stuff up, but I’m happy enough to be proven wrong.
There’s a saying that God helps those who help themselves. I try to follow that example.
Back up your assertion with direct quotes, and I’ll be able to set your mind at rest. I’m fairly certain I haven’t said anything contradictory. The GHE doesn’t exist, there isn’t even a disprovable GHE hypothesis, and Gavin Schmidt’s an undistinguished mathematician.
Michael Mann wasn’t awarded a Nobel Prize, and GHGs (so called) have nothing to do with greenhouses apart from CO2 and H2O being essential for plant growth.
I can’t see a contradiction there, but maybe you can quote me exactly, if there’s something you can’t understand. Have you considered you may be unable to comprehend what I write? Maybe you have a mental defect of which you are unaware. You wouldn’t know, would you?
if you can’t or won’t provide my exact words in context, then you are trying for a “gotcha”. With little success, it would appear.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Please quote those comments which you find contradictory.”
Mike Flynn says:
May 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM
“Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247260
—
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
—
Mike Flynn says:
September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
“Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222
We can take a quote from your post just now:
“The GHE doesnt exist”
The GHE that you say doesn’t exist is purported to keep surface temps warmer than they would be without GHGs.
So I draw your attention again to your words: the context was our discussion about humid regions being warmer at night than arid regions (deserts). In that discussion you said that GHGs provide a cooling effect, not warming, so I asked about night-time temps in order to remove solar influence and focus purely on atmospheric effect.
Cooler during the day, warmer at night – with GHGs that is.
Why is it warmer at night with GHGs?
Fixing formatting…
We can take a quote from your post just now:
“The GHE doesn’t exist”
The GHE that you say doesnt exist is purported to keep surface temps warmer than they would be without GHGs.
So I draw your attention again to your words: the context was our discussion about humid regions being warmer at night than arid regions (deserts). In that discussion you said that GHGs provide a cooling effect, not warming, so I asked about night-time temps in order to remove solar influence and focus purely on atmospheric effect, comparing high GHG regions (high humidity) with low GHG regions (deserts). In that discussion (linked above) you said:
Cooler during the day, warmer at night – with GHGs that is.
Why is it warmer at night with GHGs?
barry,
So what are the comments that you find contradictory? What’s so hard about directly quoting two comments that you find contradictory? Other than the fact you can’t find any, of course!
“The GHE doesn’t exist” is indeed a direct quote. Good for you.
Now quote me where I’ve contradicted that statement. Of course you can’t. You make no attempt to answer your own question, then demand I answer your “gotcha”.
Or are you trying to imply that the other direct quote you provided contradicts the first?
That the GHE doesn’t exist is supported by the fact that the hottest places on Earth have the least amount of your magical GHGs in the atmosphere. I can’t see a contradiction. If you can, maybe you’re just thick. Or maybe it’s me?
Foolish Warmist. You can’t even find a disprovable GHE hypothesis to wave around. Do you really think that posing stupid “gotchas” will make one spring magically into existence?
You can’t even quote a couple of my supposed contradictory statements, let alone show that you have made even the slightest effort to answer your own question, presumably because you think you know the answer. You’re just being silly, unless you can demonstrate some evidence to the contrary.
Now’s your chance to deny, divert, and confuse. Ask your “gotcha” again. Einstein said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.
What will that make it? The third time? What different result are you expecting?
Still no GHE. Not even a disprovable GHE hypothesis.
Cheers.
barry,
I can only conclude that you are indeed, thick. You claim not to be able to understand how GHGs are supposed to work. You say that you can’t find out anywhere else, but provide no evidence at all.
You can’t even put two direct quotes you claim to be contradictory in the same post, probably because you think you might appear to be stupid – unless you’re only pretending, for some odd reason.
How many times do you intend to pose the same “gotcha” expecting a different result? Five times? Ten? Or possibly you might be chasing David Appell’s record of posting the same irrelevant thing over 50 times, claiming it was “evidence”. Of obsessive compulsive disorder, maybe.
You seem to have accepted the “cooler during the day” as not now being contradictory. Do you agree? If so, why the sudden change? A sudden attack of reality? If not, why not leave it in the “gotcha”?
Let me know why you think the surface should not be warmer at night with GHGs. I might take pity on you, and explain why you’re wrong. On the other hand, I might not, unless you grovel to my satisfaction. As I’m obviously the only person in the world you believe to provide an accurate answer (you did assure me that your question was genuine, and not a “gotcha”), I deserve some recognition for my obvious unique intellectual prowess.
What form of grovelling do you propose? I’m pretty open minded, so feel free to suggest a few alternatives.
Cheers.
barry, Mike Flynn is terrified of “gotchas.” He is afraid to answer any questions, because it’s too easy to show he’s full of sh!t.
Keep asking him.
Mike,
I said that the quotes – I’ve provided them both above – seem contradictory, and asked you to explain what you mean by the latter one to get some clarity.
Cooler during the day, warmer at night – with GHGs that is
I would like to know what you meant when you wrote that, because it seems contradictory to your statement that the GHE doesn’t exist.
Why is it warmer at night with GHGs?
This is your post where you said that – if that jogs your memory.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263232
I replied to your post explaining my solar criteria versus my climate prediction. Look back.
But to say again
I was wrong on solar activity thus my climate predictions were wrong in the past since they are based on solar activity.
barry,
Not even a good try. Why not just post the appropriate direct quotes which you claim are contradictory?
How hard can it be?
Are you blaming me for your incompetence? Not my fault if you can’t back up your assertions. “Gotchas” won’t help, even if you keep repeating them.
I can’t think of a single reason to respond, if you can’t even be bothered to post two direct quotes which you apparently find contradictory. Posting links is the refuge of foolish Warmists who attempt to confuse the issue.
Keep trying the same thing. Maybe it will produce a different result if you repeat it often enough, although it doesn’t seem terribly rational to me. Still won’t make the GHE a reality. Sad.
Cheers.
BARRY – I will go further and saying if overall oceanic temperatures do not fall despite La Nina and it cools that would not give me confidence in my prediction.
My prediction is low solar will equate to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a higher albedo.
Higher albedo due to an increase in global cloud coverage, snow coverage, major volcanic activity due to a more meridional N. Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, and a more meridional atmospheric circulation due to a decrease in EUV light , and an increase in galactic cosmic rays.
Major Volcanic activity due to very low solar wind /AP INDEX, with random spikes at times.
Lower overall sea surface temperatures due to a decrease in UV LIGHT.
That is what I want to see accompany the cooling if it come . La Nina will help of course but I want to see the cooling due to more then just that one item
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
Mike, I’ve posted your quotes and the links to your posts saying them.
Here they are one (link) after the other (link):
1. “The GHE doesnt exist”
2. “Cooler during the day, warmer at night – with GHGs that is”
Saying that GHGs keep temps warmer at night seems to contradict your statement that the GHE (‘greenhouse’ effect) doesn’t exist.
What did you mean by the statement that it’s warmer at night with GHGs?
barry,
Not at all. No heating, just a reduction in the rate of cooling. Basic physics.
Somewhat irrelevant, as you can’t even describe a disprovable GHE hypothesis, let alone a GHE theory. There is no GHE.
Maybe you could state the nature of the contradiction which you believe exists. I’ve stated a couple of facts. There is no disprovable GHE hypothesis. There is no GHE theory. You obviously accept this, otherwise you wouldn’t be concerned about a supposed contradiction.
Maybe you don’t believe that the less H2O there is in the atmosphere, as in the arid tropical desert, temperatures are the hottest in the world during the day. The Antarctic is similarly dry, and obtains the coldest temperatures on Earth.
No GHE needed.
I’ll let you work out the opposite situation for yourself – i.e. increased levels of, say, H2O, in the atmosphere. Try a non arid tropical location – maybe a rain forest or similar. Try making ice at night in a tropic rain forest. Too warm? Warmer than an arid tropical desert at night? No grovelling from you, no more help from me.
Still no GHE. Still no contradiction. Still no success with your “gotcha”. I haven’t contradicted myself, except in your fantasy world. Not my problem.
Cheers.
I didn’t mention “heating”
just a reduction in the rate of cooling. Basic physics.
That is how I (and many others) describe the ‘greenhouse’ effect. To whit:
More GHGs slow the rate at which the surface loses heat to space.
The EPA describes it very similarly:
“Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which the energy escapes to space…”
Are we in agreement here?
barry,
I’m glad that you didn’t mention heating, Neither did I. I leave that to people to claim that the Earth is heating – as in “Hottest year EVAH!”
Still trying for a “gotcha”. I see. No warming – cooling is not warming. Typical foolish Warmist misdirection. The EPA is just as silly as NASA. At night, the surface shows no signs of warming. Reduction in the rate of cooling does not result in warming. The temperature drops.
Still no contradiction, and your “gotcha” isn’t going too well. Foolish Warmists agreeing to a redefinition of cooling to mean warming, won’t make it so.
No GHE. CO2 heats nothing. Maybe you could adopt Tim Folkerts’ idea that “warming” and “heating” are different. One apparently results in a rise in temperature, and I’m not sure what the other does. What do you think “warms the Earth” means? I assume a rise in temperature, as opposed to “cools the Earth”, which might indicate a drop in temperatures.
You seem to be saying that warming is really cooling, just not as fast. The Earth has cooled over the last four and half billion years or so. Call it warming if you want. Good luck.
Cheers.
Why do you do this? “Maybe you could adopt Tim Folkerts idea that warming and heating are different. “
These are not “my” ideas; these are “basic physics” that you keep insisting on.
“Heating” is clearly defined in thermodynamics — a process that transfers thermal energy from one object to another due to a temperature difference.
“Warming” is simply rising temperature.
So — I can heat ice without warming it (the heat causes a phase change, but not a temperature change? I can warm my hands without heating them (by rubbing them together, which is work, not heat). Clearly they are two different concepts.
That is not REALLY that difficult to understand, is it? (And if it is, you need to go study some very BASIC thermodynamics!)
Tim,
I can’t actually find the definition of “warm” that you use. Maybe you can provide reference to your definition in a physics textbook.
The Oxford dictionary provides the following English synonyms for the verb “to warm” –
“heat, heat up, become warm, make warm, become hot, make hot, raise the temperature of, increase in temperature, thaw, thaw out, melt, take the chill off”
I draw your attention to the synonyms “heat” and “heat up”.
In English “to warm” apparently conveys the same meaning as “to heat”. At least according to lexicological authorities, if not yourself. Provide a reference to the term in a physics textbook which supports your definition, and I’ll certainly consider it.
As to rubbing you hands together warming them without heating, you’re off in dreamland. Friction generates heat. This is only from Wikipedia, but –
“When surfaces in contact move relative to each other, the friction between the two surfaces converts kinetic energy into thermal energy (that is, it converts work to heat)”
Maybe you need to move into the 19th century, at least. Interesting but misguided notions. I assume you also believe in the GHE, considering that a disprovable hypothesis, or even a quantifiable description of its supposed effect, is not at all necessary. Good luck with that.
Cheers.
tim f…”Heating is clearly defined in thermodynamics a process that transfers thermal energy from one object to another due to a temperature difference.
Warming is simply rising temperature”.
What you have described above is heat transfer, not heat. Heating is a rise in kinetic energy of atoms. Temperature is a human invention that compares changes in KE to the boiling point and freezing point of water as set points.
Tim…you need to stop listening to modern idiots who arbitrarily change laws set down by the likes of Clausius between 1850 and 1875. Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. I don’t give a hoot what an uninformed modern idiot calls it.
No gotcha here. Just trying to keep the conversation tightly focused and not spill out all over the place.
So we agree that the presence of GHGs = “a reduction in the rate of cooling.”
It would follow, I assume, that less or no GHGs, would mean a faster rate of cooling (isolating this action from other factors). Do you agree?
barry,
Why would I agree that that the presence of GHGs equals a reduction in the rate of cooling, as a blanket statement? It’s not true, is it? Why do you persist with such gotcha attempts?
No, I don’t agree. Try for another gotcha if you like.
While you are composing one, consider the case of an insulator reducing the rate of warming. Maybe we can agree that insulation can reduce the rate of cooling or reduce the rate of warming, depending on your desired outcome.
A vacuum flask is used to keep things cold, or keep things hot. Same flask, same physics.
You can agree with Ray Pierrehumbert that the atmosphere acts as an insulator. Seems reasonable to me. No GHE to be found there, unfortunately. No heating, no “Hottest year EVAH!”
Until you can actually state what the GHE is supposed to do, how it supposedly achieves it, and what the natural phenomenon is, that existing physics cannot explain without invoking the GHE mechanism, you’re wasting your time.
There is no GHE. There is no heating due to the presence of CO2 or H2O in the atmosphere.
But carry on with your gotchas. You might establish for yourself that the maximum rate of cooling occurs in a vacuum, in the absence of an external source of energy. You don’t need to believe me. Check it out for yourself. This answers your question, which of course you could have answered yourself if you weren’t so lazy.
Maybe it’s easier for you if you just believe that CO2 and H2O are evil, evil, evil, and we’re all doomed to roast, toast, grill, or fry, unless we obey the ragtag motley crew of self proclaimed climatologists.
You’d agree with that, surely?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Until you can actually state what the GHE is supposed to do, how it supposedly achieves it, and what the natural phenomenon is, that existing physics cannot explain without invoking the GHE mechanism, youre wasting your time”
How about this?
The transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.
David Appell,
Maybe should look up what transmittance is. I’m sure others have. Maybe it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Cheers.
Why would I agree that that the presence of GHGs equals a reduction in the rate of cooling, as a blanket statement? Its not true, is it?
It is what you have said.
Me: “What did you mean by the statement that its warmer at night with GHGs?”
You: “just a reduction in the rate of cooling. Basic physics.”
Are you now retracting this? Or do you hold to it?
Another Gotcha!
barry,
I said it doesn’t happen during the day – not a blanket statement. Notice the words “at night”.
Why should I retract something because of your inability to comprehend reasonably plain English?
Not only foolish Warmists blame otherfor their own incompetence, I’m sure.
Try again. Read harder, think more, as some foolish Warmists are wont to command.
Cheers.
For the La Nina specialists, some hints.
1. The El Nino outlouk at Japan’s Meteo Agency clearly shows that the transition to La Nina has been stopped:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170918/c33m4m7m.png
2. BOM’s ENSO wrapup page shows no La Nina
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI
3. Klaus Wolters MEI is still above zero:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
During the last 10 years there has never been real La Nina conditions before the MEI index clearly showed that.
Not that it would disturb me when La Nina comes around!
That means cooling, and… I have nothing against moderate cooling, as it might prevent harsh cooling!
I have much against people telling about cooling where unfortunately there very probably is none.
ENSO predictions are not reliable, remember EL NNO was being predicted not very long ago.
But from my standpoint it is overall sea surface temperatures that matter for my prediction.
Bindidion,
You wrote –
“Chamberlain, Pierrehumbert, to name only two examples: do such people even exist for you?”
Well, out of all the Chamberlains and Pierrehumberts in history, I guessed one right. Typical foolish Warmist ploy. Don’t actually specify who you’re referring to. Let people guess, and exult if they guess wrong.
I’m not sure what your point is. Chamberlain wrote a book So did Pierrehumbert. Pierrehumbert said CO2 acts as an insulator.
What does Chamberlain say about the GHE? Does he agree with Pierrehumbert? If not, who do you you prefer as an authority?
Foolish Warmists often appeal to authority, but get confused if their “authorities” disagree, or don’t actually state what the foolish Warmist thought they did!
Maybe you could appeal to the authority of Hansen, or Mann, or Schmidt as an authority. Or Trenberth, with his Sun shining equally on all parts of the Earth at the same time! No wonder he couldn’t figure out where his missing heat went. It was a travesty that he didn’t realise that the Earth was not flat, and that night followed day.
How about it, Bindidon? What other wonderful authorities have you got up your sleeve? Maybe you could resort to obscure links, or refuse to be definite about the people you are talking about. Have you found the missing disprovable GHE hypothesis yet, or are you proceeding on the basis that faith will see you through?
Oh well. To each his own.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn on September 18, 2017 at 6:26 AM
I don’t know why you
– are so fixated all the time on this stupid GHE
– subcutaneously discredit the work of people you don’t know about (I mean here Joseph W. Chamberlain)
– at the same time don’t give any hint on physics books you consider be of interest.
Maybe this is due to your will to keep your somewhat pejorative, arrogant discourse pretty good alive? No idea.
Despite being over 65, I still love to learn, Mr Flynn.
Unfortunately, you are the antithesis of what I call a good teacher.
Flynn, Robertson, g* and others here denigrate people because they can’t prove their science wrong.
So personal denigration is the only avenue left to them, since they are incapable of admitting they are wrong.
It’s a coward’s way out.
Davie, you apparently have zero regard for the truth.
DA…”So personal denigration is the only avenue left to them, since they are incapable of admitting they are wrong”.
look who’s talking.
Bindidon,
I agree. You don’t know. I agree the concept of the GHE is stupid. I’m not fixated on it – it doesn’t exist. I’m equally not fixated on unicorns or the luminiferous ether.
Maybe you quote me exactly where you believe I discredited the work of Joseph W Chamberlain?
I’m not sure why you think I should give hints. I’ve mentioned a couple of works by Feynman (who actually did share in a Nobel Prize in physics), and quoted from a few others. People are perfectly free to read any book on any subject they like. I find Feynman’s books and physics lectures easy to understand, I find his style agreeable, and I am of the opinion he had a first class mind. Others may disagree, of course.
I don’t believe you’ve ever requested that I teach you, so what you call me, good or bad, is of no concern to me.
Maybe you believe that the GHE is supposed to do something by some means or another, requiring the operation of some undefined physical processes. Even supporters of this seemingly fanciful idea are unable to provide a disprovable hypothesis.
Merly asserting that it exists, does something that apparently can’t be reliably observed, and claim that it operates in such a way that it can’t be supported or disproved by reproducible experiment, sounds very much like religion or cultism to me.
Certainly not science.
If you have a horror of being taught by me, maybe you should not ask me to teach you.
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Ab einem gewissen Niveau ist Sueffisanz einfach langweilig.
Bindidon,
Typical foolish Warmist behaviour – attempt to deny, divert and confuse?
If that isn’t working tool well, try a condescending and patronising comment in a foreign language. That might work!
What were you saying about smugness? Did you think writing German would make you sound intellectual, or were you just worried that the same phrase in English might lead people to think you just appeared foolish and petulant?
Oh well.
Still no GHE. Maybe you could try introducing new facts.
Cheers.
Being a layman in physics, I wonder about people proudly telling us that
… heat can be transferred perfectly well to N2/O2 by conduction.
Conduction in air (N2/O2 making 99% of it) is, as I learned many years ago, so incredibly bad that air is used for the insulation of e.g. homes, between double walls.
In theory we could mention convection as a possible alternative ot radiation from surface: air warmed by the surface could move up that way.
But… would then colder air not equally move down to the surface? Asks the layman.
Yes it does, Bindidon. What generates lots of things like e.g. hail.
Here’s something to think about during our “does water vapor make the world warmer” arguments:
An area with 90% relative humidity can easily have drier air (lower percentage of water vapor) than an area where the relative humidity is much lower, say only 25%.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
Your point is valid. That is why absolute humidity should be used in the debates not relative.
Norman
Yep. It’s always a good idea to compare apples to apples.
It is not about water vapor but rather the temperature gradient between the poles and equator when it comes to storms, precipitation.
The greater the temperature gradient the more intense the storms and that happens when the globe cools not when it warms.
Warmer SSTs also undeniably play a role. Probably even a bigger role.
binny…”Conduction in air (N2/O2 making 99% of it) is, as I learned many years ago, so incredibly bad that air is used for the insulation of e.g. homes, between double walls”.
This is why I call you an idiot. I am not talking about conduction THROUGH air I am talking about conduction from one heated body to another. If a gas at 20C contacts a surface at 25C, the gas will absorb heat from the surface by CONDUCTION. The gas will warm till it’s 25C.
Heat is not traveling through air, the heat is transferred atom to atom where the gas molecules contacts the hotter surface atom/molecules. That physical contact is called conduction.
Once the gas is warmed, it rises due to the buoyancy introduced by warming it. HOT AIR RISES!!! That is called CONVECTION. The entire air parcel rises.
binny…”In theory we could mention convection as a possible alternative ot radiation from surface: air warmed by the surface could move up that way.
But would then colder air not equally move down to the surface? Asks the layman”.
Heat is not transferred from a warmer body to a cooler gas by convection, it is transferred by direct contact…by conduction. Warmed air rises due to buoyancy and cooler air does replace it. That’s what the glass in a greenhouse prevents, the cooler air from replacing the warmed air, therefore the air continues to warm.
There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere. When air is heated at the surface it rises and cooler air replaces it. The cooler air is then warmed and rises and cooler air replaces it.
Convection is not a POSSIBLE replacement for radiation, they are separate systems.
Ask yourself this: why is the focus on radiation when 99% of the atmosphere can transfer surface heat by conduction/radiation? There is an obvious answer: climate models cannot reproduce convection but they have ready-made math to do radiation.
At the end of the day.
If the theory of CAGW/AGW was correct accurate temperature forecast should be able to be made.
For those who say you can’t predict the future, well you can.
Take a Boeing 737 with 200mph take off speed.
Known Physics, can predict its height, speed, landing time etc etc from the moment it takes off.
The planes route, fuel needed with regards to load can be calculated precisely.
The problem i have with the CAGW/AGW is the after the fact justifications for failed predictions based on the theory.
You can predict the precise locations of planets using orbital mechanics for example.
However predicting global temperature a decade or even five years ahead using AGW/CAGW theories always seems to fail.
This is why i’m skeptical of the entire thing. Science is based on making correct predictions on Physics, models and hypothesis.
Whatever happened to the UK’s permanent drought / flood / more snow / less snow depending on the weather at the time ?
If AGW proponents want to be taken more seriously. Make predictions about what will happen and don’t explain them away… when they enigmatically fail.
AGW is not correct and the climate should verify this over the next several years starting now.
From what I have learned and observed about ENSO, a “westerly wind burst” off the coast of Indonesia can initiate an el nino if it’s strong enough, or weaken/prevent a developing La Nina.
*A moderate westerly wind burst (near the coast of Indonesia) began around September 1st and lasted until just recently*
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
isaac…”From what I have learned and observed about ENSO, a westerly wind burst off the coast of Indonesia can initiate an el nino if its strong enough, or weaken/prevent a developing La Nina”.
You’re a bit confused. EN and LN are part of the same system, an either/or scenario. They are ocean related systems related to the flow of heat from west to east or east to west. A wind gust off Indonesia will not start an EN when an LN is under way.
Salvatore says: “AGW is not correct and the climate should verify this over the next several years starting now.”
Let me help you out, Sal. For the next ten years , I’ll repost that comment at the beginning of each month. That way you won’t have to.
Salvatore
You’re like the chubby guy who after each meal says: “I’m going on a diet starting now!”
His wife: “Orville, you’ve been saying that since 1979”.
Orville: “this time I’m really serious about it, no excuses!”
His wife: “Orville, you’ve been saying that since 1979 too.”
SIGH
Deal.
What is wrong with AGW, Salvatore? Specifically…. Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb any?
David Appell,
Obviously, AGW is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The specific heat of CO2 is well known.
CO2 can be frozen.
Are you going to deny this evidence, David? Do you deny the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half million years?
Silly, silly, silly!
/sarc off
Still no GHE – except in the fantasy worlds of foolish Warmists!
Cheers.
“The specific heat of CO2 is well known.
CO2 can be frozen.”
So what?
The specific heats of 1000’s of materials are known.
Every material can be froze with low enough temperature and/or high enough pressure.
“Do you deny the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half million years?”
So what?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263006
Neither of these points has ANYTHING to do with the topic of global warming. But please, if you think there is a connection, explain specifically how the temperature of the core or the specific heat of CO2 is connected to the climate at the surface of the earth.
Tim,
Maybe you missed the /sarc tag.
However, David Appell wrote –
“Specifically. Do you think the Earth doesnt emit any infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesnt absorb any?”
As you said so eloquently – So what?
As you also wrote –
“Neither of these points has ANYTHING to do with the topic of global warming. But please, if you think there is a connection, explain specifically . . .”
Another link. You say the core is cooling, but as if by magic, the laws of thermodynamics are suspended, and the crust is no longer cooling. I assume you can justify the resultant change in the geothermal gradient as the core cools without the loss of heat via the surface – or maybe you can’t, and you live in a fantasy world.
Geophysicists agree with me, I think. Maybe you consulted a climatologist. That might explain it.
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. You may not think it necessary, but real scientists might think differently.
Sad.
Cheers.
“You say the core is cooling, but as if by magic, the laws of thermodynamics are suspended, and the crust is no longer cooling.”
WHAT??? I said no such thing. Please quote ANYTHING I said that might lead you even remotely to this conclusion! The core cools perfectly well according to the laws of physics.
I am never quite sure with you, but you *seems* to think that the top surface of the earth needs to be cooling for the core to be cooling — which is not at all true. Suppose the entire surface were somehow held at a fixed temperature (say 280K). The core would still cool because there would still be a temperature gradient driving a heat flow. Even if the surface were somehow suddenly raised to 300 K everywhere, the core would still be cooling. The heat flow in the topmost couple km would be wacky for a while, but deeper in the crust and hte mantel, the heat flow would still be outward and the core would still be cooling.
And this is pretty close to what is occurring. The sun and atmosphere keep the surface (both the top meter of rock and the bottom meter of air) pretty close to a constant average temperature at any given location. In the real world, the average temperature at a given location goes up and down over the course of 1,000’s of years (as ice ages come and go). But through all those changes, the core will continue to cool!
The surface can go up and down in temperature even as the core continuously cools!
I think the GHG effect is a result of the climate/environment not the cause.
I do believe in the GHG effect but I do not think it causes the climate to change. One main reason being ice core data always having shown temperature change first, then CO2 change.
Yes CO2 absorbs infrared radiation the earth emits, as does water vapor and if a positive feedback had been established ,(that being the lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator), I would have given much more credence to AGW theory, but this important premise of the theory has never materialized.
Another problem for the theory is climatic history has shown the earth to be as warm or warmer then it is currently. An example being the Holocene Optimum.
Another problem is I do not see the AO/NAO evolving into a more positive mode over the past few decades which this theory has called for.
Another problem is CO2 is a trace gas with a trace increase and I find it hard to believe that this one item could overwhelm the whole climatic system, unless a positive water vapor /CO2 feedback were to become established.
I will end by saying if very low solar translates to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a higher albedo this in my opinion will overwhelm any AGW that might be occurring.
The test is on now and over the next several years things should become much clearer.
I will admit to being wrong if my low avg. solar parameters are largely present from this point in time on and global temperatures do not fall.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Another problem is CO2 is a trace gas with a trace increase and I find it hard to believe that this one item could overwhelm the whole climatic system, unless a positive water vapor /CO2 feedback were to become established.”
What you think is irrelevant. What matters is what the science and the calculations show.
What do your calculations show for CO2’s effect?
My calculations are CO2 absent a positive feedback with water vapor are a result of the climate not the cause which is where we differ.
And if this is the case which I think it is, then the CO2 effect is not relevant.
salvatore…”Another problem is CO2 is a trace gas with a trace increase and I find it hard to believe that this one item could overwhelm the whole climatic system, unless a positive water vapor /CO2 feedback were to become established”.
That’s the main problem for me. Makes no sense that such a trace gas got destabilize the climate.
Positive water feedback cannot happen unless CO2 can return more energy to the surface than it receives. Back to the 2nd law.
DA…”What you think is irrelevant. What matters is what the science and the calculations show”.
There are no calculations, only guesses by mathematicians and geologists.
JustAnotherPoster says:
“If the theory of CAGW/AGW was correct accurate temperature forecast should be able to be made.”
Ridiculous.
Have you ever tried to solve even a moderately complex physics situation?
Climate models are doing the most difficult calculate every attempted by humans — by far. Nothing else even comes close.
Davie, you just get funnier and funnier!
g*,
Do you think a village is missing one of its inhabitants?
Cheers.
☺
Not only this, there isn’t near enough information to calculate climate as an initial value problem. Especially, we’re missing data from the deep ocean (circulation and heat content) and on aerosol emissions (needed as a function of latitude).
DA…”Climate models are doing the most difficult calculate every attempted by humans by far. Nothing else even comes close”.
You said ‘doing’. They are actually ‘trying’ and getting it wrong. They are also bending physics theory by claiming a warming effect for the trace gas CO2 and claiming a positive feedback that amplifies warming while contradicting the 2nd law and upholding the fictitious perpetual motion notion.
Nothing comes even close???
Try the programs is NASA spacecraft or go back to WWII when they were trying to crack the German Enigma code cold. Climate models are toys in comparison.
And this David is precisely why i’m skeptical. If we can’t forecast anything using the theory of CAGW/AGW its not a science. Even meteorology is generally accurate for the week ahead these days.
We can’t even “Initialize” the climate accurately.
And because we can’t predict anything using the equations.
Its not really science is it ?
Science and the scientific theory demands repeatable accurate predictions on what happens in a given scenario.
AGW has falsified all its previous predictions.
If it was a normal science based or Physics for example… failed theories which are tested in the real world and found to be wrong are just a failed theory. Its astonishing the legroom AGW has been given after scientists numerous well recorded failed predictions.
DA,
Thanks for confirming the climate models are a bunch of scientific horse manure that do not comply with the important scientific concept of falsifiability.
— JustAnotherPoster says:
September 18, 2017 at 9:34 AM
At the end of the day.
If the theory of CAGW/AGW was correct accurate temperature forecast should be able to be made. —
A problem is the ocean on average is about 3,688 meters
deep and the temperature of most of it is cooler then your fridge or about 3 C and warming it to the temperature of your fridge would take take thousands of years.
On top of the ocean is slab of warm water. The slab could be on average 200 meter thick in the tropics and is thinner outside the tropics.
This warm slab of water is pushed around and mixed
causing warming and cooling.
Maria hurricane hit the island of Dominica and Martinique in the Lesser Antilles archipelago.
Hurricane MARIA
As of 18:00 UTC Sep 18, 2017:
Location: 14.9N 60.4W
Maximum Winds: 110 kt Gusts: N/A
Minimum Central Pressure: 956 mb
Environmental Pressure: 1010 mb
December 1978, first month of the UAH record:
NOAA anomaly greater than UAH anomaly by 0.51
August 2017:
NOAA anomaly greater than UAH anomaly by 0.42
Does that mean NOAA is cheating less?
If the difference has REDUCED, then surely NOAA is “cheating” by REDUCING anomalies.
Des on September 18, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Sorry Des, but… would it not be preferable to make the comparison over the whole record, with normalised anomalies?
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170919/58j3gf5i.jpg
The difference increase between surface and troposphere is, as you can see, nothing unusual.
Surface records are, as we perfectly know, all ‘fudged data’ (as are, of course, all satellite records showing more warming than does UAH6.0).
A nice little trip:
http://tinyurl.com/yaz8pf5u
http://vixra.org/pdf/1504.0165v2.pdf
But, dear Blair… the satellites above TOA don’t have thermopiles.
Bindidon,
Blair wrote –
“Tyndalls decedent thermopile apparatus is in todays ubiquitous handheld non- contact IR thermometer, thermal imaging camera, and IR spectrograph. They all share the same core technology, the thermopile: so we can all learn from the basic handheld device, to understand the complex machine.”
A thermopile by any other name still measures radiation, one way or another.
Whats your point, dear Bindidon?
Previously you complained I didn’t give hints on physics books. Here’s a hint, then. Actually read Tyndall’s book, which you apparently possess. Having read it, endeavour to understand it.
I know you consider that my advice is the antithesis of something or other. You complained about a lack of hints – maybe you will choose to complain about me giving one?
I don’t care one way or the other – unless you can convince me why I should.
Cheers.
Of course!
The entire world, Blair D. Macdonald and… Mike Flynn excepted, totally ignored that ‘2360cm^‐1 / 1580cm^‐1’ problem.
That’s the reason why all spectrographs worldwide work simply wrong, because nobody knows of Raman’s work.
Il fallait y penser, n’est-ce pas?
Bindidon,
As you didn’t ask the entire world, maybe you’re exaggerating – just a tad.
What have spectrographs to do with the non-existent GHE?
Foolish Warmists seem to be unable to comprehend that Tyndall carried out experiments that established that dry air – mostly oxygen and nitrogen – both a******d invisible heat rays (IR), and heated as a result. They also emitted invisible heat rays as they cooled.
Oxygen and nitrogen do not cool to the liquid state by means of incantations or magic, nor do they remain in the liquid state when exposed to IR, if it is hotter than the liquid gas.
Foolish Warmists are fixated with the idea that there is something special about certain wavelengths of light i.e. infrared, that gases can only interact with photons of specific frequencies, and all the rest of the delusional foolish Warmist pseudo science.
Obviously there are factors to be considered which may affect the speed or quantum of the outcome. Why do some forms of glass appear transparent to certain wavelengths of visible light? Why are some black plastics opaque to visible light, but quite transparent to infrared?
Unimportant, you might say, while listening to some foolish Warmist expounding about the spectrographic properties of CO2, as though it is meaningful. The foolish Warmist knows little of the properties of matter. Their belief that the Earth can be raised in temperature (as in “Hottest year EVAH!” ) simply by raising the proportion of H2O in the atmosphere is quite ludicrous to any rational physicist.
Just for example, take a breath of air at say 25 C. Now breathe. The CO2 concentration in the expired air might be 100 times that of the inspired air. The expired air is noticeably warmer than that which you breathed in. Ask a foolish Warmist if the rise in temperature is due to the GHE. After all, the CO2 content has risen from around 400 ppm to 40,000 ppm. No CO2 heating?
The exhaled oxygen and nitrogen appear also to have warmed. Magic?
I’m guessing that foolish Warmists will postulate a variety of assertions to explain these obvious facts. Most if not all, will be wrong at some level or other.
Listen to them twittering on, inventing some words, redefining others, and trying furiously to sound sciency, whilst avoiding any notion of following the most basic scientific precepts.
Quite delusional – as is anybody who believes their bizarre nonsense.
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. No problem for foolish Warmists – they have faith!
Cheers.
Bindidon
I did some reading on Raman effect and it is a scattering of incoming energy and nothing to do with absorbing or emitting.
I think Blair did not understand the effect.
Here is a link.
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/raman/raman.pdf
It is much weaker than Rayleigh Scattering that produces our blue skies. But the Raman effect is a scattering that changes frequency of the incoming light with a virtual excited state.
So it is very weak and is not absorbing energy and scientists know about it but it is not significant in the energy budget. I guess if you want you could include all the butterflies that flap their wings and count this as a thermal effect in global energy budgets.
No, Norman: MacDonald didn’t mean Raman scattering.
He is really convinced of symmetric molecules being able to absorb and reemit IR!
But in that case: why did nobody detect that before! After all, Germanium based transducers are in use since quit a lot of time – namely to detect… Raman scattering.
So it makes no wonder that even at WUWT no guest post appeared about that since MacDonald’s first release of his ‘theory’ on the Internet (around 2013).
Let me add this nice work done by a joung student a few years ago
RAMAN-BASED MEASUREMENTS OF GREENHOUSE ACTIVITY OF COMBUSTION
FLUE GASES
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4834278.pdf
That was by far more convincing than Macdonald’s superficial guessing, and it shows:
https://engineering.nd.edu/profiles/fkazemifar
Note that he actually doesn’t work in the climatosphere.
The only direct reference to the pretended ability of symmetric molecules (H2 N2 O2 etc) to emit IR undetectable by thermopile based spectroscopy is on Macdonald’s own site
http://www.fractalnomics.com/
Bindidon
I like your research and passion to discover the truth. I read MacDonald’s bio. He is an economic person. When the actual physicists told him what was wrong with his ideas he rejected their input. Sounds like many on this blog.
I am glad to read your posts. You have much to contribute. A truly amazing thing is if you can get the unscientific on this blog to actually do research and learn like you are willing to do. I do not see that ever taking place. 5 years from now they will still be stating their false and incorrect physics and will not have learned a bit in that time frame.
Bindidon on September 15, 2017 at 4:31 AM
My (very cautious) predictions for the horizon 2100
So ein Mist! Zut alors! What a pity!
The fish didn’t bite the hook.
My ‘predictions’ were, as everybody could imagine upon reading them, thoroughly fictitious.
As most predictions are.
Yes, lewis, but… that is a completely different aspect.
Bindidon,
You weren’t just trolling, aiming for a “gotcha”, were you?
I’m guessing you kept your “different aspect” secret, hoping your “fish” would “bite the hook”.
I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by your attempts to deceive people. Wouldn’t it be easier just to present facts, and let people make up their own minds?
I suppose if you can’t even produce a disprovable GHE hypothesis, you might as well try to deny, divert, and confuse people. It might stop them asking questions to which you have no rational answers.
Maybe you could join a new religion. The Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism doesn’t seem to be attracting many new adherents these days. Have you thought of joining the Scoptsy? I recommend it as being fully appropriate for dedicated, even fanatical, foolish Warmists.
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. Keep fishing.
Cheers.
Mike,
The reason I hooked into what you said about GHGs/warmer nights is that it is a statement that I agree with. But we have different conclusions about the GHE, so I was trying to pinpoint where our thinking diverged. That project is proving too difficult.
I’m going to go with what you said and make a point now, sticking with night-time to isolate atmospheric effects by avoiding sun/cloud effects.
After the sun has warmed the Earth and dips below the horizon, the Earth is no longer heated by solar input and is losing heat via the atmosphere. The surface cools throughout the night.
Say surface temp starts at 15C (7pm) and ends at 5C by (4 am) – with little or no GHGs.
If the presence of GHGs slow the rate of cooling… let’s add a bunch of it.
Temps start at 15C (7pm) and end at 8C (4am).
Cooling has occurred throughout the night in both situations. But the final temp is higher because there is now a “a reduction in the rate of cooling. Basic physics,” (your words).
The average night-time temps are warmer in the presence of GHGs.
GHGs have not “heated” anything in this formulation, but their presence has resulted in higher night time temps.
We can now quote your earlier comment again:
“warmer at night – with GHGs that is”
The step from this statement to “GHGs warm the surface” is semantical only. The “basic physics” are not rejected, just the way the result is expressed.
When a home-owner says “Insulation keeps my house warmer,” what they are saying in causal language is true enough for everyday purposes. The same construct works for the GHE – ” ‘Greenhouse’ gases keep the surface warmer.” Drilling down to the physics, it’s more appropriate to say, “Insulation slows the rate at which heat escapes my house.” The home owner is simply describing the result of that physics.
I think your views on night-time temps and reduction in the rate of cooling with GHGs is a good description of the GHE.
I also think that much of the argument around it on this board is semantics. Less surface cooling = warmer average temps. Much of the discussion here nitpicks the verbiage.
barry,
Complete misdirection. You neglect the fact that heating during the day is reduced, due to the presence of gases such as CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere. Obviously, the less of the gases present, the higher the temperature – as in arid tropical deserts.
As I said, cooler during today, warmer during the night – generally diurnal variation will be less with greater amounts of H2O in the atmosphere. This is readily observed.
If you have a magical system which removes H2O and clouds during the day, and replaces them at night on a continuous basis, then compared with the system before you introduce the magical process, the average temperature would be higher. However, it seems that magic is in short supply, so physics will have to do. Don’t forget you have to work you magic over the whole world – when Gavin said “Hottest year EVAH!” he was referring to some form of global temperature.
Nope. Doesn’t work.
As to house insulation, I use insulation to keep my house cool. Just as my refrigerator used insulation to keep out heat, and firemen and desert Berbers wear thick insulating clothing to reduce heating.
No semantics. Just facts.
You failed to point out my views on daytime temperatures and a reduction in the rate of heating. Are you still sure I provided a good description of the GHE?
No heating at all? Insulation used to keep things cool? I know Tim Folkerts would just insert one of his “internal heat sources” into my refrigerator, my house, every fireman and desert Berber. Things would heat up rapidly. “Look,” he would triumphantly announce, “global warming!”
And foolish Warmists would accept it. Sad.
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. Still no disagreement with anything I’ve presented as fact.
Cheers.
You neglect the fact that heating during the day is reduced
I sidelined day-time activity to isolate the action to what the atmosphere does to temps – no sun, no clouds reflecting sunlight, just GHGs. I actually want to discuss that with you once you comment on my point on nighttime temps.
Do you think there is anything wrong with my comments on GHGs and nighttime temps – that a reduction in the rate of cooling overnight with GHGs amounts to a higher average nighttime temp than without them?
barry,
Ignoring reality won’t make it go away. Daytime exists, whether you like it or not. I know that foolish Warmists at NASA portray the Earth as flat, everywhere illuminated by the Sun equally, with no night at all!
Just as silly.
No, you don’t get to pick and choose. Either you accept facts, or you don’t.
I’m not interested in your hypothetical “gotchas”. You might as well ask me if I agree that if my aunty had testicles, she would be my uncle.
In your fantasy, you may choose to have no Sun. You might choose to pretend that the atmosphere was still gaseous at around 40 K. Your imaginary world may even be heating up due to a mythical GHE, keeping the unicorns nice and comfortable. It’s still a fantasy, but it’s your fantasy. Why you want or expect me to participate in it is beyond me. Are you lonely, perhaps? Maybe a better choice might be another foolish Warmist – you might be able to share your fantasies.
Feel free to leave me out of them.
Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. That’s a bit of a problem, I imagine. Maybe if you ignore it, nobody will ask you for it.
Cheers.
Mike,
You are unable to discipline your attention and have a focused conversation, one step at a time. You seem to have to say everything at once – it looks like flailing to me.
H2O – not CO2 – reflects sunlight in the form of clouds. CO2 absorbs (and re-emits) a tiny fraction of solar radiation compared to what it absorbs of upwelling infrared radiation. You have this wrong, night or day.
I would discuss this with you further, but as you were unable to go with me on the action of GHGs at night, I have zero interest in further discussion of discussing day time influences like solar radiation, clouds, and the gases that strongly absorb (and re-emit) solar radiation.
You complained upthread that ‘alarmists’ don’t like to talk about what happens at night. Here was your opportunity to engage on that. You shat on it.
I gave it my best shot to be polite and to the point with you. Unfortunately, a waste of time.
Barry, David, Norman etc.:
You seem to be making the same, or similar arguments over and over………expecting different results.
I’m worried Mr. Flynn has driven you nuts!
Sir Isaac,
If they choose insanity, who am I to object?
Cheers.
Mike.
You make the same counter argument, over and over, KNOWING it will never change their minds. I’m guessing that’s just a slightly different variation of dementia.
Sir Isaac,
Not really.
They claim something exists. It could be unicorns, the luminiferous ether, or phlogiston, but it’s apparently called the GHE.
I say “Show me a disprovable hypothesis at the very least”, and you see the result.
I suppose you’re right. It might be seen as unreasonable to repeatedly ask for a scientific description of this mythical beast.
I have no argument. They spout rubbish, I present some easily observable facts which seem to flatly contradict their rubbish, and they more rubbish about something else. And so it goes.
And still no sign of the disprovable GHE hypothesis. Of course the foolish Warmists claim they don’t need a disprovable hypothesis! They would, wouldn’t they, if it only exists in fantasyland?
As to never changing their minds, you’ll note above that David Appell changed his mind about something, and admitted he was wrong. Something, I guess. Another ex-foolish Warmist changed his mind too, after checking some facts I presented, for himself. There may be others – I don’t know.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe I should support the lunatics taking over the asylum. It just doesn’t seem right to me. Where does it end? Criminal prosecution of anyone who dares to disagree? Torture non-believers until they ‘fess up, and repent?
Maybe I’m demented, but I wouldn’t be in a position to tell, would I? Maybe a foolish Warmist could read my mind and tell me what to think!
And still no sign of a disprovable GHE hypothesis. Sad.
Cheers.
Mike
I’ve been noticing a nervous twitch every time I read your posts. Please limit them to no more than 15 or 20 words.
Sir Isaac,
Give me a valid and logical reason, if you feel like it.
Your nervous twitch is not my problem. Maybe you could stop reading my posts?
it shouldn’t be too difficult, unless you lack all self control.
Cheers.
Mike
I read the first few sentences of your replies….mostly out of courtesy.
Otherwise it’s just a glancing blow as I’m scrolling down the thread.
Sir Isaac,
And you develop a nervous twitch after a few sentences? You don’t need to bother about being courteous on my behalf. Look to your own health, by all means. Honestly, I won’t even be aware whether you read what I write, much less care.
I’m amazed I have this arcane power! Thanks for acknowledging my apparent superiority in remotely influencing the involuntary physical behaviour of others via the Internet.
If you hadn’t verified it, I wouldn’t have believed it possible! Uri Geller, eat your heart out!
Cheers.
Sir Isaac Snaplelton
Good point. This GHE debate with Mike Flynn, g*e*r*a*n, SkepticGoneWild, Gordon Robertson is an endless loop of repetition. It has been going on on numerous threads with similar outcomes.
When one reads deliberate distortion of actual physics and science it is painful and one wants to correct the errors.
The errors cannot be fixed in those minds. None will look at actual physics books. They get their physics from blogs. The posters make good sounding points but if one would study the actual science they could see many flaws in the reasoning and incorrect physics thrown in the mix.
What do you suggest? This is a science blog run by a PhD scientist.
If it were a media outlet I would expect 90% of the posters to be illiterate in science. It is sad when you have so many on a science blog that will not even look at textbooks let alone read them to find out what the science says.
In a post above Gordon Robertson included a link that stated radiant heat transfer is the NET energy (that emitted minus that absorbed) but he thinks energy from a cold object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one. Totally made up physics from a blogger Claes Johnson that real scientists rip him apart on his own blog demonstrating his total lack of understanding of physics at even basic levels. All physics books clearly state that a body that emits radiation is also good at absorbing radiation.
I think I would not care about horrible science if this were not a science blog and also the fact that climate science is very complicated and it is hard to learn real science with so much garbage being thrown out.
Since you brought it up, do you have any idea what drives a mind like Mike Flynn? What is his motivation? What is he trying to accomplish?
Can’t help you Norman, but I know what you’re saying. Some of the comments on this blog are so stupid they’re actually painful to read. Makes you want to correct them.
Don’t get me wrong, lots of great comments as well. I learn something new every day.
Sir Isaac,
Pain as well as twitching! You are in bad way. Have you considered you might be a masochist?
If you come out in red rash, you might have some deep psychosomatic problem. Only a suggestion, (which of course you are free to ignore), but you might need to seek treatment for something like a bruised psyche.
Let me know the diagnosis if you wish. You have my full remote support. Do you wish me to attempt to cure your pain and twitching by remote control? Maybe reading this sentence will work, do you think.
Let me know – it’s about as silly as belief in the GHE, I suppose.
Cheers.
Mike
Thanks for your concern. I’m seeing a therapist.
isaac…”Dont get me wrong, lots of great comments as well. I learn something new every day”.
Unfortunately you’re learning from the scientifically illiterate, if you are referencing the alarmist POVs.
binny…”In a post above Gordon Robertson included a link that stated radiant heat transfer is the NET energy (that emitted minus that absorbed) but he thinks energy from a cold object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one”.
I stated no such thing. I am totally opposed to the nonsense that heat transfer has anything to do with the fictitious NET energy exchange.
The fact that you’d print such rubbish proves conclusively that you’re the one lacking a physics background.
I am backed by physics by claiming IR from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer body. If it could, the 2nd law would be null and void.
What is it you don’t understand about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? It was stated clearly by it’s creator, Clausius (a good German scientist), that heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a warmer body. He also stated that applies to heat transfer by radiation.
If heat cannot be transferred between a cooler gas and a warmer gas that is screaming out at you that IR from a cooler body is not absorbed by a warmer body.
You are confused by claims from modernists like Stefan Rahmstorf, that the 2nd law is satisfied if the NET energy exchange is positive. Unfortunately there is no such thing in physics as NET energy exchange. Furthermore, the 2nd law addresses heat transfer, NOT IR.
You don’t even know the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
My apologies for post above binny, it was norman making a fool of himself this time, not you.
Gordon Roberston
Please site a source for you unfounded physics. What is it based upon.
You say there is no such thing as NET energy exchange. Declarative statements are nothing without some support. What is your support of this?
Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler source to a warmer one is correct and all physics agrees. But energy can be transferred and is and all heat transfer radiative equations include the NET energy as heat. Your own post above contained this fact.
You don’t need to apologise, Robertson.
You write lots on unscientific nonsense all the time. One more or less: what would that change for me?
I have stopped discussing with you, and so I do by now with the Flynn guy who seems to be build with you a pair like Laurel and Hardy – but 100% less comic.
norman…”But energy can be transferred and is and all heat transfer radiative equations include the NET energy as heat. Your own post above contained this fact”.
You are thoroughly confused as to what energy means. Heat is thermal energy and is the kinetic energy of atoms as they move, either through space or as vibrations in solids. Atoms can vibrate as they move through space.
The NET energy to which you refer is electromagnetic energy, not heat. NET energy is NOT heat. You cannot add two IRs and get heat. Heat is not transferred through space with radiative transfer. In fact, it should not be called heat radiation, it already has a name: electromagnetic radiation.
Heat does not radiate, thermal energy is converted to EM and it radiates. The opposite occurs on the absorbing end. The net thermal difference changes per body with one decreasing and the other increasing.
The term heat transfer, when applied to radiation is not meant literally. I gave an example at one time of acoustical energy in a TV studio being converted to electromagnetic energy at an antenna then having the process reversed at a receiver. That’s exactly what happens with heat in radiative transfer.
Norm has no meaningful background in physics. So, his comments, like these, are especially hilarious:
“None will look at actual physics books. They get their physics from blogs.”
g*e*r*a*n
Rather than mindlessly and pointlessly criticize my efforts at learning the science by reading actual textbook material and getting up to speed on the real physics, why don’t you do the same.
Read textbook physics. Study physics. Roy Spencer advised you to do this years ago.
To make it simple for you. STUDY SOME PHYSICS.
Con-man, we have been here before. You have claimed that I do not know physics. I have offered you a sizable wager. But, you quickly ran from your own words. Just like a con-man.
g*e*r*a*n
I am not interested in a wager at all and I did not run as you lie again.
Your posts are all I need to read to see you have little desire to learn real physics and you really have no clue about the science.
You provide all the evidence yourself.
You claim if you have two surfaces at the same temperature made of the same material. If one of those has an internal heat source it will be unable to absorb energy from the plate that has no internal heat source but has the same temperature. Your post violates Kirchhoff’s Law and is not supported by any REAL physics textbooks. You just make up physics to suit your twisted version of themodynamics.
STUDY SOME PHYSICS.
“If one of those has an internal heat source it will be unable to {have its temperature increased} from the plate that has no internal heat source but has the same temperature.”
fixed it for you, Con-man.
isaac…”Barry, David, Norman etc.:
You seem to be making the same, or similar arguments over and overexpecting different results”.
You’re confused, that’s the MO of alarmists. They think if they repeat everything it will eventually be understood. They learn from professional alarmists who think if enough people agree it has to be right.
Gordon Robertson
I am not an alarmist nor hold to this view. I read your posts with terrible unfounded assertions on physics and am prompted to correct you flawed views.
I link you to textbooks and tell you the exact pages to read to help correct those flaws. Your flaws are so ingrained you can’t see them.
Two major flaws coming from your posts. A hot object cannot absorb IR from a cooler object. This is fake physics and goes against all textbooks. It is made up and you peddle it as it is fact.
Another is that N2 and O2 are strong emitters of IR. Also false and against accepted physics. Just something you make up and peddle as fact.
When I see these horrible physics being passed off as factual it promotes me to respond with correct physics. The repetition is a product of your own continuous abuse of physics and your unwillingness to take the time to correct your flawed thought process.
norman…”Two major flaws coming from your posts. A hot object cannot absorb IR from a cooler object. This is fake physics and goes against all textbooks. It is made up and you peddle it as it is fact.
Another is that N2 and O2 are strong emitters of IR. Also false and against accepted physics. Just something you make up and peddle as fact”.
You cannot even comprehend what I have written, how do you comprehend what has been said in the physics books you have claimed to read?
How does a hot object absorb IR from a cooler object and where have you read that in any book on physics? It’s physically impossible. According to Bohr, any EM, IR, or otherwise, can be absorbed only if it meets certain criteria. You seem to be under the impression IR must be absorbed any time it contacts an object.
I have pointed out to you the contradiction with the 2nd law. How is heat transfer limited to one direction, hot to cold, when any form of IR can be absorbed between a hotter body and a cooler body?
Come along, Mr. Physics, explain the contradiction. And please, none of that NET energy transfer pseudo-science.
I have never claimed N2 and O2 are strong emitters of IR. I have claimed both emit EM. Both emit in whatever part of the spectrum required in order to cool.
“How does a hot object absorb IR from a cooler object and where have you read that in any book on physics?”
Suppose a 10 um IR photon hits your ‘hot object’. The object CANNOT KNOW if that IR photon came from a hotter object or cooler object. All the object can know is the properties of the photon itself — the object can learn NOTHING about the properties of the source that emitted the photon.
10 um IR photons from cooler objects and 10 um IR photons from warmer objects get absorbed identically, since the photons are identical!
“How is heat transfer limited to one direction, hot to cold, when any form of IR can be absorbed between a hotter body and a cooler body?”
Perhaps you can answer the equivalent question: “How is heat transfer limited to one direction, hot to cold, when vibrational energy in solids can be absorbed between a hotter body and a cooler body?”
When two solids are in contact, the atoms vibrate with various random energies. Often a collision would occur between an above-average energy atom in the cold object and a below-average energy atom in the hot object. This would transfer energy from the cold object to the warm object. (Or do you think this is also prohibited somehow?)
Gordon Robertson
You can go to the link that gave you this information.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263436
This is your own post. Please not the word NET heat transfer in the description!
Gordon Robertson
Tim Folkerts has a PhD in physics. If you do not accept what I say at least listen and consider his posts.
Now I can go on.
You will have to download the textbook to your computer. It only takes a few minutes and is free.
Here is the link for the book:
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
After you download it scroll down to page 529 and 530 and read the content carefully and try to understand what is being stated.
After that you can scroll down to page 537 and start reading for a few pages. This will explain why you have a flawed and incorrect understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and why you need to break free of Claes Johnson incorrect and false physics. His view contradicts established physics. The only scientific way to overturn established physics is via valid and repeatable experiments. Claes Johnson provides none. Just his twisted and wrong version of radiant heat exchange that is not supported by any valid science.
Gordon Robertson
How much Infrared do you think N2 and O2 emit at atmospheric temperatures. What do you believe the W/m^2 value would be and why do you think this.
The amount is insignificant in global energy balances.
O2 will emit in the microwave region (used by Roy Spencer to calculate atmospheric temperatures).
Both emit some very small amount of IR that plays no real role in the physics of Earth’s heat exchange.
tim f…”Suppose a 10 um IR photon hits your hot object. The object CANNOT KNOW if that IR photon came from a hotter object or cooler object”.
I don’t know about atoms ‘knowing’ but here’s the issue. If you have an electron in a hotter object residing at an energy level of 10 eV, for example, the only way it can be bumped to a higher energy level so it can become hotter is to be hit with IR of a similar intensity and frequency.
The equation governing such a ‘bump’ is e = hf.
Here’s a primer:
http://montessorimuddle.org/2012/02/01/emission-spectra-how-atoms-emit-and-absorb-light/
“When a photon of light hits an atom three things can happen: it can bounce off; it can pass through as if nothing had happened; or it be absorbed. Which one happens depends on the energy of the light, and which atom it is hitting. Hydrogen will absorb different energies from helium.
The interesting thing is that each atom will only absorb photons with exactly the right energy. You see, when the light hits the atom, the atom will only absorb it if it can use it to bump an electron up an electron shell”.
I am presuming, based on the 2nd law, that EM from a cooler object does not have the required energy for it to be absorbed.
Gordon Robertson
Your link is only considering VISIBLE LIGHT and how it works. The link is not about the lower energy IR that is not produced (except the bands near red visible light…near infrared).
Why do you persist with your unfounded comments?
I saw Tim Folkerts had linked you to an article on IR, I have also done so in the past. Your ignore real physics as if it were a dreadful disease and continue to post your made up physics.
Here is a clear example of your make believe physics:
YOU: “I am presuming, based on the 2nd law, that EM from a cooler object does not have the required energy for it to be absorbed.”
This comment goes against the material to textbooks I linked you to.
It is wrong and incorrect but you think it to be true, why do you persist in made up physics that violates actual physics? What does this do for you?
norman…”Your link is only considering VISIBLE LIGHT and how it works. The link is not about the lower energy IR that is not produced (except the bands near red visible lightnear infrared)”.
Some scientists refer to all EM as light. I have seen IR defined as a form of light.
Why is the term visible light required if light does not represent all EM?
BTW…I think it is better to refer to light as only visible light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
“In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not. In this sense, gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves and radio waves are also light”.
Gordon Robertson
The fact of physics is that IR and Visible range (what our eyes are able to detect) is that the they are not produced by the same process. Visible light is all produced by electrons changing energy levels. Only the near IR band is produced by electron transitions but they are very low energy level jumps. Most IR is produced by molecular vibrations. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?
Do you think radio waves are produced by electrons moving up and down atomic energy levels?
Read the physics. I sent you links. You seem so obsessed with thinking global warming is a complete hoax you bias your thought process even against established physics. That view is as extreme or more so than the more passionate Climate Change supporters. Get a little balance back in your thought process. All science is not a hoax! Most is very logical and based upon empirical evidence.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“This surface climate has NOT cooled continuously for 4.5 billion years”
Another redefinition of climate. Climate is the average of past weather measurements over a nominal period. Not all relate to temperature, it seems.
Physically, the crust is now cooler than it apparently was 4.5 billion years ago. It has cooled, whether you like it or not. The current rate of energy loss (heat loss, if you prefer) is around 45 teraWatts. I point out that the spherical nature of the Earth means that there is not even any sunlight heating to about half the surface at any point in time, so the heat loss continues. It’s called night time.
Maybe you have a magic mechanism to stop the night side of the Earth from cooling. Twirly whirly “round the sphere” radiation would do it, except that this would necessarily reduce the amount of direct insolation on the daylight side.
Maybe the insertion of a magic perfect insulator between the molten interior, and the solid crust. In fantasy land only, I’m afraid.
Nope. A big blob of molten rock suspended in space 150,000,000 km from the Sun, with ever dwindling radiogenic heat resources, doesn’t seem likely to spontaneously heat up (or warm, if you prefer). Entropy seems unlikely to reverse itself at your behest.
Maybe you could rub your hands vigorously together, making the temperature rise without generating any heat – or did I not understand what you said before? Seems odd, but you assure me that you know far more than I about such things.
Cheers.
“Some of the comments on this blog are so stupid they’re actually painful to read.”
Then right on queue we get the above entry’s from Gordon and Mike.
Sir Isaac,
As usual, foolish Warmists can quote nothing of substance and provide no facts to rebut anything.
Just the usual ad homs – devoid of factual content.
By the way, it should be “cue” rather “queue”, and “entries”, rather then “entry’s”. Only two mistakes in one sentence. I assume you have the same level of competence in physics? No need to thank me. Glad to help.
Have you considered starting your own blog, so you could ban me? Just a thought.
Cheers.
Thanks for the corrections, Mike. You have a talent for writing (fiction, of course).
Sir Isaac,
You’re welcome. Thanks.
My writing should appeal to foolish Warmists, then. They seem firmly wedded to fiction – thinking they can stop the climate changing, that H2O and CO2 create heat somehow or other, that not having a disprovable GHE hypothesis shows how clever they are, and that faith triumphs over fact.
They probably even believe such fictions as Gavin Schmidt being a scientist, or Mike Mann being awarded a Nobel Prize. I might be going too far – not even a dimwit would believe such outrageous fictions, would they?
I’d probably have to stop with James Hansen claiming that storms of the future would pluck boulders from the sea bed, and rain them down on the unbelievers’ heads! Nah. Ridiculous – no rational person would believe it.
Cheers.
This is getting almost silly …
“Another redefinition of climate. Climate is the average of past weather measurements over a nominal period. Not all relate to temperature, ”
So temperature is not related to weather, according to Mike. Got it!
“Physically, the crust is now cooler than it apparently was 4.5 billion years ago. ”
Yes, on average. But not every cubic meter has to be cooler than it was a billion hears ago. There is no law of physics that requires a specific cubic meter to cool monotonically.
“The current rate of energy loss (heat loss, if you prefer) is around 45 teraWatts.”
And ya know what? Energy would STILL continue to flow outward to the surface if it warmed or cooled a few degrees! It *would* still be cooler than the core (and warmer than space).
“A big blob of molten rock suspended in space 150,000,000 km from the Sun, with ever dwindling radiogenic heat resources, doesnt seem likely to spontaneously heat up (or warm, if you prefer).”
Yet another strawman. No one claims the WHOLE EARTH — the “big blob of molten rock suspended in space” — is getting warmer. But parts of it certainly can. The parts we care about — the top layer of rock and the bottom layer of air.
timf …”This is getting almost silly
Another redefinition of climate. Climate is the average of past weather measurements over a nominal period. Not all relate to temperature,
So temperature is not related to weather, according to Mike. Got it!”
I realize that temperature is a key driver of weather and climate but climate can also be affected by precipitation patterns. For example, hot, moist air rising adjacent to the Sahara Desert rises high into the atmosphere, drops it’s water content, then descends into the desert region as warm, dry air. The warm, dry air makes the region a desert.
Of course, temperature is involved but a key component here seems to be wind patterns, like maybe the jet stream.
There are other forces affecting weather and climate.
The global warming enthusiast which we have some on this site will not give up on their fantasy theory proven wrong already until the final nails are driven into it which should occur within the next few years.
Cultists typically refuse to leave their cult. They’d rather just drink the poison kool-aid and end it all.
Perfect example:
“Any long term global temperature decline will have no effect on AGW theory, Salvatore, as the theory is developed from lab tests and observed in the wild.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245385
Exactly they are living in a fantasy .
In my earlier post I out lined what is wrong about AGW theory.
g*r…”Cultists typically refuse to leave their cult. Theyd rather just drink the poison kool-aid and end it all”.
Even in science, it’s difficult to separate the unbiased, aware mind from the conditioned, traditional mind. Some people, like Feynman, Einstein, or Pauling, came to it naturally, being extremely open minded. They were able to separate the mind into compartments where the conditioning did not interfere with the awareness.
That’s tough to do when you are at university and you are required to regurgitate conclusions based on the prevailing paradigm at the university. Some people can apparently hold their noses, give the required ‘correct’ answer, and go on to excel with independent thought. Others get caught up in the notion of going along to get along. Some are in it for grant money and prestige.
John Christy of UAH has been at several IPCC reviews as a lead author and reviewer. He lamented the amount of sheer bias brought to reviews by reviewers and the willingness of some to work toward a pre-defined conclusion.
Science has become corrupt. Today, consensus is being accepted in lieu of objective experimentation and far too many scientists are willing to spout utter nonsense, either out of ignorance, missing basics, or going along to get along.
What I don’t understand is how people on this blog supporting the alarmist view can stand the charlatans from whom they receive their information. Even when the charlatans are exposed in revelations like Climategate, the alarmist continue to make excuses for them.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Science has become corrupt.”
Bullsh!t. That’s just an excuse you concocted, because you’re angry you can’t disprove AGW. So you want to wave your hands and claim all that science is corrupt, while having no proof whatever.
It’s a child’s game.
salvatore…”The global warming enthusiast which we have some on this site will not give up on their fantasy theory proven wrong already until the final nails are driven into it which should occur within the next few years”.
I admire your courage and conviction. I hope you are right, not so I can gloat but so we can finally be rid of the pseudo-science related to AGW. Unfortunately, as John Christy claims, climate science is a complex discipline and what seems apparent doesn’t always come to be. At least John has the guts to stand up amid hysteria and remain calm. Same with Roy, with this article as evidence.
I recall the PDO was supposed to shift and create cooler temps. Has not happened as of yet but the PDO was only officially discovered circa 1995. The PDO affects El Nino and La Nino and as we have seen they cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy.
I would not sweat it if your predictions don’t bear fruit. At least you made us aware of the issues around solar energy and the Sun’s phases.
Dr. Spencer, would love some comment on the recently published studies by CC/AGW zealots admitting their models were running “hot” compared to actual temps. It’s what you have saying (and showing) for years! Wow. Does this feel like vindication or relief for you? I hope so. Well done. Thanks for leading the way.
See one post earlier.
(Roy got that paper all wrong, but has yet to admit it.)
It would be fascinating to actually have a one-on-one conversation that resolves issues before moving on.
It would also be fascinating to have some sort of “referee” that everyone could respect to resolve issues like “but that would contradict the 2nd law”.
But since I can’t imagine either of those happening, it might be time to call it a day with this already over-extended conversation.
tim f “It would also be fascinating to have some sort of referee that everyone could respect to resolve issues like but that would contradict the 2nd law”.
All you have to do is agree on the 2nd law, which most seem to do, then discuss why it is contradicted by the two way flow of IR between a warmer and a cooler body. If the 2nd law is correct then the net IR energy flow theory has to be wrong.
Can you not see the contradiction in that without presuming the net flow of IR satisfies the 2nd law? Clausius did not claim that nor did he even mention IR. The NET IR solution is a modern faux pas just as the definition of heat as the energy transferred between bodies of different temperatures is wrong.
Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. Why do so many people have issues with that? He discussed heat transfer in detail AFTER he defined heat.
I studied engineering at university and I find that definition of heat to be an oversight by engineers dealing only with the macro world and completely tuning out the atomic world. You can define heat all you want at the macro level, it’s not heat.
You can only define it at the atomic level because it’s about atoms (mass), not a theoretical boundary through which an imaginary heat flows between two different temperatures. The thought of heat flowing through space as IR is a thought based on nonsense. Without mass, there is no heat.
In electrical engineering they still teach that current flows from positive to negative. You have to read the fine print, however. A century ago, or more, they defined the positive test charge which they claimed has mass and naturally, a positive test charge would flow from +ve to -ve.
In the electronics field, it is now confirmed that the electron is the unit of current and it flows from -ve to +ve. EE theory is now in contradiction of the reality but it is still taught due to the tradition called conventional current flow.
In semiconductor theory, where there is an equivalent notion of hole flow (an approximation to the notion of the +ve test charge) some people claim the hole has mass and can move. Shockley, who pioneered that theory, made it clear the holes are for convenience only and do not exist.
If you are going to accept a definition at the macro level carte blanche then you limit the discussion. IMHO, you need to back off and look at the overall picture. If you throw definitions around with a case closed mind set, no intelligent discussion is possible.
Gordon,
As an initial note, I never understand people who think science is moving backwards. Who think that the the earliest works in a field (like Clausius in thermodynamics) are superior to the modern understanding. So any statement starting with “Clausius did not claim…” or “Clausius defined heat …” is pretty much a non-starter. No matter how brilliant one guy may have been, science has moved forward. Any such statement should be changed to something like “Modern thermodynamics defines heat …”.
“All you have to do is agree on the 2nd law”
Famous last words! The 2nd Laws is notoriously difficult to understand or explain. Heck, we can’t even agree on a definition of “heat”!
If nothing else, you seem to be thinking of the classical, macroscopic version of the 2nd law, yet trying to apply it to a modern, microscopic, quantum problem. The classical statement was never designed fort microscopic applications.
“Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. Why do so many people have issues with that? “
For at least 3 reasons.
1) it is handy to have names for the two different concepts. So the “internal heat” became “internal energy”, U, and the “transferred heat” became just “heat”, Q. You could give the name “heat” to Q, but that goes against the historic development.
2) You can have Q with no ΔU. In your language this would be “heat transfer with no change in heat” — which sounds a bit silly. But “heat with no change in internal energy” sounds logical.
3) The kinetic energy of the atoms in a solid is only HALF the internal energy. Clausius was wrong by a factor of 2! Being wrong is a very good reason to take issue with something!
“If you are going to accept a definition at the macro level carte blanche then you limit the discussion. “
Let me try to show you how you are doing this and creating a problem.
You start with a microscopic definition of U as the total KE of the individual atoms in a material. Fine so far.
You know, of course, that the energies of the individual atoms vary greatly. At a given temperature, there is a most likely energy for gas molecules, KE = 3/2kT, but many molecules would have less than half that energy, while others have more than twice as much.
If two gases have slightly different temperatures, then when they are put in contact, it is quite common for a high-KE molecule from the cool gas to hit a low-KE molecule from warm gas, thereby transferring KE from the cool gas to the warm gas. We know this happens all the time!
If you then try to impose a classical, MACROSCOPIC version of the 2nd Law, you run into trouble. If you say energy ONLY transfers from warm to cool, we have a clear contradiction! A carte blanche application of the macroscopic 2nd law doesn’t work!
The solutions is to use a modern, statistical version of the 2nd law — a version that states that individual collisions are MORE LIKELY to transfer energy from warm to cool, so that macroscopically the NET FLOW is indeed always from warm to cool.
tim f…”Who think that the the earliest works in a field (like Clausius in thermodynamics) are superior to the modern understanding”.
Because Clausius was a penultimate scientist who could do the math as well as explain the science subjectively. Modern scientists are so dependent on math and an appeal to authority many literally cannot see the forest for the trees.
I respect the likes of Planck even though his theories have been supplanted in part by modern discoveries. I am not hung up on old time scientists per se. However, the 2nd law is an absolute and there is a reason for that as explained by Clausius. Some modern scientists are interpreting the 2nd law in terms of entropy, even though Clausius, who coined the term, did not relate the two as such.
The definition you have supplied for heat based on modern science is plain wrong. It makes no sense, it has turned heat into a mysterious substance unrelated to atoms. That suits a lot of modern scientists who like to think in abstractions.
Newton II still stands today for most applications even though we are inundated with ridiculous claims from quantum theorists. Einstein and Schrodinger, the father of quantum theory, divorced themselves from the modern version of quantum theory because they felt it disrespected direct observation.
If you think Clausius is wrong when he claims heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body without compensation, show me why he is wrong. Mixing different energies like IR and heat, then claiming the net flow of IR upholds the net transfer of heat as in the 2nd law makes no sense whatsoever. It’s plainly wrong headed logic.
tim…”The 2nd Laws is notoriously difficult to understand or explain. Heck, we cant even agree on a definition of heat! ”
Why do we have to agree on heat, what else could it be than the kinetic energy of atoms? The basic theory is all there. When you heat a gas, the molecules of gas absorb heat from the source and begin vibrating and colliding more energetically.
You can measure the change in activity as a rise in temperature and temperature is a human invention to relate the increased activity to the set points of the boiling point and freezing point of water. Planck point that out in his treatise of heat.
What is so difficult to understand in the 2nd law and why do you insist on making it hard to understand. It’s dead simple: heat cannot by it’s own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
“Why do we have to agree on heat, what else could it be than the kinetic energy of atoms? “
Seriously? You MUST know your your personal definition of “heat” does not agree with any contemporary text on thermodynamics! You have the audacity to expect everyone else to change to match your definition?
Heat, Q, is a transfer process for energy.
Work, W, is a transfer process for energy.
Internal energy, U, is the kinetic energy of the atoms (along with rotational energy and elastic potential energy).
Insisting on calling U “heat” is archaic and misleading.
“What is so difficult to understand in the 2nd law and why do you insist on making it hard to understand. Its dead simple: heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.”
The fact that you continue to misunderstand the 2nd Law is a priori evidence that it is difficult to understand.
It is obvious that at the atomic level KE can be and often is transferred from an individual atom in a “cold object” to an individual atom in a “warm object”. This means that your statement of the 2nd Law ONLY applies to net macroscopic transfers — not to individual microscopic interactions. As such, it ALSO only applies to net macroscopic transfers by IR, not to individual photons. And yet you try to force the 2nd Law to say something it doesn’t.
I think this is about the 3rd time these key ideas have been explained in this thread alone. Try to make an honest effort to understand and learn.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why do we have to agree on heat, what else could it be than the kinetic energy of atoms?”
Radiation.
E=hf
tim f…”The solutions is to use a modern, statistical version of the 2nd law a version that states that individual collisions are MORE LIKELY to transfer energy from warm to cool, so that macroscopically the NET FLOW is indeed always from warm to cool”.
Tim…I appreciate your effort to explain this scientifically.
The issue I have with your averaging is how close is ‘similar’ temperatures? Are you talking within a tenth C, a degree C, or ten degrees C?
I am sure Clausius was aware of averaging, he came across as a very intelligent man, when I read his analysis of certain scientific phenomenon. I know he was not into at the depth of statistical mechanics.
However, he did recognize the difference between the macro and the atomic world and he built that into his definition of U. Yes, Clausius also coined the term internal energy. He stated the same as you that in real world analysis, the internal was not significant. However, he still regarded heat as a real phenomenon based on atomic activity.
What else could it be? You cannot talk about heat being transferred through space, it makes no sense. It is EM that flows through space, not thermal energy.
We can relate heat to work and to EM. There is no doubt an equivalence between heat and EM, a certain amount of EM flow representing a certain decrease in heat from the body that emitted it.
Heat does not flow between bodies due to radiation. EM is radiated isotropically and some of the radiated IR can be intercepted by an adjacent body. Heat is converted to EM as an electron falls to a lower energy level in an atom but only a fraction of that reaches an adjacent body.
A net IR energy flow makes little sense in that capacity and where is the math relating the fraction radiated in the direction of the adjacent body? Where is the math and reasoning relating the fraction of IR radiated from a cooler body to a warmer body?
Where is the explanation to explain the conundrum between the requirements of the 2nd law and energy from a cooler body warming a warmer body? In the following link they claim:
“When a photon of light hits an atom three things can happen: it can bounce off; it can pass through as if nothing had happened; or it be absorbed. Which one happens depends on the energy of the light, and which atom it is hitting. Hydrogen will absorb different energies from helium.
The interesting thing is that each atom will only absorb photons with exactly the right energy. You see, when the light hits the atom, the atom will only absorb it if it can use it to bump an electron up an electron shell”.
http://montessorimuddle.org/2012/02/01/emission-spectra-how-atoms-emit-and-absorb-light/
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat does not flow between bodies due to radiation.”
Then how does the Sun heat the Earth?
Gordon says:
“the atom will only absorb it if it can use it to bump an electron up an electron shell
It’s been said many times before, atoms can absorb according to its vibrational modes, please add that into your reasoning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
Before you leave, Tim, I would appreciate it if you could give an earnest, no-nonsense response to this comment of mine from upthread, directly addressed to you (I guess it somehow passed you by):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263468
Tim Folkerts says, September 17, 2017 at 2:31 PM:
Yes, but you see, here’s the funny thing, Tim. This is IN THEORY only!
And this is where the Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel comparison comes in handy.
The surface situation in the two regions looks like this:
The Congo
Heat IN (Q_in(SW)): 175 W/m^2
Radiant heat OUT (Q_out(LW)): 40-50 W/m^2
Missing: 125-135 W/m^2
Sahara-Sahel
Heat IN (Q_in(SW)): 175 W/m^2
Radiant heat OUT (Q_out(LW)): 100-105 W/m^2
Missing: 70-75 W/m^2
(Rounded numbers.)
Despite the ‘missing’ heat OUT, after the radiative portion has been accounted for, we know that the heat IN from the Sun is balanced by the total heat loss in both regions. The surface heat loss, after all, is not restricted to radiation alone. We also have conductive and evaporative losses: Q_out(cond) and Q_out(evap).
Which means that, in the Congo, these other heat loss mechanisms will have to ‘take care of’ the 125-135 W/m^2 that are not able to be shed via IR radiation. In the Sahara-Sahel region, however, they will only have to rid the surface of an additional 70-75 W/m^2, that is, 55-60 W/m^2 less.
So what kind of effect on the average surface temperature would such a striking difference have? If the radiant heat loss of the surface is that much reduced from having an atmosphere on top with a much higher level of IR opacity, then wouldn’t we expect this to somehow result in substantial surface warming? Wouldn’t the surface naturally have to warm in this case to enable the non-radiative mechanisms to work at a higher level of efficiency, simply forced to by the severe reduction in the radiative loss?
Isn’t this exactly the idea of how an “enhanced GHE” is supposed to force the surface to warm towards a new and higher equilibrium temperature, to make up for a reduction in radiative heat loss?
So how come the average surface temperature in the Congo is 3-4 degrees LOWER than in the Sahara-Sahel region!? With as much heat coming IN, but with much, much less radiant heat going OUT. Why hasn’t this circumstance forced the average surface temperature in the Congo to be much HIGHER than in the Sahara-Sahel? As per standard AGW ‘logic’.
Kristian
I owe you an apology. In our earlier discussions on this topic Congo/Sahel, you were right in that I was so obsessed with my “velocity” idea that I wasn’t giving your ideas a fair shot. I ended up wasting a lot of your time….and my own.
That being said, I think it’s a mistake to compare these two regions and think you can draw any conclusions about the GHE: There’s a massive variable that the article you’ve seen barely mentions – convection. The “missing heat” in the Congo gets carried to other parts of the world by wind.
Let’s say you wanted to compare the temperature difference between a very humid greenhouse with one that had very dry air. What effect does the extra water vapor have?
It would be a very poor experiment if one of the greenhouses had open windows on it’s sides and the other didn’t. A breeze would be blowing through one and not the other! This is what’s happening in the Congo/Sahel comparison. The author never even mentions it.
The Congo is almost as hot as the Sahel, even though the Congo has it’s windows open!!
Kristian
Did you notice the author chose a large land area in order to remove the influences of ocean circulation, then never even mentioned atmospheric circulation? Good grief.
Kristian
How about this. Map out a large area of ocean bottom off the coast of North Carolina. Find the average temperature and make calculations regarding heat transfer in relation to salinity. Compare this to emission rates from the surface directly above, and report your findings. Can you guess what the problem with this sort of endeavor is?
The Gulf Stream would be flowing right through the experiment!
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 20, 2017 at 2:19 AM:
He sure did. Original post, comment section:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/#comment-389
An interesting aspect of this assessment of regional rGHE that I didn’t really mention in the post itself, is how there appears to be absolutely no balance between incoming and outgoing radiative flux through the ToA:
The Congo sector: 287.4 W/m2IN – 224.7 W/m2OUT = +62.7 W/m2
The Sahara-Sahel sector: 267.5 W/m2IN – 279.8 W/m2OUT = -12.3 W/m2
This should come as no surprise. We are after all looking only at regional systems here, not at the total (global) system. A large part of the energy absorbed (in fact, most of it) is moved internally by advection (oceanic and atmospheric circulation) between regions throughout the world before it is ultimately radiated back out to space. So this energy, while moving internally, would fall outside the particularradiative budgets of the two particular ‘subsystems’ discussed here.
Is this, then, the reason why the Congo region is cooler on average than the Sahara-Sahel region, despite having a much stronger rGHE as defined?
I can understand why rGHE proponents would want to claim this to be the case.
However, it won’t help their hypothesis trying to locate this ‘missing’ (non-radiated) energy …
The thing is, what happens in the equatorial belt? Over land? There is no significant advection close to the surface away towards the north or south. Air (and energy) is rather coming in from the north and from the south. Or it movesalong the equator. If anything, at the surface, equatorial continental regions would on average get extra energy IN from surrounding regions, by advection from higher pressures towards the central low. That’s how the Hadley-Walker cells work. The overwhelming majority of the energy coming directly in from overhead (the Sun) would be shed straight back up, convected vertically towards the tropical tropopause, still comfortably within the same sector.
What happens in the equatorial belt is that there is convergence at the surface and divergence at the tropopause. The energy not being radiated away on its way up to the tropopause (inside the sector), will rather be radiated away from tropopause or near-tropopause level on its way north or south to the subtropics (outside the sector):
“Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ [InterTropical Convergence Zone] has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence. The subsiding air warms (as pressure increases towards lower levels), further lowering the relative humidity and maintaining clear-sky conditions. However, although the subsiding air warms, it does not do so at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Continuing losses of longwave radiation (radiative cooling) means that the air warms at less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (i.e. some of the adiabatic warming is offset by diabatic cooling).”
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
As you can well read from the highlighted part (my emphasis) in the quote above, energy is definitely being brought out of the equatorial belt before it can be radiated to space. But it happens aloft, not significantly at the surface. It is brought to those regions, like the Sahara-Sahel sector, that end up radiating more to space than what they absorb from the Sun, the surplus energy brought in aloft from the ITCZ.
The absorbed solar heat is simply thoroughly shuffled internally within the Earth system before it is finally allowed to be reemitted to space.
The point I want to make is this:
If you want to argue that energy is being ‘trapped’ by gases and clouds in the troposphere, and that this somehow constitutes the rGHE, then you cannot also invoke the “energy being brought out of the region by other means offsetting a regional warming” argument, because then the energy you claimed to be ‘trapped’ and which would then (by rGHE logic) necessarily warm the troposphere and, consequently, the surface below, would not have been ‘trapped’ at all to begin with. It managed to get (‘radiatively undetected’) all the way from the surface up to the top of convection and only from there moving poleward and out of the region; at last radiated to space along the way. So your whole ‘warming mechanism’ would no longer be fit for purpose. It would no longer be at all.
You can’t have it both ways …
The apparent deficit in the tropics isn’t really, just as the apparent surplus in the subtropics isn’t really. Energy is just moved from high in the tropical troposphere to high in the subtropical troposphere. The subtropical surplus IS the tropical deficit.
Snape,
Do you remember the last time you presented more or less the exact same “counter-argument”? It was two and a half months ago, here on this very blog. Strange, I get the feeling here now that you didn’t even bother to read my response back then. Well, here it is once again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-253970
Snape says, July 3, 2017 at 9:50 AM:
Hehe, you seem to read this whole thing backwards, Snape. What I point out isn’t what’s naive and oversimplified here. The idea of somehow raising the average surface temperature of the Earth by simply making the atmospheric column more opaque to outgoing IR (the “enhanced GHE”) is what is naive and oversimplified. I’m just showing, using simple empirical data from the real Earth system, how and why that is …
No. I don’t. The people promoting the idea of an “enhanced GHE” do. Because it is supposed to reduce surface radiative heat loss. As I explained.
Yes.
Exactly. However, this is not a complicating factor to MY analysis. It is a complicating factor to the idea of an “enhanced GHE”. You see? You put this up as an argument against my objection to the idea, when in fact it simply highlights the point I’m making. My objection to the naive idea that you could, by just making the atmospheric column more opaque to outgoing IR, thus reducing the radiative heat loss from the surface below, raise the average temperature of that surface, is just that: When you change the IR opacity of the atmospheric column, you also change OTHER factors at the same time. And these other factors very much need to be … factored in. You can’t just naively assume that the average surface temperature will necessarily become higher whenever you increase the atmospheric opacity to outgoing IR. Because of … OTHER things! THAT’S my point!
You need to actually read what I’m writing before you start criticizing it, Snape:
“The total heat loss from the surface in the Sahara-Sahel and in the Congo are about the same, but the radiative portion of the total is much larger (in fact, twice as large) in the Sahara-Sahel (103 out of 179 W/m^2 (58%)) than it is in the Congo (51 out of 178 W/m^2 (29%)). This circumstance, however, doesn’t AT ALL translate into a lower surface T_avg in the Sahara-Sahel. IOW, you can’t just assume that a region with a more effective (larger) surface radiative heat loss will necessarily end up having a lower T_avg than one where the radiative heat loss is much smaller. In fact, the surface T_avg is higher by several degrees in the Sahara-Sahel than in the Congo. (See link(s) above.)
So how come the radiative heat loss in the Congo is reduced to a mere 51 W/m^2, only about half that in the Sahara-Sahel? A much more humid and cloudy tropospheric column would seem a likely explanation. But couldn’t it just as well be a result simply of the prodigious effectiveness of evaporation and moist convection in ridding the surface of excess energy in wet climes, making radiative losses much less ‘needed’ at similar temps?”
These two paragraphs address EXACTLY what you point to – the convective efficiency.
Again, this isn’t something that I need to ‘think about’. The people promoting the idea of an “enhanced GHE” are the ones who need to think about this. What you’re saying here is after all exactly the point of my objection to the idea.
But this is not an argument, Snape. This is just you assuming that, as soon as it’s CO2 we’re talking about, THEN all of a sudden nothing else will change as you increase the atmospheric concentration. However, as with any such assumption/claim, the onus is on YOU to show that it finds support in the empirical data from the real Earth system. And your problem then is that the empirical data from the real Earth system provides no such support. It shows no sign that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has ANY net effect on either the total all-sky OLR through the ToA or on surface temps over time:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
THEORETICALLY, you could indeed claim that increasing the IR opacity of an atmosphere should “enhance” a “GHE” and thus raise the surface temperature. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. And I would agree. Theoretically it seems plausible. But all else is NEVER equal, Snape. Which means you will have to GO LOOK, to see if your “theory” works in the real world. It evidently doesn’t …
“Wouldnt the surface naturally have to warm in this case to enable the non-radiative mechanisms to work at a higher level of efficiency, simply forced to by the severe reduction in the radiative loss?”
No.
Evaporative cooling works better in the Congo because Congo actually HAS lots of water for evaporation cooling. Sahara doesn’t. The difference between a wet rainforest and a dry desert explains it with no difference in temperature required.
Tim
I always get confused by Kristian’s argument. Does he think the energy absorbed by the Congo has to be in an equilibrium with the energy emitted at the TOA directly above the Congo?
Tim Folkerts says, September 20, 2017 at 12:03 PM:
This is just another one of those phony, deliberately evasive responses of yours, Tim.
Yes, there’s more water in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel. WHICH IS WHY THE TROPOSPHERIC COLUMN IN THE FORMER REGION IS SO MUCH MORE OPAQUE TO OUTGOING SURFACE IR THAN IN THE LATTER REGION! More water in the tropospheric column, more water at the surface. More water at the surface, more evaporation, more water in the tropospheric column.
So, you’ve increased the IR opacity and thus reduced the surface radiative heat loss. But as you’ve done so, the rest of the system has ALSO changed with it. All else is NOT (NEVER) equal! Which is exactly my point!!!
According to the internal logic of the “GHE”/”enhanced GHE” idea, the substantial increase of water in the tropospheric column as you travel from Sahara-Sahel to the Congo, is specifically what reduces the average surface radiative heat loss from 100-105 to 40-50 W/m^2 (2-3 times), AND what increases the difference between the T_s (LW_up(sfc)) and T_e (OLR at the ToA) from 194 to 225 W/m^2 (+31 W/m^2), as you do so.
Meanwhile, the average heat INPUT to the surface stays the same – 174 W/m^2 in both regions.
How many times do the details of this simple real-world test of the central “GHE”/”enhanced GHE” claim have to be repeated, Tim, before you start taking it in!?
Read how the authorities on the “GHE”/”enhanced GHE” idea describe how it’s supposed to work:
Raval & Ramanathan (1989)
http://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr50.pdf
“If E is the longwave flux emitted by the surface at a certain location, and F is the flux leaving the top of the atmosphere (TOA) directly above that location, then the greenhouse effect G for that location can be defined as G = E – F.”
Pierrehumbert (2011)
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
“An atmospheric greenhouse gas enables a planet to radiate at a temperature lower than the ground’s, if there is cold air aloft. It therefore causes the surface temperature in balance with a given amount of absorbed solar radiation to be higher than would be the case if the atmosphere were transparent to IR. Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature [T_s] and the radiating temperature [T_e]. The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming.”
These claims are quite explicit and can thus be tested directly against real-world data. And this is all and exactly what I’m doing.
Note what R&R state: “(…) then the greenhouse effect G for that location can be defined as G = E – F.”
Where E is the LW_up(sfc) [T_s] and F is the OLR at the ToA [T_e].
Impossible to misinterpret. The “GHE” – as defined – in the Congo is 31 W/m^2 (16%) stronger in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel, and the heat input in both regions is equal.
Note, then, what Pierrehumbert is saying: “An atmospheric greenhouse gas (…) causes the surface temperature in balance with a given amount of absorbed solar radiation to be higher than would be the case if the atmosphere were transparent to IR.”
The “given amount of absorbed solar radiation” (ASR) is the 174 W/m^2 of average heat input to the surface in both the Congo and the Sahara-Sahel regions.
He goes on: “Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere (…) increases the difference between the ground temperature [T_s] and the radiating temperature [T_e]. The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming.”
Also pretty hard to misconstrue.
As we move from Sahara-Sahel to the Congo, huge amounts of “greenhouse gas” (and clouds) are indeed ‘added’ to the atmospheric column, as it grows more and more humid, steadily increasing the difference between T_s (E) and T_e (F), ever strengthening (“enhancing”) the “GHE”, as defined. And at the same time, the “given amount of absorbed solar radiation” stays basically the same, unchanged.
“The result, once the system comes into equilibrium,” SHOULD BE – according to the “GHE”/”enhanced GHE” idea, as described by R&R and Pierrehumbert above – “surface warming”.
Trying to explain away this obvious failed test against reality by just exclaiming “But, evaporation!” does nothing to your credibility as an objective observer and analyst, Tim.
Evaporation, conduction, convection. Neither of these non-radiative processes is supposed to be able to REVERSE the radiative greenhouse temperature effect on the solar-heated surface! If they were, then the whole “GHE”/”enhanced GHE” idea would simply lose all its explanatory power. Its core premise would be obliterated. It would mean that more “GHGs” in the atmosphere will NOT necessarily make T_s higher. In fact, it might just as well end up lower.
No, they are merely supposed to bring it down somewhat, to reduce it. The T_s in the Congo is supposed to be higher than in Sahara-Sahel, period! The only question, really, is “By how much?”. Because evaporative cooling and deep moist convection is stronger in the Congo, then the temperature difference between the two regions should be SMALLER than it would’ve been if the evaporative cooling and deep moist convection were NOT stronger. But the Congo would STILL be expected to be warmer on average. Because of equal heat input, but a considerably stronger “GHE”.
That’s the whole point!
Kristian
If E is the longwave flux emitted by the surface at a certain location, and F is the flux leaving the top of the atmosphere (TOA) directly above that location, then the greenhouse effect G for that location can be defined as G = E F.
I have never seen the GHE defined this way before, and think it’s confusing because it doesn’t take atmospheric circulation into account.
If forced to go along with it: the GHE at any particular location could (and does) influence the temperature of other locations by means of convection. In locations where the GHE is high, surface temperature might be lower than expected. In locations where the GHE is low, surface temperatures could be higher than expected.
Kristian
Thinking a little more about the previous definition, I just really don’t agree. How could you measure what effect water vapor is having on the radiative heat loss of a particular location just by looking at the TOA above that location? How much surface radiation moved to other areas versus to space? No way to tell.
I expect his definition would conflict with the definition of most other researchers. If not, I would like to hear what his reasoning is.
Kristian
Where I live, it’s not uncommon for a sunny warm day to be followed by a sunny cool day. Same solar heating, perhaps the same absolute humidity, but the radiative heat loss would differ at TOA.
Same amount of GHG’s, different results from day to day….always dependent on the weather moving in and out of area. Dumb way to try and measure something.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 21, 2017 at 10:22 PM:
*Sigh*
That’s why we AVERAGE the weather over a full year, or preferably over multiple years, to get the AVERAGE condition (‘climate’). The “GHE” is not about weather or the diurnal cycle, Snape. It’s about the AVERAGE condition. T_s is the AVERAGE surface temp.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 21, 2017 at 6:15 PM:
Then you better read up, because this is THE definition of the “GHE”: LW_up(sfc) – LW_up(toa), or T_s – T_e. Same thing.
It DOES take “atmospheric circulation” into account. It simply assumes that “atmospheric ciculation” isn’t able to reverse or even negate the radiative temperature effect, only moderate it somewhat.
There are several papers from way back discussing this, how the “GHE” would be much stronger without convection. There would, however, still always be a positive overall effect. The temp would always be higher, only less so.
Kristian
Then you better read up, because this is THE definition of the GHE: LW_up(sfc) LW_up(toa), or T_s T_e. Same thing.
Geez…. that’s the part I HAVE seen.
and it always refers to global averages, not “directly above” a certain location.
[It DOES take atmospheric circulation into account. It simply assumes that atmospheric ciculation isnt able to reverse or even negate the radiative temperature effect, only moderate it somewhat.]
How is circulation taken into account, Kristian? Why does it assume it only moderates it “somewhat.”
The value for the flux at the TOA is meaningless if you don’t know the value for the missing flux. The average value for the flux at the TOA is meaningless if you don’t know the average value of the missing flux.
G = E – F makes perfect sense when E and F are global averages, and that’s how I’ve always seen it described. If F is a specific location “directly above” E, then it’s just silly.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 22, 2017 at 12:03 AM:
So it HAS to be global, but it somehow DOESN’T have to be annual or climatological? Make your mind up, Snape.
Why don’t you ask Ramanathan himself about this?
Let’s do ‘global’, then. Later …
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 22, 2017 at 1:23 AM:
Simple: By ignoring it. Its real-world effects, that is. All that’s considered in the “GHE model world view” is 1) convection is important for determining and maintaining the environmental lapse rate, and 2) convection reduces the final equilibrium temperature rise as a result of the radiative effects of the “GHE”.
But it will NEVER EVER – according to the theory – manage to reverse the radiatively forced temperature rise. That would be unheard of and would effectively disqualify the whole hypothesis. It will ONLY ever reduce it.
Really, Snape, you shouldn’t ask ME these questions. I’m not the one promoting this ridiculously simplistic views of the climate system. That’s the “GHE”/”AGW” proponents. Ask Tim. I see he’s basically shying away from the whole thing, trying a bit of selective backpedalling here and there, when it best suits him and his narrative. But he cannot escape the central premise of the whole “GHE”/”enhanced GHE” idea: More “GHGs” in the atmosphere, a more IR opaque atmosphere, will cause the surface T_avg to rise, NO MATTER WHAT. Because, ALL ELSE IS (assumed to be) EQUAL. It HAS to be. In order to ensure a warming (positive) effect. To ensure that the fundamental claim (+RF => +T) is always right.
Again, ask the “GHE”/”AGW” proponents.
We DO know the value of the missing flux: LW_up(sfc) – LW_up(toa).
It doesn’t make sense if its global either, Snape. It’s just as silly. One word: Mars. On our red neighbor in space, T_s is thoroughly LOWER than T_e. Which means that there’s a negative “GHE” going on – according to its classic definition. And that is even as each cubic metre of atmosphere on Mars holds ~26 times as many CO2 molecules as on Earth.
Kristian
If you thought of Ramanathan’s definition and pictured cubes of atmosphere, side by side, you might start to see what was happening with convection between cubes. A portion of radiant heat (from it’s surface) would move from one cube to the next. This would skew the measurements of vertical transfer transfer within each cube.
You could get around this problem by using these cubes to create a global grid, then taking the average of the measurements to find the Earth’s total flux. Hmmmm…..do you see where I’m going with this?
Ramanathan defined the GHE specifically for each of the “cubes” used in his grid for the purposes of calculating a global average. For this endeavor, the definition makes sense.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 22, 2017 at 8:20 AM:
For the nth time, Snape, this is not a complicating factor to MY world view. It’s a complicating factor to the world view of the proponents of the “enhanced GHE”. THEY are the ones that claim that making the troposphere more opaque to outgoing IR (by putting more “GHGs” into it) will cause a rise in T_s. There are no caveats to this claim. It WILL and MUST become warmer. The only question is “How much?”
And based on empirical observations from the real world, we now know that such inevitable warming is NOT a given.
You’re just continuing to underscore my point, Snape. Evaporative convection IS the reason why T_s is lower in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel, DESPITE equal heat input and a much stronger “GHE”.
Equal heat input and more water between surface and tropopause means LOWER surface temps, not higher. DESPITE the reduction in radiative heat loss. This is a highly consistent pattern.
Not really. The whole point is that convection takes care of the energy that isn’t radiated to space inside the regions where the IR opacity is high, and naturally and spontaneously brings it out to the regions where it IS radiated to space. That’s what the atmospheric circulation does. It moves the heat around and thus it also distributes and evens out Earth’s emission to space across the whole globe. Everything that enters also exits. There is no “trapping” of energy anywhere, and no “delay”. It’s a continuous process.
As long as atmospheric circulation is in stable operation, you cannot make the average surface temperature higher by simply putting more “GHGs” into the atmosphere. Convection easily negates any radiative effects.
The definition is ridiculous and un-physical. It does NOT make sense. Either way, that’s the definition.
Kristian
You: [Youre just continuing to underscore my point, Snape. Evaporative convection IS the reason why T_s is lower in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel, DESPITE equal heat input and a much stronger GHE]
All that is true, Kristian, but because of convection, the stronger GHE in the Congo “cube” would then potentially increase temperature in a neighboring cube instead.
This using your Congo/Sahel logic, you could find a different pair of cubes, let’s call them CubeA and CubeB, and make this claim:
Evaporative convection (from the Congo) IS the reason why T_s is higher in CubeA than in CubeB, DESPITE equal heat input and a much weaker GHE.
Ramanathan’s definition of GHE for each cube was specifically used to explain how he would calculate the GHE from a global grid of cubes. In a global grid, the effects of convection would get averaged out, so THAT’s why he didn’t have to worry about it.
Kristian, you’re trying to pass off Ramanathan’s definition, written 28 years ago in an obscure paper, and germane to a specific endeavor, as THE definition! What rubbish.
Kristian
-Take the global averages for E and F.
-Take global averages of water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere
G = E — F
This can now be used to make claims about GHG’s and the GHE. For instance, how do the values differ from what would be expected if the earth had no atmosphere?
If you try to reach conclusions by comparing individual cubes (example: Congo/Sahara), the conclusions may very wildly depending on which cubes you choose to compare, making it a useless and potentially misleading task.
Comparison 1.
Two similar cubes. We have concluded the one with more water vapor is cooler than the other because of convection.
Comparison 2.
Two similar cubes (different than the above). We have concluded the one with more water vapor is warmer than the other because of convection.
Kristian
Again, that’s the flaw with drawing conclusions about the GHE based on comparisons between individual cubes of atmosphere. They would differ depending on what cubes you chose.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 22, 2017 at 1:02 PM:
It appears that once again you haven’t really been paying attention to what I’m saying.
The Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel comparison is NOT first and foremost a test of the “GHE”, even though it DOES show that Raval & Ramanathan’s definition is naive and simplistic. It is primarily a test of the “enhanced GHE” hypothesis, the idea that if you only put more “GHGs” into the atmosphere, if you only make the atmosphere more opaque to outgoing IR, if you only reduce the surface radiative heat loss, then you will inevitably force the T_s to rise.
It simply and straightforwardly shows that this is obviously NOT a necessary outcome. It is not itself proof that it CANNOT happen, globally. (There are other pieces of empirical evidence showing that.) But it sure does prove that it is NOT a given. Precisely because of atmospheric circulation.
How hard is this to grasp?
Kristian
You’re right. People might assume that if the Sahel or Congo became more humid, temperatures their would automatically increase. This is clearly not the case.
It would also be dumb to ASSUME that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will automatically make the world hotter. That’s where computer models come in. They are able to simulate the effects of increased C02 levels. How accurate are they? I don’t know, but I suspect they are getting better all the time.
And how come, on Mars, there is no “GHE” – as defined by R&R and Pierrehumbert – AT ALL? Even globally! Why is its T_s at least 7-9K LOWER than its T_e? Even as each cubic metre of atmosphere above the global solar-heated surface contains ~26 times as many CO2 molecules as on Earth, equal to a concentration of 10,400 ppm (1.04%) in our atmosphere.
Because of OTHER THINGS, Snape. There are easily identifiable physical reasons why. But neither of these makes the radiative “GHE” assumption, that it is the presence of “GHGs” in the atmosphere specifically that CAUSES the T_s of a planet to rise above what it would’ve been if that same planet didn’t have an atmosphere, any more credible.
It is the MASS of the atmosphere that causes the T_s to be higher with than without, not the fact that it’s “IR active”.
Kristian
(It is the MASS of the atmosphere that causes the T_s to be higher with than without, not the fact that its IR active.)
CO2 is much better at absorbing and “thermalizing” earth’s radiation than nitrogen. With this in mind, do you think an atmosphere of 100% nitrogen would be the same temperature as one with 100% CO2, assuming each has the same mass?
Kristian says:
“It is the MASS of the atmosphere that causes the T_s to be higher with than without, not the fact that its IR active.”
No.
The greenhouse effect on Mars is about 8 K.
Pierrehumbert got that right.
You’re wrong again, Kristian.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 22, 2017 at 11:54 AM:
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM:
What is this utter nonsense!? You’re just making stuff up to counter an actual, empirically based argument. “Argument by imagination” isn’t a valid way to justify one’s position, Snape. “I’m now postulating that I have shown the opposite of what you have shown, so there!” That’s essentially your argument.
The whole point of this test is to compare regions that are carefully and deliberately chosen, NOT randomly so. You can’t just pick any two regions on Earth, compare them, and expect to get any sensible results.
Firstly, the two regions chosen are both LAND areas, which means that the surface itself doesn’t move.
Secondly, they are both outside the direct influence of the ocean surface, which does move, and which can and will significantly affect the air temperature over nearby land areas (cases in point: the coast of Peru/Ecuador vs. the north coast of Brazil; the coast of Namibia/Angola vs. the coast of Mozambique).
Thirdly, they receive and absorb an equal amount of solar heat at the surface annually, so are directly comparable. If you move just a little bit further north from the Sahara-Sahel region, into the Sahara proper, you might get even higher T_max values, but the T_avg will begin to drop, because now the diurnal and seasonal amplitudes are getting very large, and the average solar heat input to the surface across the whole year is plummeting, simply because we’re straying too far from the equator, outside of the tropics:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/rad_balance_erbe_1987-b.png
So when you state the following, as if this were something that you had actually already shown …:
“Comparison 2. Two similar cubes (different than the above). We have concluded the one with more water vapor is warmer than the other because of convection.”
… then this simply goes to show that you don’t understand what this whole exercise is about in the first place.
Where are these “two similar cubes” where the one with MORE water vapour is all of a sudden WARMER than the one with LESS “because of convection”, Snape!? Where?
My Congo-Sahara/Sahel comparison isn’t a random one. And the result of the comparison isn’t unique. It’s indicative of, and follows, a clear pattern: More water means LOWER temps, not higher. Consistently.
Kristian
Humid areas all along Earth’s equator receive more solar radiation than they return to space. The intense sun/high humidity combine to create a global “heat engine”, meaning heat is put into motion and redistributed. The excess heat is not “kept for itself” as is more the case in the Sahara, it is shared with the rest of the planet. Due to it’s low humidity, the Sahara is a less efficient heat engine than the Congo. You’re careful analysis supports this view.
Kristian
Earth’s polar regions get less energy annually from the sun than they return to space, yet they have a stable annual temperature. How is this possible? Heat is transported from warmer areas by ocean and atmospheric circulation. In this respect, warm, dry areas are not as “helpful” as warm, humid areas.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM:
The Martian atmosphere already contains about 96% CO2 (pretty close to 100, wouldn’t you say so?), and still it cannot make the Red Planet’s T_s any higher than its T_e, since the opposite is very much the case.
A 100% nitrogen atmosphere would end up practically isothermal, and much WARMER on average in the steady state than a 100% CO2 atmosphere, because it wouldn’t be adequately able to rid itself of internal energy previously transferred to it as heat.
The IR energy is absorbed by CO2 molecules. It isn’t necessarily “thermalised”. That fully depends on the molecules crashing into them. On Earth, those molecules crashing into the CO2 molecules are statistically of the nitrogen and/or oxygen variety. And THIS is where the energy is actually “thermalised”. Just having a bunch of CO2 molecules absorbing IR wouldn’t make a difference, because it wouldn’t make the air any warmer. You need atmospheric bulk mass.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 23, 2017 at 1:17 PM:
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 23, 2017 at 1:17 PM:
No, this is where OBSERVATIONS come in. A computer model will only ever confirm the hypothesis that already lies at the heart of its operational framework; an altogether circular endeavour.
There is absolutely NO observational evidence from the real Earth system to suggest that an increase in atmospheric CO2 (and the accompanying increase in water vapour) has done or is doing anything at all to “enhance the GHE”, and that an “enhanced GHE” is therefore somehow the CAUSE of (or even a contributing factor to) global warming over the last few decades.
In fact, an increase in the solar heat input (+ASR) to Earth is OBVIOUSLY the cause. This is all readily seen in the relevant data.
David Appell says, September 23, 2017 at 6:40 PM:
No. It’s about -8K.
Kristian
I left a couple of replies upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/?replytocom=264729#comment-264729
Kristian
Real world, observed evidence for the enhanced GHE would be a global warming trend. This has indeed been observed, but in your odd reasoning, is “obviously” not evidence.
Kristian
“More water means LOWER temps, not higher. Consistently”
If you compared wetter/dryer areas in the earth’s polar regions, I expect you would find that statement to be incorrect. Also, interesting that water vapor, globally, has been increasing right along with temperature.
Kristian
From those “naive” scientists at NOAA:
“As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.”
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 24, 2017 at 6:04 PM:
If you look at a circulation (wind/pressure) map of the world, you will notice that – at the SURFACE – the tropospheric pattern of energy transfer between the equator and about 40N and 40S is very distinctly that of “convergence” for the equator (really, the low following the ITCZ) and “divergence” for the subtropics (the high-pressure cells of the horse latitudes). Which is to say that energy is generally transferred TO the equator (in from both the S and N) and AWAY FROM the subtropical high-pressure areas (both N and S). Close to the surface, that is. High up in the troposphere, however, towards the thermal tropopause, the situation is reversed – divergence above the ITCZ and convergence above the subtropics. But up there, everything is of course much colder than at the surface.
So I fear the picture is not quite how you paint it, Snape. The Sahara definitely “shares” some “excess heat” with “the rest of the world”. Only it does so at the surface rather than close to the tropopause.
But the heat engine thing seems pretty spot on.
It is mainly the ocean that spreads the tropical heat to the mid-latitudes. From there on, the troposphere takes over.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 24, 2017 at 10:09 PM:
Not at all. Now you’re mixing in ocean effects, and that’s a whole different arena. The sea surface MOVES with the winds, and so a warmer sea surface will naturally be associated with a more humid troposphere and stronger convection. But the causation goes the opposite way. If you were to compare the Atlantic part of the Arctic with the Siberian or Canadian/Alaskan part, then what you would see would be the thermal influence of the Gulf Stream.
Indeed. And yet it hasn’t strengthened the “GHE” one bit over the last 32+ years. Quite compelling evidence!
Kristian
Indeed. And yet it hasnt strengthened the GHE one bit over the last 32+ years. Quite compelling evidence!
What?? Not following your logic, Kristian. You wrote, “More water means LOWER temps, not higher. Consistently. More water in the atmosphere over the last 40 years and we find this:
UAH lower troposphere trend: +0.13/decade
I found this at weatherquestions.com:
“In fact, it has been calculated that the Sahara Desert actually loses more infrared radiation than it gains solar radiation from the sun. This net loss of radiant energy is balanced by the sinking air over the desert, which warms as it is compressed. The air over the desert is, in turn, being forced to sink by rising within rain systems hundreds or thousands of miles away. Thus, in some sense, rain can be considered the cause of deserts(!)”
Does water vapor in the Congo help explain why the Sahara is so hot?
Kristian
You: ” Now youre mixing in ocean effects, and thats a whole different arena.”
Warmth from a relatively warm area (in this case an ocean) is “shared” via atmospheric convection with a neighboring land mass. Heat in one “atmospheric cube” is shared with another, colder cube.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 24, 2017 at 9:37 PM:
No. That the world has gotten warmer is the observation that we want to explain. An “enhanced GHE” is ONE possible explanation. So what we need to look for is a specific greenhouse warming SIGNAL, not warming per se.
Increased ASR (solar heat input) will, after all, ALSO cause global temps to rise.
So, yes, warming itself is OBVIOUSLY not evidence of what CAUSED that same warming, Snape.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 24, 2017 at 11:39 PM:
Hmm. Now we’re getting into pretty basic stuff, Snape.
Have you heard of “cause and effect”?
A warmer WATER surface will cause an increase in evaporation from that surface (Clausius-Clapeyron relation), thus naturally humidifying the troposphere above. The increase in tropospheric water content over the last decades is CAUSED by rising SSTs. (The rising SSTs are in turn caused by an increase in solar input (+ASR).)
That’s the OPPOSITE of what is supposed to happen according to the “enhanced GHE” idea, where more water (vapour, clouds) in the air column is supposed to reduce the radiative heat loss from the surface, thus forcing it to warm.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM:
No, it doesn’t. The excess OLR over the Sahara-Sahel is from energy brought in advectively from the Congo near the tropopause. The apparent IR deficit over the Congo reappears as an apparent IR surplus over the Sahara-Sahel. It’s not energy from the Sahara-Sahel itself. It’s from the Congo:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-264204
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 25, 2017 at 12:51 AM:
Again, you can’t include ocean areas into the mix:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-264666
Kristian
You remind me of a good public defender. Your client is guilty (Co2 is the leading culprit in the enhanced GHE) but you find the best possible arguments for his innocence.
If you’re interested (nobody else seems to be) I’ve explained some of the math involved with delay/velocity/GHE
Kristian
If you have any comments, please reply on the newer thread, (I’m tired of having to scroll down so far.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/?replytocom=265016#comment-265016
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 10:32 AM:
There’s no “enhanced GHE”, Snape. Which naturally means that CO2 cannot be “the leading culprit” in it.
CO2 is simply ASSUMED guilty (YOU appear to assume it’s guilty) before ANY empirical evidence of any kind to back such an assumption up is presented.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 10:32 AM:
Since you’re evidently adamant about not getting the point (it is not about the speed at which ONE PARTICULAR QUANTITY of energy enters or leaves the Earth system, it is only about the BALANCE between incoming and outgoing energy), then, no, I am not really interested in responding to yet more reiterations of your fundamental misunderstandings on this matter.
The atmosphere’s own radiation isn’t what’s CAUSING the “atmospheric thermal effect”. The “atmospheric thermal (insulating) effect” on the solar-heated surface is caused by its MASS.
People see a simple radiative EFFECT of temperature and manage to convince themselves that they see some CAUSE of temperature instead. That’s what indoctrination from an early age will do to you … People have become unable to distinguish between “cause” and “effect”.
so…nitrogen doesn’t absorb/emit in the infrared, eh? Check this out:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
Also, check this if you can get it to run:
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/vlab/elements/Elements.html
press N for nitrogen and O for oxygen. Check both the absorb and emission button. May surprise you.
I am beginning to thing we have a serious hoax on our hands, that only CO2 and H2O can absorb/emit in the infrared.
Gordon Robertson
We are all aware of this. Look at the graphs in this link.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262817
If you go to the scale with different gases you can see N2 and O2 are in the same ranges as the non absorbing CO2 bands. Thousands of times less than the active bands. Depending upon how you read the graph it could be tens of thousands of times less.
The absorbing amount by N2 and O2 is not significant. It is not zero. I am not claiming zero I am claiming insignificant. Too small amount to make measurable differences.
So how much do you think N2 emits? In your link it was compared to the IR emitted by a star (which is a very tiny amount).
So what is the amount in Watts/m^2?
Also in one of the graphs they compare N2 visible spectrum with IR. N2 is considered transparent in visible light waves.
Not sure what your point is.
Exactly, Norman!
In the spectral range between 0.16 and 10,000 microns we see, when comparing N2 / O2 with H2O / CO2 on the base of a linear scaling by atmospheric abundance:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170916/3kanp67r.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170916/3vrvraei.png
1. N2 doesn’t absorb / emit anything perceptible
2. O2 absorbs / emits about 10,000 times less than H2O an CO2.
Even if that would have been a raw comparison, multiplying the O2 values by the difference in atmospheric abundance wrt H2O and CO2 still would give a factor of 1 to 100!
That is indeed a non zero value…
Let us add a tiny detail: the chiefio link posted by the troll points to a document dated… 1944.
And there you read about a… photocell. Maybe the chiefio could manage to reproduce the experiment with a today’s FTIR device, hu?
How can one compare
– about 50 Terawatt estimated average internal heat globally emitted by Earth’s kernel (0.1 W/m2)
with
– about 170,000 Terawatt of incoming solar irradiation, giving about 340 W/m2?
I can’t believe such laughable, unscientific behavior.
1. Earth’s internal heat radiated out at its surface by the kernel therefore represents no more than 0.03 % of the 240 W/m2 of solar flux reaching Earth’s surface and which therefore must be, komme was wolle, radiated back to space in order to keep equilibrium.
2. At the end of the 1990’s, Evans (Northwest Research Associates, Ontario, CA) and Puckrin (Defense R&D, Quebec, CA) measured (using two FTIR spectrometers with a resolution of 0.25 and 0.02 cm-1 respectively) among other constituents the following average DLWIR fluxes for CO2 (those for H2O of course are, depending on the season and on the geographic position, 3 to 6 times higher, as we know).
For the location Peterborough, Ontario, CA (44N-78W) their measurements give:
– winter: 30 W/m2
– summer: 10 W/m2
Even the DLWIR fluxes for CH4 and N2O for example are, with about 1.1 W/m2 each, ten times higher than Earth’s geothermal flux, which is at best comparable with the DLWIR of all the CFC’s together.
3. Let us conclude with an interesting look at global DSWR and DLWIR graphs originating from the ETH in Zuerich, Switzerland:
Shortwave:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170920/7p9xs9e4.jpg
Longwave:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170920/bovr4omq.jpg
I hope the warmistas understand the hint in the bottom graph of this page above, but… Im not sure.
Who does here divert and confuse, Mr Flynn?
Fooling & mucking is so pretty fun, isnt it?
binny…”How can one compare
about 50 Terawatt estimated average internal heat globally emitted by Earths kernel (0.1 W/m2)”
You have an inability to think laterally. Take that 50 terawatts over millions of years and compare it to your semi-daily solar energy and see what it does in the long term.
That 50 terawatts could easily raise the temperatures of the oceans provided it has not already warmed them from the beginning.
You don’t know any of this yet you are willing to laugh like a sniggering fool without thinking the possibilities through.
Gordon Robertson
It would not do much. You have to remember the oceans are constantly radiating away energy. A O.1 W/m^2 flux (with no other input, Sun is out) would not warm the oceans or land more than to 36 K or so (depending upon what you would use for your emissivity).
No need to answer to such a troll, Norman: he doesn’t grasp that all anyway.
Robertson: call me an idiot, a fool, what ever comes in your mind. I can live with all that.
All these names won’t manage to hide your thorough unability to capture and evaluate matters, and therefore to understand why and where comparisons make no sense.
Langsam, unaufhaltsam kehren Sie zurueck in die Kindheit, Robertson.
binny…”All these names wont manage to hide your thorough unability to capture and evaluate matters, and therefore to understand why and where comparisons make no sense”.
All smoke, no fire. You criticize obliquely without substance to you arguments.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You have an inability to think laterally. Take that 50 terawatts over millions of years and compare it to your semi-daily solar energy and see what it does in the long term”
O.M.G.
Gordon, you really are hilariously stupid. Your claims here are an endless source of mirth. You can’t seen to get ANYTHING right. It’s like you are doing cartoon physics.
My estimate for September: +0.28 to +0.31
I visited a lot of website but I think this one holds something extra in it.
Feel free to visit my blog; True Keto Boost – Better Dieting Today! | SpecialOffer!
My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find most of your post’s to be exactly I’m looking for.
Would you offer guest writers to write content for you personally?
I wouldn’t mind writing a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you
write with regards Total Keto Boost Review – Use This To Burn Fat In Weeks! | SpecialOffer here.
Again, awesome web site!
What’s up, just wanted to tell you, I loved this post.
It was inspiring. Keep on posting!
My web-site Total Keto Boost – Get Total Fat Burning With Keto! | SpecialOffer
I’ve been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or blog posts in this sort of house .
Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this website.
Studying this information So i am glad to convey that I’ve a
very excellent uncanny feeling I discovered just what I
needed. I most unquestionably will make sure to do
not fail to remember this web site and give it a glance on a continuing basis.
Also visit my homepage … Keto BHB Real Pills – Boost Fat Burn With The #1 Pill Here! |Review
Nice weblog here! Additionally your site a lot up fast!
What web host are you the use of? Can I am getting your associate link
for your host? I desire my website loaded up as quickly as yours lol.
my web site :: Restorol – Sleep Better And Longer Naturally! | SpecialOffer
Truly no matter if someone doesn’t know afterward its up to other
viewers that they will help, so here it happens.
Llevo tiempo en busca de una maleta de viaje de calidad y a un optimo valor economico, me he cruzado con esta web experta en maletas de viaje esta, que os da la sensacion?