NOTE: In fairness to Lord Monckton, I have accepted his request to respond to my post where I criticized his claim than an “elementary error of physics” could be demonstrated on the part of climate modelers. While Christopher & I are in agreement that the models produce too much warming, we disagree on the reasons why. From what I can tell, Christopher claims that climatologists have assumed the theoretical 255K average global surface temperature in the absence of the greenhouse effect would actually induce a feedback response; I disagree… 255K is the theoretical, global average temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gases but assuming the same solar insolation and albedo. It has no feedback response because it is a pure radiative equilibrium calculation. Besides, the climate models do not depend upon that theoretical construct anyway; it has little practical value — and virtually no quantitative value –other than in conceptual discussions (how could one have clouds without water vapor? How could a much colder Earth have no more ice cover than today?). But I will let the reader decide whether his arguments have merit. I do think the common assumption that the climate system was in equilibrium in the mid-1800s is a dubious one, and I wish we could attack that, instead, because if some of the warming since the 1800s was natural (which I believe is likely) it would reduce estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide even further.
Of ZOD and NOGs
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Roy Spencer has very kindly allowed me to post up this reply to his interesting posting about my team’s discussion of a large error we say we have found in climatological physics.
The error arises from the fact that climate models are calibrated by reference to past climate. They have to explain why the world in, say, 1850, was 32 K warmer than the 255 K that would have prevailed that year (assuming today’s insolation and an albedo of about 0.3), in the absence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases (NOGS).
Till now, it has generally been assumed that between a third and a quarter of that 32 K warming is directly forced by the presence of the NOGS, and that between two-thirds and three-quarters is a feedback response to the directly-forced warming from the NOGS.
That gives a feedback fraction of 2/3 to 3/4, or 0.67 to 0.75. The feedback fraction is simply the fraction of final or equilibrium temperature that constitutes the feedback response to the directly-forced warming.
Roy is quite right to point out that the general-circulation models do not use the concept of feedback directly. However, there is a handy equation, with the clunky name zero-dimensional-model equation (lets call it ZOD) that allows us to diagnose what equilibrium temperature the models would predict.
All we need to know to diagnose the equilibrium temperature the models would be expected to predict is the reference temperature, here the 255 K emission temperature, and the feedback fraction.
ZOD works also for changes in temperature rather than entire temperatures. The reason is that a temperature feedback is a temperature response induced by a temperature or temperature change.
If a feedback is present in a dynamical system (that’s a mathematically-describable object that changes its state over time, such as the climate), that feedback does not distinguish between the initial entire temperature (known to feedback-analysis geeks as the input signal) and any change in that temperature (the direct gain), such as a directly-forced increase owing to the presence of NOGS.
We say that climatology errs in assuming that the input signal (the 255 K emission temperature that would prevail at the surface in the absence of greenhouse gases) does not induce a feedback response, but that the additional 8 Kelvin of warming directly forced by the presence of the NOGS somehow, as if by magic, induces a feedback response and not just any old feedback response, but a temperature of 24 K, three times the direct warming that induced it.
Now, here’s the question for anyone who thinks climatology has gotten this right. By what magical process waving a wand, scattering stardust, casting runes, reading tea-leaves, pick a card, any card do the temperature feedbacks in the climate distinguish between the input signal of 255 K and the direct gain of 8 K in deciding whether to respond?
Do the feedbacks gather around, have a beer and take a vote? OK, boys, lets go on strike until the surface temperature exceeds 255 K, and lets go to work in a big way then, but only in response to the extra 8 K of temperature from our good mates the NOGs?
Of course not. If a feedback process subsists in a dynamical object, it will respond not only to what the feedback geeks call the direct gain but also to the input signal. Why on Earth would feedbacks refuse to deliver any response at all to 255 K of emission temperature but then suddenly deliver a whopper of a 24 K response to just 8 K of further temperature?
Roy’s difficulty in accepting that the emission temperature induces a feedback response is that it is not a forcing. Of course it isn’t. Emission temperature, as its name suggests, is a temperature, denominated in Kelvin, not a forcing (a change in radiative flux density denominated in Watts per square meter).
But what is a temperature feedback? The clue is in the name on the tin. A temperature feedback is a feedback to temperature, not to a forcing. It is itself a forcing, this time denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature (or temperature change) that induced it.
A temperature feedback just doesn’t care whether it is responding to an initial temperature, or to a subsequent change in temperature driven by a forcing such as that from the presence of the NOGs.
Take the Earth in 1850, but without greenhouse gases, and yet preserving today’s insolation and albedo. The reason for this rather artificial construct is that that’s the way climatology determines the influence of feedbacks, by comparing like with like. The ice, clouds and sea have much the same extents as today, so the thought experiment says.
And that means there are feedbacks. Specifically, the water-vapor feedback somewhat offset by the lapse-rate feedback, the surface albedo feedback, and the cloud feedbacks.
Those feedbacks respond to temperature. Is there one? Yes. There is a temperature of 255 K. At this stage in the calculation, we don’t have much of an idea of how much the feedback response to 255 K of temperature would be.
Lets press ahead and bring on the NOGS. Up goes the temperature by a directly-forced 8 K, from 255 K to 263 K, or thereabouts.
What’s the equilibrium temperature in this experiment? Its simply the actual, measured temperature in 1850: namely, around 287 K. The climate is presumed to have been in equilibrium then.
Now we have all we need to deploy the ZOD to diagnose approximately what the feedback fraction would be in the models, provided that, as in this experiment, they took account of the fact that the emission temperature as well as well as the NOGs induces a feedback response.
The ZOD is a really simple equation. If, as here, we have some idea of the reference temperature (in this case, 263 K) and the equilibrium temperature (287 K), the feedback fraction is simply 1 minus the ratio of emission temperature to equilibrium temperature, thus: 1 – 263/287. That works out at 0.08, and not, as now, 0.67 or 0.75.
Armed with the approximate value of the feedback fraction, we can use the ZOD to work out the Charney sensitivity (i.e., equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2) if the models were to take account of the fact that feedbacks will respond just as enthusiastically to the emission temperature as to the small change in that temperature forced by the presence of the NOGS.
The models current estimate of reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 is 1.1 K. Using their current estimate of the feedback fraction, 0.67, the ZOD tells us Charney sensitivity would be 1.1/(1 – 0.67), or a heftyish 3.3 K. That’s the official mid-range estimate.
But with our corrected approximation to the feedback fraction, Charney sensitivity would be 1.1/(1 – 0.08), or only 1.2 K. End of global warming problem.
What of Roy’s point that the models don’t explicitly use the ZOD? The models have been tuned to assume that two-thirds to three-quarters of the 32 K difference between emission temperature and real-world temperature in 1850 is accounted for by feedback responses to the 8 K directly forced warming from the NOGs.
The models are also told that there is no feedback response to the 255 K emission temperature, even though it is 32 times bigger than the 8 K warming from the NOGs.
So they imagine, incorrectly, that Charney sensitivity is almost three times the value that they would find if the processes by which they represent what we are here calling feedbacks had been adjusted to take account of the fact that feedbacks respond to any temperature, whether it be the entire original temperature or some small addition to it.
Mainstream climate science thus appeared to us to be inconsistent with mainstream science. So we went to a government laboratory and said, Build us an electronic model of the climate, and do the following experiment. Assume that the input signal is 255 K. Assume that there are no greenhouse gases, so that the value of the direct-gain factor in the gain block is unity [feedback geek-speak, but they knew what we meant]. Assume that the feedback fraction is 0.1. And tell us what the output signal would be.
Now, climatology would say that, in the absence of any forcings from the greenhouse gases, the output signal would be exactly the same as the input signal: 255 K. But we said to the government lab, We think the answer will be 283 K.
So the lab built the test circuit, fed in the numbers, and simply measured the output, and behold, it was 283 K. They weren’t at all surprised, and nor were we. For ZOD said 255/(1 – 0.1) = 283.
That’s it, really. But our paper is 7500 words long, because we have had to work so hard to nail shut the various rat-holes by which climatologists will be likely to try to scurry away.
Will it pass peer review? Time will tell. But we have the world’s foremost expert in optical physics and the world’s foremost expert in the application of feedback math to climate on our side.
Above all, we have ZOD on our side. ZOD gives us a very simple way of working out what warming the models would predict if they did things right. We calibrated ZOD by feeding in the official CMIP5 models values of the reference temperature and of the feedback fraction, and we obtained the official interval of Charney sensitivities that the current models actually predict. ZOD works.
We went one better. We took IPCC’s mid-range estimate of the net forcing from all anthropogenic sources from 1850-2011 and worked out that that implied a reference sensitivity over that period of 0.72 K. But the actual warming was 0.76 K, and that’s near enough the equilibrium warming (it might be a little higher, owing to delays caused by the vast heat-sink that is the ocean).
And ZOD said that the industrial-era feedback fraction was 1 – 0.72/0.76, or 0.05. That was very close to the pre-industrial feedback fraction 0.08, but an order of magnitude smaller than the official estimates, 0.67-0.75.
Or ZOD can do it the other way about. If the feedback fraction is really 0.67, as the CMIP5 models think, then the equilibrium warming from 1850-2011 would not be the measured 0.76 K: it would be 0.72/(1 – 0.67) = 2.2 K, almost thrice what was observed.
Does ocean overturning explain that discrepancy? Well, we know from the pre-industrial experiment, in which ocean overturning is inapplicable, that the feedback fraction is about 0.08. And there’s not likely to be all that much difference between the pre-industrial and industrial-era values of the feedback fraction.
ZOD, therefore, works as a diagnostic tool. And ZOD tells us Charney sensitivity to doubled CO2 will be only 1.2 K, plus or minus not a lot. Game over.
Or so we say.
Guys, look at what the SF Judge looked at. Don’t get lost in the weeds. KISS. These arguments are way too esoteric to ever win in the court of public opinion. Science only needs one experiment to change the status quo. Look for the obvious smoking guns that everyone will understand. Arguing over the minutia may be enjoyable intellectual exercises, but don’t forget the big picture.
San Francisco Judge Demonstrated a Real Understanding of Science; Vindicates CO2isLife
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/san-francisco-judge-demonstrated-a-real-understanding-of-science-vindicates-co2islife/
Oh, I agree that the arguments have to be kept VERY simple to win in the court of public opinion. That’s why I say it’s how clouds and water vapor will respond to the weak direct effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere that will determine how much climate change we will see. So far, we really don’t know… but the evidence suggests very little, and the severe weather response alarmists claim will result has so far not occurred. The climate models are endlessly “tuned” to produce the amount of climate change the modelers think “looks about right”. Most of the warming the models produce is NOT based upon “physical first principles”, as some claim.
No lab experiment by electrical engineers, no matter how gifted, can answer the climate sensitivity question. For example, the processes controlling how cloud cover changes with warming, including microphysics, atmospheric stability, precipitation efficiency, etc., cannot be answered with analogies to simple electric circuits.
The 255 K radiative equilibrium temperature Christopher speaks of is physically impossible anyway (if there is no greenhouse effect, then there is no water vapor, thus no clouds, thus the Earth’s albedo will be different from that assumed when calculating the 255 K value). It’s an extremely simplified construct, based upon grossly simplified assumptions, of no value for computing climate sensitivity.
Another reason that 288K-minus-255K doesn’t measure the strength of today’s greenhouse effect is that 288 K is AFTER moist and dry convection have cooled the surface by about 40 deg. C from the extremely hot surface the greenhouse effect would caused without convective heat transport.
Yes, the models are wrong. But the reasons why cannot be deduced from unrealistic assumptions input into electrical circuit calculations.
Seems to be a pretty good reasonableness test for the output of the models using Modtran to input the CO2 element. Evaporation is not linear but neither is the greenhouse effect in the opposite direction. Assuming a linear response seems to be a good reasonableness test that produces a result that calls for a much closer look at model assumptions.
Modtran is a mathematical model which has the equations and actual mechanism of heat transfer (which is a chemical engineering subject, and includes convection and phase change or evaporation) wrong. The output of that Modtran model can not be regarded as reasonable. Mass transfer (also a chemical engineering subject) often is associated with heat transfer. So there is nothing linear about processes.
“So there is nothing linear about processes.”
I agree and I think thats what I was saying. However, I have yet to see a paper that establishes the higher feedback sensitivities giving full consideration to water vapor greenhouse temperature feedbacks of solar forcing.
Short of that it seems Monckton’s simplistic and transparent model would be the best science available.
First and foremost, I’m most grateful to Roy Spencer for his fair-mindedness in allowing me to reply above to his original posting raising questions about our recent result.
His introduction to my piece suggests we are saying that climatologists have assumed the presence of the 255 K emission temperature induces a tempeature feedback.
With respect, the opposite is in fact the case. Climatologists have assumed, erroneously, that the first 255 K of global temperature (real global temperature) induces no feedback at all, and that by some mystical process the addition of another 8 K of temperature from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases adds 24 K of feedback response, bringing the temperature up to what it was in 1850.
In reply to CO2islife, therefore, we are making a very simple point indeed. We are saying that in mainstream feedback theory any temperature or temperature change present in the feedback loop will contribute to the output signal, which is equilibrium sensitivity, but climate science does not realize that this is the case.
That is why we took the trouble to commission a government lab to conduct experiments demonstrating that mainstream feedback theory is correct. It works.
As explained in the head posting, the consequence is that Charney sensitivity, or equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentration, is only 1.2 K, and not the 3.3 K that is the models’ current mid-range estimate. That’s all.
I disagree with the Lord. He claims 255 K temperature causes 24 K feedback. It cannot in reality because 255 K is in radiative equilibrium. What is the heat energy source to increase temperature by 24 K? If the 24 K temperature feedback were true, Earths climate system would be a perpetual motion machine of the 1st kind.
You don’t need a “heat energy source” to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss.
That’s why the core of the sun only produces a fraction of the heat energy the human body does (per kg of mass), yet has an estimated temperature of millions of degrees.
Yet, there can never be “runaway” warming, even of the sun, because the radiative loss of energy increases by the 4th power of the temperature.
“the sun only produces a fraction of the heat energy the human body does (per kg of mass)”
Great fun fact!
Tots!
Gives meaning to the encomium
” the Sun shines out of his …”
I would say you need a heat source and it’s the ocean.
In our icebox climate which is an ice age, the average ocean temperature is in the range of about 1 to 5 C and currently it’s about 3.5 C.
For millions of years our heat source has had a low temperature (1 to 5 C).
Most of the energy from the sun is absorbed by the ocean.
How the energy absorbed by the ocean is eventually radiated back into space is related to the average global temperature and if ocean is 1 or 2 C, our earth will be in a glacial period and if ocean is 5 C or more Earth will be leaving it’s
Icebox climate and needs ocean to be around 15 C to enter a hothouse climate.
Or hothouse climate has a warmer ocean (or heat source).
“You dont need a ‘heat energy source’ to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss.”
Unfortunately, a statement like that is innocently misleading.
Of course you need a heat source to raise temperature. Consider a harmless bowl of fruit. The bowl of fruit is at room temperature. Now put it in a perfect enclosure, so that no energy can be radiated away. Would the bowl of fruit increase in temperature?
NO!
Now, add another identical bowl of fruit to the enclosure, also at room temperature. The amount of energy being radiated inside the enclosure has doubled. Would the combined fruit now increase in temperature?
NO!
What if you could add 100 bowls of fruit to the enclosure, all at room temperature. The IR being emitted is now 100 times the original scenario. Would the temperature increase?
NO!
“Fruit” is a good analogy to CO2. It’s “carbon-based”! ☺
This is the problem I run into with people like g*e*r*a*n… if you don’t explicitly list every assumption (things which most of us pick up on as being necessary inferences) in making a simple point, they jump all over you.
Ugh. Here we go again…
We are talking about HEATED systems that are warmer than their surroundings. Like a car engine. A pot on the stove. The Sun. The human body. Your house in the winter…
…the CLIMATE SYSTEM.
This is why g*e*r*a*n has asterisks in his name…he’s been banned before, and continues to obfuscate.
C’mon dude. You are only fooling the ignorant.
Dr. Roy, it looked as if you were saying a heat energy source is not needed to raise the temperature.
“You don’t need a ‘heat energy source’ to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss.”
Now it appears you agree a heat source is needed.
Thanks for clearing that up.
As Reagan used to say, “There you go again….”
The original statement I was responding to was, “What is the heat energy source to increase temperature by 24 K?”. Clearly, the question refers to our climate system, which has the sun as the energy source. The question put more precisely, I’m quite sure, would have been “what is the ADDITIONAL” heat energy source?”. That seems pretty obvious from the context. My point was that you don’t need an *additional* energy source to raise temperature… you can also reduce the rate of energy loss.
But thanks for supporting my diagnosis of your modus operandi.
-Roy
I was content with your first explanation, Dr. Roy.
So thanks for the additional clarification. Much appreciated.
“It is NOT the atmospheres IR-active gases trapping solar energy. Its the NON-radiative gases!”
All gases in the atmosphere are radiating. If not, its temperature would be absolute zero. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit LW infrared. Other gases gain energy by convective heat transfer and emit as a gray body radiator based on its emissivity.
g*r…”You dont need a heat energy source to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss.
Unfortunately, a statement like that is innocently misleading”.
**********
I think what Roy was getting at is an increase in temperature due to restricting heat dissipation. A body will get hotter if you stifle its dissipation.
It won’t get hotter than it’s natural ambient temperature, however. If you have a body naturally radiating at 50C and you increase the convection around it, the body will cool. Stifle the dissipation and it will return to a hotter temperature but not beyond 50C. You’d have to supply heat to take it beyond that.
Where I disagree with Roy is in his assertion that simply inserting something between the body and it’s radiation environment will slow the radiation. He seems to imply that GHGs act like that and I think that is wrong.
The only way that could work was demonstrated in swannie’s experiment. If the inserted object interferes with convective cooling, the body will warm. GHGs cannot do that.
The only thing that can affect heat dissipation is changing the temperature of the environment immediately adjacent to the body. In the case of air, that environment would be 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
dr. s…”All gases in the atmosphere are radiating”.
They are absorbing as well if you take the entire EM spectrum into account. O2 in the atmosphere absorbs ultraviolet in the stratosphere.
Boltzmann estimated that 1/3rd of solar energy reaching the atmosphere is absorbed by atmospheric gases. That was the basis of his equation with Stefan.
Gordon says: “It wont get hotter than its natural ambient temperature, however. If you have a body naturally radiating at 50C …”
Gordon — a couple serious questions:
1) how are you defining a an object’s “natural ambient temperature”?
2) how are you defining “naturally radiating at 50C”.
This sort of “natural” value seems misleading and counterproductive in this discussion. It would be useful to have your definition for a meaningful discussion.
Here is how I see it. To have a “natural ambient temperature” implies a thermostat. For example, my body’s “natural ambient temperature” is 37 C and it would be “naturally radiating” at 37 C. Moving from a room at 10 C to a room at 30 C will not change that temperature. But that is because there is a biological thermostat that actively adjusts my metabolism to produce enough power to maintain the set-point. Similarly, my house has a ‘natural ambient temperature’ of 21 C because that is where I set the thermostat.
But this is NOT like the earth (or like a pot of water on a stove). The sun does not adjust to keep the earth at 15 C. The heating element on the stove does not adjust to keep a frying pan at 150 C.
For situations of interest here, we are typically more interested in a ‘natural ambient POWER OUTPUT’. This value would be equal to the power input. If I supply 100W to a pan, it will adjust its temperature until it can shed 100W (by some combination of radiation, convection and conduction). Suppose that temperature is 150C. If I reduce the conduction by raising the temperature of the air around the pan, the temperature will rise above 150 C until convection and/or radiation increases enough to make up the difference.
Dr. Spencer
The heat energy source of Earth is the sun. Without the sun, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 3 K (average geothermal energy flux is less than 1 W/m^2)
255 K is the radiative equilibrium temperature. You can’t raise temperature beyond that without “trapping” more solar energy by greenhouse gases or allowing more solar energy by reducing Earth’s albedo.
Yes, we agree on that.
255K is a theoretical minimum temperature achieved by assuming that the Earth radiates as freely as a perfect radiator would. As the Earth is not a perfect radiator its physical temperature has to be higher than this fictional minimum.
Given a reasonable guess at some average emissivities of the effective surfaces that answer to space the temperature is more like 260 to 270K rather than 255K. This is partly why we experience higher temperatures than 255K would suggest.
Dr. Strangelove says, March 23, 2018 at 7:53 PM:
It is NOT the atmosphere’s IR-active gases “trapping” solar energy. It’s the NON-radiative gases! The IR-active gases specifically let heat escape the atmosphere to space. The non-radiative ones won’t.
An atmosphere’s IR activity won’t make it warmer, and so cannot be the cause of surface warming either:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/an-atmospheres-ir-activity-wont-make-it-warmer-and-so-cannot-be-the-cause-of-surface-warming-either/
It is NOT the atmospheres IR-active gases trapping solar energy. Its the NON-radiative gases!
All gases in the atmosphere are radiating. If not, its temperature would be absolute zero. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit LW infrared. Other gases gain energy by convective heat transfer and emit as a gray body radiator based on its emissivity.
The argument is very simple:
# The presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface forces the steady-state temperature of that surface to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there, because it acts like a layer of thermal INSULATION interposed between the surface and its ultimate heat sink – space. The surface heat loss will simply always be lower – at any given surface temperature – with an atmosphere on top than without.
# Even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldn’t, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of space itself.
# In other words, it is an absolute requirement for the atmosphere in question to be capable of producing an insulating effect on the solar-heated surface at all that it be WARMER than space. What sets an atmosphere apart from the vacuum of space, after all, is its (thermal) mass, making it able to be HEATED by the surface on which it rests, thus naturally allowing it to gain a temperature much higher than that of space and therefore much closer to that of the surface itself.
# So for any physical property of an atmosphere, if it – on balance – helps in making it warmer than space, if it contributes positively to its net heating, then it effectively acts to promote the atmosphere’s insulating effect on the solar-heated surface below.
# Which leads us to the crux of this argument: An atmosphere’s RADIATIVE properties, specifically, will not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of that atmosphere; which is to say that an atmosphere containing IR-active constituents will end up COOLER on average than an atmosphere not containing such IR-active constituents. The radiative properties of an atmosphere’s IR-active constituents simply – and quite naturally – help cool the atmosphere to a much greater extent than they help in heating it …
# And so, insofar as an atmosphere’s radiative properties are not contributing positively to the net heating of that atmosphere, they also cannot be CAUSING the atmosphere to exert an insulating effect on the planetary surface.
“The presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface forces the steady-state temperature of that surface to be higher than if the atmosphere werent there”
Not always true. If the atmosphere is transparent to LW infrared but reflective to light and SW infrared due to aerosols, it would cool the surface.
“insofar as an atmospheres radiative properties are not contributing positively to the net heating of that atmosphere, they also cannot be CAUSING the atmosphere to exert an insulating effect on the planetary surface”
Nope. Reduce the cooling rate and the surface heats up. A car’s radiator is not contributing to the net heating of the engine but remove the radiator and the engine overheats.
Dr. Strangelove says, March 25, 2018 at 6:56 AM:
And where exactly in the universe have you observed such an atmosphere, doctor?
The presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface forces the steady-state temperature of that surface to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there because that atmosphere will always be WARMER THAN SPACE. That’s the whole point here. It can’t make the steady-state temperature of the planetary surface any higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there if the atmosphere’s own temperature isn’t higher than that of space …
But you’re not reducing the cooling rate if you’re not making the atmosphere any warmer than space.
Again, the whole point I’m making is that an atmosphere needs to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to force the steady-state temperature of the solar-heated surface beneath it any higher. The radiative properties of an atmosphere do not in themselves contribute positively to making the atmosphere warmer than space. Because they – on balance – cool it much more effectively than they heat it.
Kristian says,
“The IR-active gases specifically let heat escape the atmosphere to space. The non-radiative ones wont.”
Kristian, You’ve made the opposite argument in the past…… providing evidence that the humid Congo radiates much less to space than the Sahara – Sahel…..both receiving similar solar input. Infact, the very arid Sahara has a net energy deficit at the TOA (radiates more to space than it receives from the sun), whereas the Congo has a net surplus.
This is from NASA (Click on the animation option):
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=CERES_NETFLUX_M
Kris, after much rambling and confusion, you finally stumble upon some actual science: “What sets an atmosphere apart from the vacuum of space, after all, is its (thermal) mass, making it able to be HEATED by the surface on which it rests, thus naturally allowing it to gain a temperature much higher than that of space and therefore much closer to that of the surface itself.”
Yes, the surface is heating the atmosphere, not the other way around. The declining temperatures, to tropopause, represent the heat transfer gradient.
Snape says, March 25, 2018 at 10:32 PM:
Uhm, no. Then you clearly haven’t understood what I’ve said. Sorry.
The atmosphere can only – on average – shed its heat via radiation to space. And only its IR-active constituents are able to do this to any meaningful degree. I’ve NEVER said otherwise.
Kristian
The IR-active gases specifically let heat escape the atmosphere to space. The non-radiative ones wont.
From this, it would be easy to infer that more IR-active gasses would let heat escape to space more efficiently.
Is that your argument?
Climate scientists tell us the opposite is true, and the animation I linked to, especially looking at the Sahara, is a bit of supporting evidence.
Snape says, March 26, 2018 at 10:19 AM:
No. I’m not talking about the “ENHANCED GHE” here. I’m talking about the “GHE” itself.
Once you’ve got stable atmospheric circulation going, it will have no relevance what level of “IR activity” the atmosphere in question is at. Meaning, you can’t just put more IR-active constituents into it and expect it to warm. OR cool. It would make no difference to temperatures.
Uggh,
The physics of the atmosphere has been measured and modeled for many decades, but now Kristian says its all wrong. Right.
What is the atmospheric window? The surface can shed IR straight thru this part of the spectrum to space. If their were no IR active gases, the IR window would be very wide, the WHOLE spectrum.
Nate says, March 26, 2018 at 3:21 PM:
I’m saying the physics of the atmosphere is all wrong!!???
As always, Nate, you’re not reading what I actually write. You’re responding rather to what you feel I should be writing – being nothing but your average dumb denier, after all.
No, Nate. I’m saying the physics of the atmosphere is all CORRECT. That’s my whole point. But of course no one cares to take note.
Would you for once consider to actually READ WHAT I WRITE instead of just building your own straw men out of it and go “Uggh” over them every single time …?
What am I saying?
Nate,
As a special service to you, here’s my argument laid out for you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-294026
Where exactly in those six simple points do I claim or imply that “the physics of the atmosphere” is all wrong?
As you will notice, I am only ever talking about the temperature, the physical properties and the heat budget of the ATMOSPHERE itself here, NOT of the surface.
“you cant just put more IR-active constituents into it and expect it to warm.”
Uggh………of course you can.
Nonsense Kristian, you cannot toss out the method by which heat passes from the surface to space thru the atmosphere, and keep all else we understand about the atmosphere the same. You cannot pick and choose the physics you like, just as weather models cannot, else they get the forecast wrong.
You didnt address the ir window.
“Which is to say that an atmosphere containing IR-active constituents will end up COOLER on average than an atmosphere not containing ”
An unproven assertion. Lets see a basic simulation.
Whatvwill be the lapse rate without ir active elements?
‘Again, the whole point Im making is that an atmosphere needs to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to force the steady-state temperature of the solar-heated surface beneath it any higher. The radiative properties of an atmosphere do not in themselves contribute positively to making the atmosphere warmer than space.’
This just ignores the lapse rate. It is the near-surface temperature that needs to be warmer than space in order for it to force the surface temp higher. It is, because of the radiative properties of the upper atmosphere.
Kristian,
Yes, it is true that even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldnt, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of space itself.
It is ALSO true that even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldnt, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of the surfce.
The key is that the radiating part of the atmosphere must be intermediate between the temperature of the surface and the temperature of space. Then the atmosphere can make a difference.
The bulk of the atmosphere is what allows this intermediate temperature to exist.
When the green plate was first introduced, it was the same temperature as space and therefore emitted no radiation.
Kristian states the obvious: if the green plate failed to warm up, despite being IR-active and receiving a constant stream of radiation from the blue, it would not be a useful insulator.
Snape says:
March 27, 2018 at 2:02 AM
you cant just put more IR-active constituents into it and expect it to warm.
Ugghof course you can.
Hehe, yeah, sorry. I’m sure you’d EXPECT that to happen, Snape. What I meant to say is that it WON’T warm from putting more IR-active constituents into it. For the simple reason that the radiative properties of the IR-active constituents already there specifically contribute to its COOLING much more than they contribute to its heating:
Atmosphere’s HEAT IN [Q_in]
Q_sw + Q_lw + Q_cond* + Q_lhov** →
(*conductive heat transfer; **transfer by the freeing of latent heat of vaporisation)
75 W/m^2 + 32.4 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 →
107.4 W/m^2 (Q_rad) + 112 W/m^2 (Q_non-rad) =
219.4 W/m^2
Atmosphere’s HEAT OUT [Q_out]
Q_rad(lw) →
220 W/m^2
So the radiative properties of the atmosphere all in all and on average “capture” 107.4 W/m^2 worth of heat for the atmosphere (~49% of the total input), but at the same time they release 220 W/m^2 worth of heat from the atmosphere (100% of the total output).
That’s a net COOLING contribution, Snape. And a relatively strong one at that …
I’ll try again:
Snape says, March 27, 2018 at 2:02 AM:
Hehe, yeah, sorry. I’m sure you’d EXPECT that to happen, Snape. What I meant to say is that it WON’T warm from putting more IR-active constituents into it. For the simple reason that the radiative properties of the IR-active constituents already there specifically contribute to its COOLING much more than they contribute to its heating:
Atmosphere’s HEAT IN [Q_in]
Q_sw + Q_lw + Q_cond* + Q_lhov** →
(*conductive heat transfer; **transfer by the freeing of latent heat of vaporisation)
75 W/m^2 + 32.4 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 →
107.4 W/m^2 (Q_rad) + 112 W/m^2 (Q_non-rad) =
219.4 W/m^2
Atmosphere’s HEAT OUT [Q_out]
Q_rad(lw) →
220 W/m^2
So the radiative properties of the atmosphere all in all and on average “capture” 107.4 W/m^2 worth of heat for the atmosphere (~49% of the total input), but at the same time they release 220 W/m^2 worth of heat from the atmosphere (100% of the total output).
That’s a net COOLING contribution, Snape. And a relatively strong one at that …
Kristian
This is what I think has happened. You’ve looked at the atmosphere’s energy budget and noticed GHG’s contribute more to cooling than warming, “Thats a net COOLING contribution, Snape. And a relatively strong one at that ”
From this, you make a perfectly logical assumption – the atmosphere “WON’T warm from putting more IR-active constituents into it.”
It’s not that simple! (If you don’t trust the consensus of climate scientists, read some of Dr. Spencer’s recent posts.)
***************
A person might discover the human body is 60% water. The logical inference: drink less to lose weight.
Of course, it’s not that simple!
Tim Folkerts says, March 27, 2018 at 12:09 PM:
Uhm, so what are you trying to say, Tim?
Snape says, March 28, 2018 at 12:18 PM:
Problem is, Snape, that’s not quite my argument. If you’d only cared to actually READ IT, then you would’ve most likely got that.
Again: I am not talking about the “ENHANCED GHE” here. I’m talking about the “GHE” itself. Putting more IR-active gases into an atmosphere won’t warm it. But it won’t cool it either. The DEGREE of an atmosphere’s IR activity is irrelevant when it comes to steady-state temperatures. Got it?
It IS that simple, Snape. That’s how heat budgets work. Read what Spencer says about this. A system temperature is set at the balance between the INCOMING and the OUTGOING heats to/from that system.
I know you desperately don’t WANT it to be that simple, but that’s entirely a different story, one called cognitive dissonance.
“A system temperature is set at the balance between the INCOMING and the OUTGOING heats to/from that system.”
Don’t play games, Kristian. You know very well I AGREE with that. Where we differ, and where you lose Dr. Spencer and nearly every climate scientist in the world is here:
“Putting more IR-active gases into an atmosphere wont warm it.”
That viewpoint puts you squarely in the camp of Flynn, Salvatore, Gordon and g*
Kristian says:
“Which leads us to the crux of this argument: An atmospheres RADIATIVE properties, specifically, will not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of that atmosphere; which is to say that an atmosphere containing IR-active constituents will end up COOLER on average than an atmosphere not containing such IR-active constituents.
I am not sure I can say this is a simple way, but here goes one such effort to point out the error (which comes after the semicolon). Consider a blackbody planet with a uniform power input of 240 W/m^2 and an atmosphere that is initially transparent to thermal IR. The surface will stabilize at 255 K. There will be no energy into or out from the atmosphere once it has stablized, so it will also stabilize at 255 K.
Now suddenly make the atmosphere highly IR active — able to absorb all thermal IR within relatively short distances. What will the result look like now? Well, the TOP of the atmosphere will stabilize such that it radiates 240 W/m^2 @ 255 K. The BOTTOM will be warmer than 255 K because a lapse rate will necessarily form.
At the bottom of the atmosphere, 240 W/m^2 will be transferred from the surface to the bottom of the atmosphere (the stable surface is still absorbing 240 W/m^2 so it must be losing 240 W/m^2 and it can only lose that energy to the atmosphere in this scenario).
HERE is the crux. The 240 W/m^2 in at the bottom of the atmosphere will be transferred to the atmosphere via some combination IR, conduction, convection and evaporative transport. This mean the IR input to the bottom of the atmosphere — being one part of the 240 W/m^2 — will certainly be less than 240 W/m^2. Since there is still 240 W of IR leaving, we can be very confident that the IR properties — considered by themselves — contribute negatively to the dynamic energy balance of the atmosphere.
Let me restate: this atmospheres RADIATIVE properties, specifically, do not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of this atmosphere. Which is to say, this atmosphere containing IR-active constituents did end up WARMER on average than an atmosphere not containing such IR-active constituents. [In case anyone missed it — this is the OPPOSITE conclusion that Kristian reached.]
Tim Folkerts says, March 28, 2018 at 2:20 PM:
Tim, you’re looking at this the wrong way. A tropospheric lapse rate will NEVER result purely from an atmosphere’s ability to absorb and emit IR. The ONLY way an atmosphere’s radiative properties, specifically, help in developing and maintaining a negative tropospheric temperature gradient is by letting it COOL from aloft, that is, through the atmosphere’s ability to EMIT IR. The IR absorp.tion part is really irrelevant to this whole process. Because there are OTHER (non-radiative) processes performing the exact same task (of “capturing heat” for the atmosphere).
Listen. Those particular physical properties of an atmosphere that actually help in making and keeping it warmer than space can only be the ones that contribute positively to its dynamic net heat budget. The ability to absorb IR photons is NOT such a property, Tim. Because an ability to absorb IR photons is always accompanied by an equal ability to emit IR photons. And so it takes something else, something more, to turn that inherently dual process into a non-zero-sum game and have energy starting to accumulate. Because that’s what we want, that’s what we need. The capacity for holding on to energy, storing it internally over time. Not just the catch-and-release part.
The point I’m making here is that an atmosphere is good at both catching and releasing energy in the form of radiative heat, but only good at catching energy in the form of conductive heat and evaporative heat (latent heat of vaporisation). Which means that the two latter modes of heat transfer dynamically promote the accumulation of energy within the atmosphere, while the former mode does the opposite.
In short, an atmosphere’s IR-active constituents are capable of ridding the atmosphere of excess energy in the form of heat, while its non-IR-active constituents aren’t; they are capable of capturing heat coming in, but not capable of releasing it again. For that, they need their IR-active siblings.
So, moving on, what I’m saying is that even when you connect the surface and the atmosphere thermodynamically by making the latter radiatively active, its radiative properties are STILL NOT what warms the atmosphere. They are STILL what COOLS it. OTHER physical properties and processes, NON-radiative ones, are doing the warming.
For the umpteenth time, my argument is NOT that our planet’s global surface would be as well off, or even better off, without an IR-active atmosphere on top. I’m saying that the atmosphere’s IR activity isn’t (and can’t be) the CAUSE of the steady-state surface temps being higher with than without.
The IR-active constituents are simply there to ENABLE causation to occur, even in the steady state, by allowing the atmospheric TEMPERATURE to actually influence the surface heat loss, and thus its steady state temperature. They are simply a TOOL, effectively connecting the two systems thermodynamically, even in a steady state of dynamic equilibrium. But it’s an on/off switch. They’re either connected, or they’re not. There is no ‘DEGREE of connection’. Their function is basically that of a’clutch’ connecting engine power and mechanical work output. Engaged (with IR-active constituents present), thermal causation may happen even after the steady state has been achieved. Disengaged (withoutthe presence of IR-active constituents), that same causal link breaks down once this state is reached. In this sense, the atmospheric temperature is the engine, the IR-active constituents are the clutch, and the atmospheric insulating effect on the surface, reducing its heat loss at any given surface temperature, is the drill or the wheels or whatever, at the end of the shaft, spinning round.
The clutchisn’t what CAUSES the drill/wheels to spin. The engine is. However, if you disengage the clutch (remove all IR-active constituents from the atmosphere), you break the causal link, the fundamental connection between cause and effect …
Are we on the same page here …?
Kristian, the consistent pattern here is that you present your weird ideas, that disagree wit mainstream science. Then many people disagree and point out the problems and contradictions. Then you spend thousands of words explaing to all those people that they are stupid for misunderstanding you, and you really meant something else, and you backpeddle, and you deny ever disagreeing with known science, and dont take any responsibility for being misunderstood.
How bout this? Before making extraordinary claims that mainstream science has it wrong [ie GHG and GHE do not cause warming], how bout thinking it thru, gathering evidence, saying only what you can prove, say it clearly and concisely without a whole bunch of handwaving. In other words do what scientists are required to do.
Kristian, to use your clutch analogy, the GHGs help DISengage the surface from space. By disengaging the surface from the cold heat sink of space, the surface sheds energy less effectively and warms up.
Since the temperature of the bottom of the atmosphere will pretty closely follow the surface temperature, the bottom of the atmosphere will also warm up. Seems like very simple cause-and-effect to me.
Your whole argument is too narrowly focused. GHGs both cool the atmosphere (by allowing radiative energy loss to space) AND warm the surface (by restricting radiative energy loss to space). No matter how you want to phrase it, the GHGs do cause temperatures to rise in the surface and subsequently in the lower atmosphere.
“And so it takes something else, something more, to turn that inherently dual process into a non-zero-sum game and have energy starting to accumulate. Because thats what we want, thats what we need. The capacity for holding on to energy, storing it internally over time.”
You’re still missing a basic idea, Kristian. More absorbtion and remission (in the wrong direction) creates a delay in the average time it takes energy to move from the surface to space.
To use an analogy with simplest possible math: think of a parking lot as the atmosphere. Let’s say cars enter the parking lot at a rate of one per second. The total accumulation of cars will be determined,on average, by how long each car remains parked.
If each car (on average) parks for an hour, 60 cars will accumulate. If we indroduce a DELAY, and each car instead parks for two hours, that forces a steady state accumulation of 120 cars in the parking lot.
This is basic math, relevant to any reservoir involving a flow of input and output …water into a dam, money into a checking account, cars into a parking lot, energy into an atmosphere.
Or to state it even more succinctly …
* The ONLY change was to the IR gases.
* After IR active gases were added, the temperature rose at the surface and in the lower atmosphere.
Therefore … the addition of IR active gases (while other factors are kept constant) CAUSED these temperatures to rise.
Nate says, March 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM:
No, Nate. The “consistent pattern” is that you don’t want to deal with the points I’m making, and so rather go about avoiding them altogether by ‘misunderstanding’ what I write and start arguing against points I never made instead (your own straw men, that is). To make it SEEM as though you’re making arguments that counter mine … Pretty standard technique.
Tim Folkerts says, March 29, 2018 at 11:06 AM:
No, it ENABLED the rise. The atmosphere’s TEMPERATURE (being higher than that of space) is what CAUSED the rise.
Tim, what you’re claiming is just stupid, and you know it. You’re basically saying that the clutch itself is somehow what drives (causes) the rotation of the shaft providing the work output, after it’s been thermodynamically connected with its power source, the engine. Why do you think a clutch is called a ‘clutch’ in the first place? What does it do?
No, as long as the surface and the atmosphere above is thermodynamically connected, it is the atmospheric TEMPERATURE (being higher than that of space) that forces the surface temperature up beyond its pure solar radiative equilibrium level.
Again, 1) the radiative properties of the atmosphere cannot in themselves make the atmosphere warmer than space, because they do not themselves contribute positively to its net heat budget, and 2) the atmosphere HAS TO BE WARMER THAN SPACE for it to produce any kind of thermal effect on the solar-heated surface. You cannot get around this.
Tim Folkerts says, March 29, 2018 at 10:02 AM:
No, Tim. We just go round in circles here, don’t we?
Dr. Strangelove tried this very same trick argument upthread. He said: “Reduce the cooling rate and the surface heats up.”
My response:
“But you’re not reducing the cooling rate if you’re not making the atmosphere any warmer than space.
Again, the whole point I’m making is that an atmosphere needs to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to force the steady-state temperature of the solar-heated surface beneath it any higher. The radiative properties of an atmosphere do not in themselves contribute positively to making the atmosphere warmer than space. Because they – on balance – cool it much more effectively than they heat it.”
It is the fact that the atmosphere is WARMER THAN SPACE that makes it capable of restricting the radiative (and the non-radiative) surface heat loss. It is the atmospheric TEMPERATURE doing the actual restricting of surface heat loss.
Kristian
The CO2 we add to the atmosphere does have A TEMPERATURE FAR GREATER THAN SPACE, and therefore DOES restrict IR loss to space. This leads to an accumulation of energy within the atmosphere.
See my comment above for an easy way to understand this…….at least easy for most people. Flynn, Gordon and g” being notable exceptions. You too, apparently. 😏
Kristian, I don’t really want to delve too deeply into the metaphysics of ‘causation’ but let me make two quick points.
1) If I throw a light switch, I am perfectly content saying ‘I caused’ the room to get lit up, rather than attributing it to some power plant far away (and even then deciding if the ’cause’ is the coal or the steam or the magnets or the electrons in the wire or temperature of the filament or …). I set in motion the chain of events that ultimately caused the change in illumination.
I am happy to use the terminology “I caused”. Apparently you are not. Given the conditions already existing in the universe, my moving the switch was the final ’cause’. Given the conditions already existing in the universe, adding IR active gases to an IR transparent atmosphere was the final ’cause’.
2) If we are going to assign a ’cause’ to temperature change, I would strongly argue the ’cause’ must be energy, not temperature.
ΔT = ΔQ/mc.
3) You say “But youre not reducing the cooling rate if youre not making the atmosphere any warmer than space.” I would add “But youre ALSO not reducing the cooling rate if youre not making the warm atmosphere absorb/emit thermal IR”. It is the *combination* of warmth AND IR activity that impacts energy flows and hence impacts surface temperatures. To me, the IR properties are much more special.
Tim Folkerts says, March 29, 2018 at 1:24 PM:
Hehe, I know perfectly well what you ‘want’, Tim, and why you’re here at all.
I know that you’re NOT here to objectively discuss the matter at hand. Because if you were, you would’ve started off by granting the validity of the basics behind my argument and rather moved on raising questions about its broader implications so as to take part in a more productive discourse. But you can’t even do that, can you? You can’t allow yourself to.
Instead, you’re strictly here to put out a perceived fire; to divert the discussion (and thus people’s attention) away from the actual point being made in a specific attempt – as always – to water down and hush up the central message being conveyed. It’s oh so transparent.
All you want from this is to be able to walk away confident that you have successfully defended your (and all other believers’) faith in the CO2 dogma against yet another barbarous attack, having made sure you are still free (and ‘right’) to claim that an atmosphere’s IR activity is in fact what CAUSES a planet’s steady-state surface temperature to be higher than at pure solar radiative equilibrium, and as such, that we can CONTROL the surface temperature by simply controlling the amount of IR-active constituents in that atmosphere.
That’s the only goal here, Tim. That’s pretty obvious.
And I see this in the way you keep coming back making the exact same misdirected (and misdirecting) arguments dressed up as relevant ones, listing them in talking-point fashion, purporting to address the main issue. You are not stupid, after all. I know you understand what my argument is. Yet you are careful not to respond to it directly.
I see it in the way you are once again trying to trick your way out of a sticky situation, to meticulously tiptoe around my argument in order simply to avoid conceding that it is in fact an open-and-shut case.
A perfect case in point!
You are ‘forgetting’ what my argument is really about, Tim. And trying to turn it into something it’s not.
My argument is strictly about THE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE and the fundamental requirement that an atmosphere will have to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to produce any kind of thermal (insulative) effect on a solar-heated planetary surface. With regard to this, whether the atmosphere in question is IR active or not is irrelevant. The fundamental precondition above is a universal. Thermodynamics 101.
And so the next question becomes: What distinct physical properties of, and/or processes operating in, an atmosphere specifically help raising its temperature above that of space, and – importantly – help keeping it that way?
This isn’t too complicated, Tim.
Here it is; my ACTUAL argument:
i) The presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface forces the steady-state temperature of that surface to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there*, because it acts like a layer of thermal INSULATION interposed between the surface and its ultimate heat sink – space. The surface heat loss will simply always be lower – at any given surface temperature – with an atmosphere on top than without.
*[Upon reaching a steady state, if the atmosphere in question is completely radiatively inactive, the bulk of that atmosphere is – for all thermodynamic intents and purposes – NOT THERE. In practical terms, it will no longer be thermodynamically/thermally connected to the surface.]
ii) Even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldn’t, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of space itself.
iii) In other words, it is an absolute requirement for the atmosphere in question to be capable of producing an insulating effect on the solar-heated surface at all that it be WARMER than space. What sets an atmosphere apart from the vacuum of space, after all, is its (thermal) mass, making it able to be HEATED by the surface on which it rests, thus naturally allowing it to gain a temperature much higher than that of space and therefore much closer to that of the surface itself.
iv) So for any physical property of an atmosphere, if it – on balance – helps in making (and keeping) it warmer than space, if it contributes positively to its net heating, to its overall content of internal energy, then it effectively acts to promote the atmosphere’s insulating effect on the solar-heated surface below.
v) Which leads us to the crux of this argument: An atmosphere’s RADIATIVE properties, specifically, will not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of that atmosphere. The radiative properties of an atmosphere’s IR-active constituents simply – and quite naturally – help in cooling the atmosphere to a much greater extent than they help in heating it …
vi) And so, insofar as an atmosphere’s radiative properties are not contributing positively to the net heating of that atmosphere, they also cannot be CAUSING the atmosphere to exert an insulating (which is, by definition, a thermal) effect on the planetary surface.
* * *
Tim,
It is ALWAYS the NON-radiative (‘massive’) properties and processes operative in an atmosphere that effectuate the storing up of energy inside that atmosphere to make it and to keep it warm, whether the atmosphere is thermodynamically connected to the surface underneath or not. And it is always the RADIATIVE properties and processes specifically that make sure the atmosphere doesn’t become overheated as a consequence, by ridding it of excess energy.
AND, with two systems thermodynamically connected, it is always the TEMPERATURES (and, in the special case of radiation, the ’emissivity’) of those two systems that determine the transfer of heat between them. The thermal radiation emitted by a body (‘system’) is always simply an EFFECT of its temperature (and emissivity). It is not itself an independent thermodynamic quantity.
So when you look at two warm objects radiating at each other, you could very well be excused for (fooling yourself into) thinking that it is in fact the thermal radiation from the one (cooler) object itself that is ultimately behind the restriction of radiative heat loss from the other (warmer) object, because you’re only looking at the actual radiative exchange, in isolation, as if it were some kind of self-contained process, when it is in fact the TEMPERATURE of the cooler object, producing its thermal radiation, that is ultimately the cause behind the reduced heat loss from the warmer object.
You see an effect of temperature and think it’s a cause of temperature, Tim. But it’s nothing but a connecting tool. Thermal IR simply provides a means of transferring a temperature signal across a thermodynamic boundary. Like the hammer providing a means of effectively transferring the power of the one who wields it to the head of the nail in the wall.
That’s all it is. The radiation itself controls nothing. It is itself controlled …
Do you see the distinction, Tim, between the DEVICE and its OPERATOR?
BOTH are clearly necessary for getting the job done, but one simply ENABLES the job to be done, a means to an end, while the other is actually DOING the job.
“My argument is strictly about THE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE and the fundamental requirement that an atmosphere will have to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to produce any kind of thermal (insulative) effect on a solar-heated planetary surface. ”
That is indeed a fundamental requirement.
“With regard to this, whether the atmosphere in question is IR active or not is irrelevant. ”
… and this is wrong. The IR properties of the atmosphere are JUST AS FUNDAMENTAL for producing warming.
Consider a set of identical, uniformly lit blackbody planets Say 240 W/m^@ of absorbed power.
Rank the surface temperatures if the planet has
a) no atmosphere.
b) a thin, low mass transparent atmosphere.
c) a thick, high mass transparent atmosphere.
ANSWER: All are identical @ 255 K
Now rank the surface temperatures if the atmosphere is
a) transparent with no IR active gases
b) transparent with a small amount of IR active gases
c) transparent with a large amount of IR active gases
ANSWER: c > b > a
Now tell me that mass matters and IR active gases are “irrelevant” .
“Even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldnt, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of space itself.”
Well fantastic, but that is a strawman, since that situation will NEVER occur.
Your arguments are pointless.
Kristian, Tim, Nate,
Isn’t Kristians argument fine for a single layer atmosphere?
The flaw is that it has has to be repeated layer after layer.
Every new layer we add will be cooler and cooler.
Yes, Svante, I think you are right. After all the lowest layer is obviously warmer than 255K. The highest radiating layer is at 255K on average. The height of this layer increases with CO2. Therefore the atm av temp increases with co2, opp of Kristians view.
Tim Folkerts says, March 30, 2018 at 10:28 AM:
I’m glad to hear.
Huh? How is this “wrong”!? Did you even understand what I was saying? The fact that an atmosphere has to be warmer than space in order for it to be able to produce a thermal effect on the solar-heated planetary surface beneath is a universal truth, which means it holds whether that atmosphere is radiatively active or not. IOW, with regard to this fundamental requirement, it is irrelevant whether the atmosphere in question is radiatively active or not. This is a trivial point, Tim.
Again, huh? For producing warming of what? The atmosphere? Really? And how does that work? How exactly does an atmosphere in contact with a solar-heated surface specifically NEED to be radiatively active in order to be able to accumulate internal energy and thus WARM?
OK, let’s see what you’ve got.
Indeed.
What does “transparent with an x amount of IR active gases” mean, Tim? Is such an atmosphere transparent to EMR or not?
Assuming it’s not, then how come “c > b”? What do you base this on?
Again, for the nth time, Tim, FOCUS ON MY ACTUAL ARGUMENT.
iv) For any physical property of an atmosphere, if it – on balance – helps in making (and keeping) it warmer than space, if it contributes positively to its net heating, to its overall content of internal energy, then it effectively acts to promote the atmosphere’s insulating effect on the solar-heated surface below.
v) An atmosphere’s RADIATIVE properties, specifically, will not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of that atmosphere. The radiative properties of an atmosphere’s IR-active constituents simply – and quite naturally – help in cooling the atmosphere to a much greater extent than they help in heating it …
What you are doing above is nothing but proving my case for me. You do not want to deal with this central point of my argument. And so you rather do anything, it seems, to avoid it and divert from it.
Kristian,
Your argument is fine for a single layer atmosphere.
You need to repeat layer by layer.
For four fully absorbing layers, assuming 100 units SW to the surface:
Layer Down In Up
Surf 0 400 400
1 300 600 300
2 200 400 200
3 100 200 100
4 75 150 75
Space
Kristian,
First off, there was one typo in what I said that you noticed. The second scenario should have been
Now rank the surface temperatures if the atmosphere is
a) transparent with no IR active gases
b) a small amount of IR active gases added
c) a large amount of IR active gases added
The temperature for (c) is higher than (b) basically because the emission height is greater. (The explanation is slightly different depending on whether or not there is an “IR window”.) The more GHGs there are, the higher the emission height — making higher elevations cooler and making the surface warmer.
In any case, we agrees that both b & c are higher temperature than a. Thus we both agree that GHGs raise the surface temperature.
“How exactly does an atmosphere in contact with a solar-heated surface specifically NEED to be radiatively active in order to be able to accumulate internal energy and thus WARM?”
You need to be able to think more than one step at a time.
* The IR active gases are needed to warm the surface above the effective BB temperature to begin with. You already agreed that mass itself cannot do this. (ME: “ANSWER: All are identical @ 255 K.” YOU: “Indeed”).
* the warmer surface in contact with the bottom of the atmosphere will warm the bottom of the atmosphere. If your theory says the bottom of the atmosphere will cool because “that is a net cooling effect” then your understanding is wrong.
Tim, Nate, Svante
Kristian made the argument: the blue plate gets warmer as a result of the green plate’s temperature, not it’s radiation. Barry, gammacrux, MikeR and others pointed out the absurdity of the idea, but Kristian never wavered. Here we go again!
He understands this: rate of heat transfer is determined by the difference in temperature between the two objects.
Where he sides with g*, Gordon and Flynn: radiation from a cooler body cannot raise the temperature of a warmer one because that would violate the 2LOT.
The question, then, is HOW does a difference in temperature effect rate of heat transfer if not by radiation or conduction? This is where Kristian gets creative. Thousand word posts/ made up physics.
“Thermal IR simply provides a means of transferring a temperature signal across a thermodynamic boundary”
That’s like saying a bullet doesn’t do any damage, it’s just the messenger.
Tim Folkerts says, March 30, 2018 at 4:14 PM:
Ah, but this is just what your THEORY is saying, Tim. I know all about that already. You’re referring to your theory alone as somehow justification for … that very same theory. That’s called “circular reasoning”, Tim.
What I’m asking you is what OBSERVED REALITY you are basing this particular claim of yours on.
Because now we’re no longer discussing the “GHE” itself, are we? We’re discussing the ENHANCED version of it. You are basically making the claim that it (“AGW”, “the enhanced GHE”) is observed reality, that we can SEE and thus KNOW that it works, that putting more IR-active constituents into an atmosphere (making it more ‘IR active’) actually will raise Earth’s “effective emission height” to space and thus will warm the atmosphere (all altitude-specific layers of the troposphere, like the TLT and the T_2m) to force the steady-state surface temperature up.
You are essentially saying that we can force a net accumulation of energy in the air above the solar-heated surface, and thus make it warmer, on a permanent basis, by simply making that air more opaque to outgoing IR. As if radiative transfer were all that matters, even from surface to troposphere and up through the troposphere.
Ooh, you really have your work cut out for you now, Tim.
Show me. Don’t tell me. Show me!
*Facepalm* + *Shaking head in disbelief*
Haha, that is sooo disingenuous! This is just you trolling, right?
Haven’t you read anything of what I’ve been writing this entire time!? Either you haven’t, or you pretend not to, in order to allow yourself to simply ignore it.
I asked you a question just upthread, Tim. Care to answer it?
(Background first. Please read. My question is highlighted in boldface at the end.)
* * *
“It is ALWAYS the NON-radiative (‘massive’) properties and processes operative in an atmosphere that effectuate the storing up of energy inside that atmosphere to make it and to keep it warm, whether the atmosphere is thermodynamically connected to the surface underneath or not. And it is always the RADIATIVE properties and processes specifically that make sure the atmosphere doesn’t become overheated as a consequence, by ridding it of excess energy.
AND, with two systems thermodynamically connected, it is always the TEMPERATURES (and, in the special case of radiation, the ’emissivity’) of those two systems that determine the transfer of heat between them. The thermal radiation emitted by a body (‘system’) is always simply an EFFECT of its temperature (and emissivity). It is not itself an independent thermodynamic quantity.
So when you look at two warm objects radiating at each other, you could very well be excused for (fooling yourself into) thinking that it is in fact the thermal radiation from the one (cooler) object itself that is ultimately behind the restriction of radiative heat loss from the other (warmer) object, because you’re only looking at the actual radiative exchange, in isolation, as if it were some kind of self-contained process, when it is in fact the TEMPERATURE of the cooler object, producing its thermal radiation, that is ultimately the cause behind the reduced heat loss from the warmer object.
You see an effect of temperature and think it’s a cause of temperature, Tim. But it’s nothing but a connecting tool. Thermal IR simply provides a means of transferring a temperature signal across a thermodynamic boundary. Like the hammer providing a means of effectively transferring the power of the one who wields it to the head of the nail in the wall.
That’s all it is. The radiation itself controls nothing. It is itself controlled …
Can you appreciate the fundamental distinction, Tim, between the DEVICE and its OPERATOR?
BOTH are clearly necessary for getting the job done, but one simply ENABLES the job to be done, a means to an end, while the other is actually DOING the job.”
* * *
Sure. But neither can the radiative properties of the IR-active gases. (See below.)
How come the surface is warmer when it’s thermodynamically connected to the atmosphere on top of it, Tim? Where’s that higher atmospheric temperature (higher than that of space) coming from?
We are still going in circles. Go back to my original line of argument.
You absolutely insist on not ‘getting’ my argument, don’t you? On ‘misunderstanding’ it.
Upthread I wrote (about you and your tactics):
* * *
“You’re strictly here to put out a perceived fire; to divert the discussion (and thus people’s attention) away from the actual point being made in a specific attempt – as always – to water down and hush up the central message being conveyed. It’s oh so transparent.
All you want from this is to be able to walk away confident that you have successfully defended your (and all your fellow believers’) faith in the CO2 dogma against yet another barbarous attack, having made sure you are still free (and ‘right’) to claim that an atmosphere’s IR activity is in fact what CAUSES a planet’s steady-state surface temperature to be higher than at pure solar radiative equilibrium, and as such, that we can CONTROL the surface temperature by simply controlling the amount of IR-active constituents in that atmosphere.
That’s the only goal here, Tim. It’s pretty obvious.
And I see this in the way you keep coming back making the exact same misdirected (and misdirecting) arguments dressed up as relevant ones, listing them in talking-point fashion, purporting to address the main issue. You are not stupid, after all. I know you understand what my argument is. Yet you are careful not to respond to it directly.
I see it in the way you are once again trying to trick your way out of a sticky situation, to meticulously tiptoe around my argument in order simply to avoid having to concede that it is in fact an open-and-shut case.”
* * *
All I can say is: Q.E.D.
You are proving my case for me, Tim.
Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons.
You all seem to have missed the point that all gravitationally bound gaseous envelopes exhibit a thermal gradient due to the presence of the gravity field and the logic that gases store a significant portion of their total energy as potential energy.
Give them enough total energy and they escape as the mean thermal velocity becomes comparable with the escape velocity.
A weird, conflicting viewpoint arises here where because gravity is omitted from the statistical analysis of the velocity distribution being second order in the time derivative, climate science has associated a non radiative atmosphere with an isothermal profile. Then, in order to calculate the profile using a thermodynamic approach or total energy no radiative information is needed. We do not need to know if the gases radiate or not to calculate the lapse rate found in real atmospheres.
Hence the gradient, or lapse we would expect to find is predicted in a purely mechanical model of particles moving adiabatically conserving total energy. If we test for this gradient then we find that in both of the tropospheres of Earth and Venus the same mechanical gradient exists in both despite one being primarily heated from the bottom (Earth) and one from the top (Venus).
We all agree that temperature drives heat transfer, and so the existence of a controlled thermal gradient controls long wave heat transfer. Controls because heat transfer acts in a manner to reduce, not produce a potential or gradient.
The crux is that opacity in the long wave sets the effective mean radiative height that answers to space and that this height exists in a potential field at some altitude above the physical surface. The difference in temperature between this effective layer and the surface; the thermal energy gain is exactly the difference in gravitational potential energy between this altitude and the surface expressed through the thermal response of the surface components (total of heat storage mechanisms). There is no sign of long wave heat trapping or delay!!
The actual temperatures found at the effective mean radiative height are set by the mean emissivity of the radiative bodies that answer to space and the fact that all gases have intrinsically low emissivity, especially as the pressure and temperature drops with altitude which restricts and controls broadening mechanisms. Emissivities significantly less than one provides temperature gain at this altitude by reducing the systems ability to radiate efficiently. This is countered by the requirement that the flux balancing necessity of say, 200W/m2 has to come from a part of the atmosphere with significant material substance (emissivity) AND temperature. Meaning it has to come from the lower troposphere on Earth and the upper cloud deck on Venus generally.
Straight line through zenith (shortest path) blue sky emissivity for Earth is around 0.65. Measured over all available paths is around 0.85. This is also affected by cloud area and mean cloud emissivity which varies considerably from around 0.3 to 0.95 depending upon cloud type. Atmospheric haze is always present to a degree with tiny droplets of water or ice always reducing atmospheric transmission window emissions.
Twiddling with trace gas components already present in the atmosphere provides very little change to the above, which in reality is involved with entropy production and renders IR gases as working fluids to this end. The Earth emits the longest wavelengths from the lowest temperatures within physical constraints to maximise entropy production.
Kristian says:
You forget to iterate layer by layer.
Lower layers get radiation back from higher layers.
Svante, you forgot that the atmosphere does not have one layer with the properties you require. Venus does not have one layer with the properties you require.
Earths atmosphere reduces the incoming solar to 50% of incident flux and then transmits 40 out of 370W/m2 in vacuo radiative potential to space, ie it does not have one layer totally opaque to IR, and the single layer significantly attenuates incoming solar to approximately 50%.
The atmosphere of Venus attenuates incoming solar to around 40W/m2 at the surface from 2600W/m2 incident in space and has a long wave opacity of 0.98 (not unity) due to a tiny transmission window around 1μm.
If you dont have one layer with these properties what is the point of adding a further fictional layer or multiple fictional layers?
Geoff says: “Hence the gradient, or lapse we would expect to find is predicted in a purely mechanical model of particles moving adiabatically conserving total energy.”
That is a very common misunderstanding. Even some of the early great minds in thermodynamics got it wrong. Thermodynamics equilibrium is STILL isothermal even with gravity. The lapse rate is due to a constant flow of heat from the surface up through the atmosphere.
I didn’t read all the rest you posted, but if you have this fundamental part wrong, then many of your conclusions are
almost certainly in error.
Geoff Wood,
A single layer is much to simplistic.
A multilayer calculation illustrates the flaw.
To be accurate you need a MODTRAN calculation.
Sorry Tim, should have read the rest of my post perhaps.
Isothermal doesnt exist in a gravity field. No heat flow required.
LTE exists at all points because of the existence of the potential field and the fact that the field operates on all matter and energy, which includes photons, as energy has effective mass.
BTW, you are on a sticky wicket as the measured gradients are the mechanical gradients so you need evidence otherwise to support your speculation.
Svante, a single layer is wrong, and a multi-layer is wrong.
Modtran, is perfectly fine, as a line by line, monochromatic subtraction of opposing radiation vectors integrated over the entire spectrum over all available solid angles it produces the correct net radiative heat transfer from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere as a net flux, given the correct initial assumptions about thermal gradient and composition.
It proves that very little heat is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere because of the lack of temperature difference over respective optical depths.
It doesnt illustrate or prove that anything about the gradient is provided, supported, or enhanced by opacity or radiative heat transfer.
Geoff
Interesting argument. Did you read this from Dr. Spencer?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
Geoff, we clearly disagree and I doubt we will work out our differences here. Let me just state two simple, compelling arguments for my position.
1) There is no single ‘adiabatic lapse rate’. Each gas has its own adiabatic lapse rate. If CO2 and N2 and O2 and H2O all start at 300K at the surface, they will all be different temperatures 1 km up. You claim this is the equilibrium case, but each gas has a different equilibrium temperature! Which one temperature is the correct equilibrium temperature?
2) The atmosphere gets thinner as you go up. This may seem obvious and trivial, but the molecules that move up to higher levels are self-selected to have above-average energy. The slowest molecules simple don’t have the energy to get up to higher layers. These above-average-energy molecules lose some energy as they go up. Interestingly, these two effect cancel out and the average energy (ie temperature) staty uniform.
PS: to the extent that photons are gravitationally red-shifted, there will be a ‘cooling’ due to gravity. This is orders of magnitude smaller than the adiabatic lapse rate we are talking about here.
“Ooh, you really have your work cut out for you now, Tim.”
… only if I believed all the strawman arguments you attribute to me. At nearly every turn, you mis-characterize both my arguments and my intent.
Geoff Wood says:
“It proves that very little heat is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere…”
Well, it gives me about 150 W/m.
Hi Snape, thanks for the reply.
Pressure itself has nothing to do with temperature. To illustrate, if you release a body of gas into the vacuum of space the volume increases and the pressure decreases as the molecules move away from each other and lose contact with each other. However, in expanding against nothing no work is done so the total thermal energy of the gas sample as a whole remains constant. ie free expansion is an isothermal process.
However, on Earth and within any gravitationally bound gaseous envelope pressure is closely related to gravitational potential energy, one is ρgh and the other mgh where ρ=m/V.
The total energy of a body of gas is the sum of its internal energy plus energy stored in the PΔV term in the enthalpy plus its gravitational potential energy. The isobaric specific heat capacity Cp is internal energy plus R, where R is PΔV which is the energy required to change volume per unit temperature in a pressured environment, ie R is thermodynamic work.
Hence the total energy Q,
Q= m.Cp.ΔT + m.g.Δh (kinetic energy inc work and potential energy)
For adiabatic dQ=>0
0=m.Cp.dT + m.g.dh
Which can be rearranged to give
dT/dh=-g/Cp
This can be trivialised, but the test is to look at atmospheric measurements and the gradients present to see if the gradient predicted by this method is apparent. We are then testing to see if the change in gravitational potential energy is apparent as a change in temperature expressed through the total of energy storage states.
The atmosphere of Venus conforms very well to this profile providing we acknowledge that the isobaric specific heat capacity of CO2 rises with temperature and account for this accordingly. Engineering tables give values for CO2 up to and beyond 1000K, so the data is readily available to iterate to the surface from altitude. From around 50km, we are effectively taking the ~435,000J of gravitational potential energy and putting it into the surface thermal response. There is no room for any other effect, the surface temperature of Venus is an equilibrium temperature with 50km altitude.
For Earth, using global means the dry adiabatic gradient is significantly modified from -9.7K/km to -6.7K/km by water phase change or latent heat. The upper, dry troposphere has information to calculate the surface temperature with given only the difference in altitude and surface specific humidity. There is no evidence of enhanced surface energy due to any other effect. The surface temperature found is reduced from the potential temperature predicted from altitude by the subtraction of the energy required to vaporise the water to produce the measured specific humidity from the thermal pool energy, and the temperature is again given by the heat capacity of the surface air Cp (1.005 + 1.82H where H is specific humidity in kg). No other effect is evident in obtaining an equilibrium surface temperature given an upper tropospheric global mean and surface humidity as a global mean (~10.6g/kg).
Geoff
It’s going to take me a while to work through your argument. Meanwhile, we’re not on the same page about this:
“To illustrate, if you release a body of gas into the vacuum of space the volume increases and the pressure decreases as the molecules move away from each other and lose contact with each other. However, in expanding against nothing no work is done so the total thermal energy of the gas sample as a whole remains constant”
As a body of gas expands due to a decrease in pressure upon it (total energy remaining constant), it’s temperature will decrease. To me, that illustrates how pressure IS related to temperature, whereas you have the opposite viewpoint.
Also, you wrote, “free expansion is an isothermal process.” That makes no sense either. If free expansion results in a change of temperature, it is by definition NOT an isothermal process:
“An isothermal process is a change of a system, in which the temperature remains constant: ΔT = 0.”
I think you are confusing an isothermal process with an adiabatic process:
Adiabatic/ “relating to or denoting a process or condition in which heat does not enter or leave the system concerned.”
Hi Tim, thanks for the comments.
Point (1). There is no single adiabatic lapse rate.
There is a global lapse rate from global mean measurements. For example the global mean lapse rate for 2014, Omer the 12month period was -6.7K/km using global surface mean temperature from NCEP CFSRv2 and Roys own AMSU to 7.5km.
If CO2 and N2 and O2 and H2O all start at 300K at the surface, they will all be different temperatures 1 km up
Generally the mixed ratios of CO2, N2 and O2 are not variables so the heat capacity of dry air describes this mixture very well. The presence of water as a vapour only modifies the gradient slightly. The heat capacity of dry air is altered from 1,005J/kgK to 1,024J/kgK by the addition of 10.6g/kg, giving a modification in gradient from surface to lower condensation level of -9.76K/km to -9.58K/km.
You claim this is the equilibrium case, but each gas has a different equilibrium temperature! Which one temperature is the correct equilibrium temperature This is a bit like asking about 255K as a black body temperature. It is an average of the mean mixing ratios and the mean temperatures we find. There is a global mean surface temperature for the surface over a year. There is a global mean temperature at 7.5km over a year. N2, O2, and CO2 hardly alter the dry air heat capacity over a year and water as a variable expressed as specific humidity is available at the surface as a global mean and at altitude as a global mean. The relationship between the surface and altitude can be seen in the global means and the observed lapse rate explained through these other measurements, in terms of equilibrium in the vertical column.
Point (2). The atmosphere gets thinner as you go up. This may seem obvious and trivial, but the molecules that move up to higher levels are self-selected to have above-average energy. The slowest molecules simple dont have the energy to get up to higher layers. These above-average-energy molecules lose some energy as they go up. Interestingly, these two effect cancel out and the average energy (ie temperature) staty uniform.
This effect happens much higher in the atmosphere and explains the thermal gradient of the thermosphere. Molecules that are lighter and faster such as dissociated Hydrogen stream outwards and follow their own trajectories. Lower in the atmosphere constant collision makes it difficult for faster molecules to get very far without becoming a molecule more representative of the distribution. This constantly normalises energies through equipartition. The issue is that every molecule, all of the time, even during collisions is accelerated by gravity in the same relentless direction. Hence information about gravity is carried by every molecule all of the time. There is no self-selection to ignore gravity.
Again, may I remind you that you are arguing for a very complex scenario over a trivial solution. The trivial solution is that molecules feel gravity. Hence gravity produces a thermal gradient. This predicts the observed lapse rates of Earth and other planets once we add the details of chemical composition. Add to this that the gradient predicted and measured is a maximum entropy profile to which all gradients of lesser entropy will evolve spontaneously.
You are suggesting, please correct as necessary:
Diffusion mixes temperature, such that all the still air is pulling the atmosphere into an isothermal column. Bulk motion mixes entropy hence moves the isothermal column towards the observed gradient from isothermal. Radiative exchange produces a pure radiative lapse that far exceeds the adiabatic lapse and this constant pull forces the existence of convection which truncates the pure radiative lapse less steep. But of course radiative heat transfer acts in a manner that transfers thermal energy from warm to cold hence reducing the very steep lapse that it supposedly created in an attempt to become isothermal. The sum of these competing effects produces the lapse and gravity has nothing to do with it!
Did I miss anything out?
Also, to the extent that photons are gravitationally red-shifted, there will be a cooling due to gravity. This is orders of magnitude smaller than the adiabatic lapse rate we are talking about here.
Whilst I agree with you on the magnitude Tim, the really interesting point is that there is no evidence of radiative conduction affecting the lapse rate of measured atmospheres. A temperature difference is required to produce heat transfer between radiative sources, but the gradient is maintained, ie it doesnt temporally evolve due to this mechanism. Line by line summations indicate that very little energy is transferred by radiation from the surface to all atmospheric components (around 17W/m2 from 370W/m2 in vacuo radiative potential, source NASA).
Svante, most of the radiative potential is cancelled by the availability of horizontal vector components which contribute nothing due to lack of temperature difference. High opacity bands cancel due to lack of thermal gradient over short optical depths. Hence most of the in vacuo radiative potential cancels.
168W/m2 of real energy from the Sun reaches the surface. Around 100W/m2 leaves the surface as moist convection. Of the remainder, around 40W/m2 passes through the atmospheric window as outgoing long wave radiation which leaves about 18W/m2 transferred to all atmospheric components which includes water droplets and ice. The net flux is the only energy that leaves the surface, illustrated by the fact that the atmosphere and surface are only weakly coupled by radiative heat transfer and the atmospheric energy budget reflects this. Very little energy is transferred by radiation to the atmosphere.
Geoff Wood,
You are caught in the surface budget fallacy.
CO2 becomes interesting above convection and water vapor.
“Very little energy is transferred by radiation to the atmosphere.”
All of the earths energy input/output is transferred by radiation.
The atmosphere makes a 150 W/m^2 difference.
Geoff.
First off, every planet and moon with an atmosphere has GHGs and has heat flowing up from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Thus every atmosphere will have a lapse rate approximating the adiabatic lapse rate — as determined by the strength of gravity and the mixture of gases present. Convection will prevent the lapse rate from ever climbing appreciably above the adiabatic lapse rate. We could really just stop here.
*****************************************************
Discussing what happens for true thermodynamic equilibrium (no heat flow in; no heat flow out; no heat flow within) is really just of academic interest, since it has nothing to do with any real planet or moon.
Point (1).
“There is a global lapse rate from global mean measurements.”
These are NOT equilibrium conditions (there is heat flow within the system). Hence they do not inform us about what would happen at equilibrium.
Let me make the ‘different gas’ argument more clearly. Suppose you have two insulated columns 1 km tall filled with different gases. The bottoms of both columns are in a thermal bath at 300 K. Gas A has an adiabatic lapse rate of 10 K/km; Gas B has an adiabatic lapse rate of 6 K/km. If you claim that these are equilibrium conditions, then the top of column A is in equilibrium with the bottom of column A is in equilibrium with the bottom of column B is in equilibrium with the top of column B. But the tops are at 290 K and 294 K! I could connect a heat engine and extract energy from a system in thermal equilibrium — and this engine would run forever since the tops of the two columns would forever try to maintain their temperature differences!
Point (2).
This effect happens everywhere! Certainly molecules feel gravity. But you seem to have missed the point about self-selection idea. Imagine you have a layer of gas where the average kinetic energy of the molecules is 100 units. If some move around and arrive at a higher elevation where they have 1 unit more of potential energy, you might reasonably think the new average would be 99 units of KE, but it is not! This is because the molecules with 0-1 units of KE never get that high. The ones that DO get that high started with more than 100 units of KE (101 units as it turns out).
Svante says, March 31, 2018 at 9:47 AM:
Svante, there’s no flaw. You’re simply not getting the central point of my argument. Your attempted “counterargument” reveals this fact quite well.
Tim Folkerts says, April 1, 2018 at 12:56 AM:
*Sigh*
Yeah, sure, Tim. Please take a close look in the mirror before spouting such evasive nonsense.
And rather concentrate on backing up (with actual observations, not just your own theory) your claim that ‘c > b’.
You KNOW you have nothing, Tim.
Geoff,
There will be no steady-state negative tropospheric temperature gradient without heat flowing into, through and out of the troposphere. You can’t just have gravity and get a temperature gradient.
Kristian says:
“Youre simply not getting the central point of my argument”.
You said GHGs help shed radiation to space, because they convert other inputs such as convection.
You seemed to forget radiative inputs from higher layers.
The importance of CO2 is above convection and water vapor.
Where did I misunderstand?
Svante says, April 1, 2018 at 3:07 PM:
You didn’t *misunderstand*, Svante. You’re not GETTING the central point of my argument. And you’re still oblivious, it seems.
OK.
Hi Svante.
Im not caught in the surface budget fallacy. You are.
The input/output fluxes that are purely radiative have nothing to do with the surface but occur at altitude in a gravity field. The difference in gravitational potential energy from this altitude explains the higher surface temperature through the surface thermal response.
You are caught in a fallacy that 150W/m2 back radiation is equivalent to 150W/m2 of sunlight. Clue, one is available for work and power, it can be focused and condensed to provide extreme temperatures, it spontaneously produces chemical changes etc, the other is produced by calculation inside an instrument that cannot itself exploit this power.
Hi Tim,
First off, every planet and moon with an atmosphere has GHGs and has heat flowing up from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Thus every atmosphere will have a lapse rate approximating the adiabatic lapse rate as determined by the strength of gravity and the mixture of gases present. Convection will prevent the lapse rate from ever climbing appreciably above the adiabatic lapse rate. We could really just stop here.
The gradients present are independent of long wave opacity and independent of the short wave transmission to depth. Earth heated primarily from the bottom, Venus heated from the top. Uranus heated by a tiny little flux, but still with a strong adiabatic gradient running to the very stable (no internal heat production) 5000K core.
On Earth, most of the significant long wave opacity is within the first few km of atmosphere from the surface. This is largely due to precipitation of most of the water from the lower cloud level. Temperature and pressure broadening is greatest where temperature and pressure are highest, this again is in the near surface layer. However the gradient present runs straight through changes in optical properties being only affected by water phase change.
It doesnt approximate the adiabatic lapse rate Tim, it is the adiabatic lapse rate, just not the dry lapse you think of but one that is neither losing or gaining energy of significance. The atmosphere can redistribute energy vertically within timescales as the sum of diabatic heating and cooling is near zero compared with the total energy. Hence, most processes simply conserve and redistribute this energy with one storage mechanism being gravitational potential energy.
You have said,
These are NOT equilibrium conditions (there is heat flow within the system). Hence they do not inform us about what would happen at equilibrium.
Tim, when studying an object like the Sun, we can see that it is obviously very stable as a star. Things hardly change to the nth degree. We refer to this stability as thermodynamic equilibrium. We say that the Sun is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium because thermodynamic covers this condition of temperature, heat flow and resultant action and equilibrium describes the obvious stability. I too am not interested in classical isothermal equilibrium but real world gradients that cause spontaneous exchanges and the greatest producer of gradients in the known Universe is gravity. The force you think is impotent in affecting kinetic energy (temperature for a gas) here on Earth, but does this everywhere else known.
Let me make the different gas argument more clearly. Suppose you have two insulated columns 1 km tall filled with different gases. The bottoms of both columns are in a thermal bath at 300 K. Gas A has an adiabatic lapse rate of 10 K/km; Gas B has an adiabatic lapse rate of 6 K/km. If you claim that these are equilibrium conditions, then the top of column A is in equilibrium with the bottom of column A is in equilibrium with the bottom of column B is in equilibrium with the top of column B. But the tops are at 290 K and 294 K! I could connect a heat engine and extract energy from a system in thermal equilibrium and this engine would run forever since the tops of the two columns would forever try to maintain their temperature differences!
Dont worry about the above, just connect directly to the gradient that already exists vertically and attempt to drive a heat engine from these tiny little temperature gradients that already exist. More relevant, why dont you tap into the perpetual 330W/m2 downwelling radiation that is twice the power of sunlight averaged over the surface. Do something with what you believe to be real first Tim.
This effect happens everywhere! Certainly molecules feel gravity. But you seem to have missed the point about self-selection idea. Imagine you have a layer of gas where the average kinetic energy of the molecules is 100 units. If some move around and arrive at a higher elevation where they have 1 unit more of potential energy, you might reasonably think the new average would be 99 units of KE, but it is not! This is because the molecules with 0-1 units of KE never get that high. The ones that DO get that high started with more than 100 units of KE (101 units as it turns out).
Tim, all you have to do to produce cooling is reduce the energy of the fastest molecules. Thats it. Nothing else is required. This change is normalised through the distribution and the mean is reduced. Except every molecule is accelerated down, and local thermodynamic equilibrium has greater potential energy above and grater thermal energy below at all points because all of every motion occurs under an accelerating force.
Your arguments would make a lot more sense if measurements of real world atmospheres didnt support the fact that gravity does this.
Sorry Tim, that doesnt read well with the quotation marks eaten. Hopefully you will recognise your own statements!
Hi Kristian. I trust you are well.
Kristian, every single case of anything that ever exists in a gravity field is affected by gravity. You witness everyday that in order to gain gravitational potential you have to do work. It never, ever, ever comes for free.
You could simulate a single molecule moving in any pattern around an attractive point whose influence reduces as in inverse square of distance and see that energy is conserved irrespective of the orbit. The molecule always has the same total of kinetic and potential energy. Map out the kinetic energy as a function of distance and you have a kinetic energy gradient that opposes the potential field. Add another molecule and the relationship does not alter. Keep adding molecules until there are sufficient to cause regular collisions, all essentially perfectly elastic and conserving kinetic energy and momentum.
At which point does the kinetic energy gradient become zero?
Viewed another way, the collective motion of a large number of molecules has predictable behaviour. This collection of a large number of molecules moving together effectively maps out the gravitationally driven lapse dT/dh=-g/Cp. No one seems unhappy with that apparently, thats what air parcels do!.
Except the air parcel is just molecules in a gravity field transferring energy and momentum by collision exactly as above which mapped out the relevant gravitational lapse for small numbers of molecules.
So small numbers of molecules in low densities observe gravity. And high numbers of molecules observe gravity if they are moving, but they are made to move by collision of individual molecules and stopped by the same, having changed position such that vertically the pressure gradient across them (momentum exchange rate, by collision) exactly equalling the weight under gravity. And, strangely, with a parcel that moved then everyone agrees that the change in temperature will reflect the change in pressure and volume which just happens to be exactly the change in gravitational potential energy expressed through the isobaric specific heat capacity!
You believe that heat flow is required to produce the gradient that a purely mechanical model simple predicts. The gradient observed on Venus and Earth has very different surface short wave input. Mostly Venus is heated at the top but still the gradient is exactly the change in gravitational potential, just the same as Earth, reflecting that the gradient is independent of this heat flow. Measurements indicate that the gradient is independent of short wave total column transmission and independent of long wave opacity variations within the column.
Geoff Wood says:
“The input/output fluxes that are purely radiative have nothing to do with the surface but occur at altitude in a gravity field.”
It will shift the lapse rate curve, and anchor it at a higher surface temperature.
Like so:
https://tinyurl.com/y8tp8syx
“You are caught in a fallacy that 150W/m2 back radiation is equivalent to 150W/m2 of sunlight.”
Yes, if it is absorbed it will have the same effect on temperature.
(this thread is getting WAY too long!)
Geoff says: “Tim, when studying an object like the Sun, we can see that it is obviously very stable as a star. Things hardly change to the nth degree. We refer to this stability as thermodynamic equilibrium. ”
You might, but I don’t. Nor do other physicists. Check any thermo text you like. For example, from Wikipedia (since it is handy)
“In thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, either within a system or between systems. ”
The sun and the various planetary atmospheres have net flows of both energy and matter. By definition they are not in true thermodynamic equilibrium.
What you refer to is more properly called “steady-state”. (Unfortunately, many times such situations are slopplily called “equilibrium” in casual discussions.) What you say seem pretty accurate for “steady-state” systems.
Tim: “The temperature for (c) is higher than (b) basically because the emission height is greater. (The explanation is slightly different depending on whether or not there is an IR window.) The more GHGs there are, the higher the emission height making higher elevations cooler and making the surface warmer.”
kristian “Ah, but this is just what your THEORY is saying, Tim. I know all about that already.”
What you call THEORY is just the basic physics of IR passing through the atmosphere to space. This is what happens.
You still stand by your earlier statement that:
“No, Nate. Im saying the physics of the atmosphere is all CORRECT. Thats my whole point. But of course no one cares to take note.”
Svante, you have shown a 1D model that does not represent reality.
CO2 is bottomed out at the lowest atmospheric temperatures. Raising the altitude of the emitting wings raises the emission height which is a larger sphere, with greater radiative area, and greater available radiative solid angle to space. And if it raises the temperature below it becomes an even larger sphere because the atmosphere expands as it gains total energy. Plus a warmer troposphere holds more water which reduces the gradient to the surface. Plus you have achieved this effect by increasing the atmospheres ability to radiate Thus with increased emissivity it can radiate more at the same temperature whilst reducing the energy in the shortwave that reaches the surface.
You also say,
You are caught in a fallacy that 150W/m2 back radiation is equivalent to 150W/m2 of sunlight.
Yes, if it is absorbed it will have the same effect on temperature.
So show some experiment where long wave, calculated fluxes can be focused or condensed to provide work or power without providing an artificial thermal gradient and I will take your comment seriously. There is a fundamental difference between a flux that increases mean thermal energy by every photon absorbed and one that can only limit cooling, providing as you say,
If it is absorbed
Perhaps you have not listened to the statement that I keep making that the gradient that drives long wave fluxes is necessary to produce a flux initially, but the gradient is not modified by this flux, hence the long wave flux remains an environmental product. The flux is merely evidence that the matter exists at that temperature. It did not, nor does not, produce the gradient already set by gravity.
“So show some experiment where long wave, calculated fluxes can be focused or condensed to provide work or power without providing an artificial thermal gradient and I will take your comment seriously. ”
Thats just a result of the radiation being diffuse. So what. SW from a cloudy sky is the same. It still provides W/m2.
Hi Tim, irrespective of what wiki tells you, I trust my professor who taught me, and the logical fact that the Sun is in thermodynamic equilibrium. It is extremely capable of acting in a manner to regulate core energy production to maintain thermodynamic stability. If the core overproduces the increased core temperature and pressure causes a near instantaneous dynamic response to expand which automatically reduces core temperature and pressure which reduces fusion cross section. Reduction in core production leads to a near instantaneous dynamic response to collapse and increase core temperature and pressure to increase fusion cross section. The maintenance of this type of stability is extremely well maintained with no deep cycling, which is fantastic for such a large object. There is no other term for this automatic regulation of core temperature, heat production and resultant pressure other than thermodynamic equilibrium that is necessary for hydrostatic equilibrium. Without hydrostatic equilibrium the thermodynamic equilibrium that produces it would not make sense.
In the literal sense the dynamic in thermodynamic, which literally means action represents the type of equilibrium found in the Sun and all similar objects that respond dynamically to restore the obvious stability we observe over relevant time scales.
You may choose to follow some other meaning of the wording. This does not detract from the fact that the vast majority of objects in the a Universe exhibit very long periods of stability under supportive fluxes (equilibrium with) and will only potentially approach classical isothermal equilibrium upon heat death.
If that is all you have to add to what has been said?
“There is no other term for this automatic regulation of core temperature, heat production and resultant pressure other than thermodynamic equilibrium”
No Geoff. Equilibrium has specific requirements, like 0 heat flows, that are standard in science. Without consensus on what things mean, progress in science slows.
No, sorry, I retract that last line. As the Universe approaches heat death the outer envelopes of dying bodies will approach isothermal with the very cold background of space, but from the last black layer to the core the same gravitationally driven adiabatic gradient will maintain the irretrievably core thermal energy forever, just like it is impossible for the last quantum of energy to by radiated from a body close to zero K.
Geoff Wood says:
“Raising the altitude of the emitting wings raises the emission height which is a larger sphere, with greater radiative area”.
If the average emission altitude is 5 km, then the entire GHE increases the area by about 0.08% compared to the surface.
The enhanced GHE is a small fraction of that.
Hi Nate. You have said,
No Geoff. Equilibrium has specific requirements, like 0 heat flows, that are standard in science. Without consensus on what things mean, progress in science slows.
Nate, most conditions that approach equilibrium in the real world are due to balancing of heat flows, which is definitely not zero heat flows, as you have suggested. Perhaps you mean net flux, but you have not clearly defined this so I will respond to your literal statement.
If I switch on an electric fire in my house rated at 2kW the building will start to warm until my house loses 2kW to the environment. If I monitor the temperature in the building during this process the temperature will rise until the input heat flux is balanced by the output flux rise which is heat loss through the insulation of the building. When the heat lost equals the additional heat added then a new equilibrium temperature will be achieved. The temperature inside the building at equilibrium is unlikely to be the same as the temperature outside. This equilibrium temperature is the result of the balance of two separate and uniquely identifiable heat flows which are equal in units of energy at equilibrium.
The same is true of the Earth, or any other planet with or without appreciable heat production, the equilibrium temperature is the result of the balance of heat transfer fluxes, not the result of none.
The Sun loses thermal energy and some of these traceable losses heat the Earth, whose temperature rises until it emits in the long wave the equivalent of the shortwave thermalised. Two clearly identifiable fluxes that are heat transferred from the Sun to Earth and heat transferred from the Earth to space that define through a relevant emissivity an equilibrium temperature for the Earth as it responds to the flux balancing necessity that drives a body to equilibrium.
Jupiter and Saturn are not in equilibrium with the solar flux as they emit more energy than they receive. Hence they slowly cool and will continue to do so until heat fluxes balance. They are in close equilibrium with the total of fluxes which includes internal heat production. Once heat fluxes balance then no heat will be lost or gained and the temperature that answers to space will be as constant as the solar flux thermalised.
The issue here is that you and many others have some mythical obsession with equilibrium meaning no temperature difference, which is meaningless given that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium at 288K with a star at 5880K, and is clearly not what we observe in the vertical thermal profiles of gravitational condensates, which conserve potential temperature not actual temperature as a function of height.
Take Uranus as an example. This planet resides at 19.2AU where it receives a mere 2W/m2 due to an albedo of 0.5. It has no significant internal heat production, or input fluxes to drive turbulent mixing to depth. It has long been known to be in equilibrium with the supportive solar flux thermalised hence no additional heat production mechanisms are required to describe its thermal state. Uranus essentially emits the same in the long wave as the short wave thermalised with a supportive flux of 2W/m2. Internally an adiabatic gradient runs through to the core which is ~5000K calculable from the requirement for hydrostatic equilibrium given the objects known volume, gravitational mass and deduced density. The effective mean radiative surface temperature is only around 56K and the planet demonstrates near zero conductivity of heat by any heat transfer mechanism from the core to the surface. The core cannot cool without a surface flux imbalance and so, as shown by observation, the high temperature core has no influence upon surface radiative temperature because of the gravitationally driven thermal containment gradient.
Geoff
You still don’t get what the term “thermal equilibrium” means. When two objects/systems are exchanging energy, and both are the same temperature, and there is zero heat flow between them (defining heat as net exchange of energy), they are said to be in thermal equilibrium.
There is also the term “internal thermal equilibrium” where an object/system is at a constant temperature…… and is not receiving or emitting heat with it’s surroundings. Like Nate said – zero heat flow.
What you describe is different. For example, there IS a flow of heat from the sun to the earth. There IS a flow of heat from earth to space, so even if the two flows are in equilibrium, and the earth has a steady temperature, this is still not an internal thermal equilibrium, as defined above.
(The earth would also need to have a steady, uniform temperature throughout, rather than a steady average temperature.)
I realize this is just nitpicking definitions……sorry to sound so serious. Honestly, I just like to argue.
Geoff says: “As the Universe approaches heat death the outer envelopes of dying bodies will approach isothermal with the very cold background of space, but from the last black layer to the core the same gravitationally driven adiabatic gradient will maintain the irretrievably core thermal energy forever”
If the prof who taught you thermo is still alive, I would encourage you to call him/her and present this idea. I suspect you will not be so happy with the reply. (Or run it by any prof at your nearest university).
Tim, I have already brought to attention Uranus. The core temperature is 5000K. It is free to transfer heat down the thermal gradient to the surface which is in essentially stable flux balance with the tiny absorbed solar flux of just a couple of W/m2. The surface that answers to space is already so cold that the object emits next to nothing now. That is from established measurements.Remove the Sun and the surface would cool and emit even less making it very, very difficult for the vast amount of thermal energy to be radiated to space. The approach of the surface to the 4K temperature of space would take stellar evolution time scales and would not alter the fact that already, the core, with all available heat transfer mechanisms available, does not heat the surface above the temperature of flux balancing equilibrium with the supportive solar flux. This stable condition illustrates that the core is in long term equilibrium at 5000K with its surface at 56K, (which is in flux balancing stability) in the containment gravity field. No sign of an isothermal column developing.
Geoff says: “Tim, I have already brought to attention Uranus. … with all available heat transfer mechanisms available, does not heat the surface above the temperature of flux balancing equilibrium with the supportive solar flux. ”
Uranus has about 20,000 km of insulation between the 5000K core and the ~ 100 K surface. Try calculating how much heat flow there will be with a gradient of way less than 1 K/km. It will be minimal (for conduction, convection AND radiation). In other words, a very small heat flow and an interior that stays warm for billions of years is consistent with everything I have said. Uranus does not provide clear support for one model over the other!
Geoff
Heat flows from warm to cold. If the interior of a planet is hotter than the exterior, their will be a flow of heat, however small or slow, until both are the same temperature. I think that’s what Kristian is saying here.
I hope you realize gravity can’t CREATE the heat that is lost?
Ooops……Tim Folkerts, not Kristian.
Geoff,
When I read a paper that says the measurement was done in thermodynamic equilibrium, that has a specific meaning. That meaning does not apply to examples youve given such as “given that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium at 288K with a star at 5880K”.
There needs to be universal definitions in science, so that a experiment “in thermodynamic equilibrium” can be replicated by any other reputable scientist on Earth.
As I said, otherwise there is much confusion, and progress is impeded.
Your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium is not correct. Just look it up in any thermo text or online lecture notes.
You can define things how you want for just yourself, but not if you want to communicate your ideas to scientifically literate people and have it be both understood and convincing.
Tim, interestingly you are asking me to attempt to calculate heat transfer flux in a gradient that is predictable and stable and does not conduct because of the presence of the gravitational field. The gradient has evolved over a significantly long time scale whereby the objects thermal structure is supported by optical surface flux balancing.
Again, interestingly, you have proposed a gradient in speaking of Uranus of way less than 1K/km. This is predictable from the surface gravity being 8.69m/s2 and the 85% hydrogen (by vol) upper troposphere. Hence the initial gradient as we descend from 56K would be a rise in temperature of around 8.69/12 (g/Cp) or 0.72K/km due largely to the very large heat capacity of H2 at Cp=14.32kJ/kgK and He at Cp=5.19kJ/kgK mixed at 73:26 by mass. This initial gradient weakens with descent due to gravity reducing to zero between the surface and core, so we can reduce 0.72 to 0.36K/km due to the fact that g reduces from 8.69 to zero at the core. The gradient is further reduced by chemical phase changes, gradual increase in the value of Cp as more vibrational modes become accessible to the rising thermal energy distribution and greater energy stored in the PΔV term as the matter becomes significantly compressed from its surface density. The heat capacity of hexaferrum in Earths core is twice that of surface iron due to 50% of the energy being stored in the volume change of the compressed state.
The issue is that there is no conduction of heat down the gradient to calculate because it is stable, and there is no negative flux excess to address.
The gradient found here after billions of years of coming into flux balancing equilibrium with the supportive external flux would not be so low without the abundance of hydrogen and helium.
Again you are neglecting that Earths tropospheric thermal gradient, Venus tropospheric thermal gradient, Titans tropospheric thermal gradient, Uranus as discussed and the other gas giants all exhibit the same gravitationally driven form, which is easily obtained if we know the gravity and the specific heat capacity of the gaseous mixture. This is despite having high or low long wave opacities and varying degrees of short wave penetration and with or without primordial excess or internal heat production. The gradients inside rocky plants can also be described first order by gravitational means as a consequence of containment despite variations in internal heat production and massively varying volume to surface area (production/loss) ratios.
Hi Snape,
You have said,
Heat flows from warm to cold. If the interior of a planet is hotter than the exterior, their will be a flow of heat, however small or slow, until both are the same temperature. I think thats what Kristian is saying here.
I hope you realize gravity cant CREATE the heat that is lost?
Heat flows from warm to cold
This is not generally true in a gravity field because all of matter and energy lose something in gaining gravitational potential energy. Even photons lose a tiny amount of energy in travelling vertically in Earths gravity and hence do not support totally the equivalence of similar vertically displaced absolute temperatures. I can only draw your attention to the facts of measured atmospheres, that the calculated long wave fluxes do not alter the gradient at all from a purely mechanical non radiative lapse rate. Hence the observed vertical long wave fluxes are rendered environmental products.
Landau and Lifshitz 1969, warned that the Second Law should be regarded as inapplicable to problems involving gravitation.
The above is supported by measurements of real gravitationally bound gaseous envelopes. There is no evidence of heat transfer by any mechanism other than maintenance of the observed mean lapse rate, set by gravity because of the long term persistence of the containment field.
You have also said,
I hope you realize gravity cant CREATE the heat that is lost
Snape, you seem to have missed the point and become lost in unrealistic dreams set by special cases of idealised thermodynamics.
Most of the observable Universe is observable because of a process whereby gravity creates heat from potential energy and then creates even more heat as energy is lost. This is extended in time by the availability of nuclear energy from chemical potentials. As soon as hydrogen is used up, the surface losses result in higher core temperatures until the helium starts to fuse. Losses of total system energy result directly in higher internal energy.
Start with a cold diffuse cloud of interstellar hydrogen. It has, for the sake of argument, no heat content. If sufficient mass is available the cloud will collapse and gravity produces thermal energy from none by accelerating the matter. The virial theorem describes the process whereby 50% of the gravitational potential energy is radiated away and 50% is retained as internal thermal energy as the object collapses.
As total energy is reduced by radiative losses thermal energy increases.
Hence we have the well known and well documented fact that gravitationally bound bodies exhibit negative heat capacity. This is specifically that energy radiated to space in an isolated system results in collapse which releases further gravitational potential energy into the thermal states and hence the system becomes hotter as it loses total energy.
Application of standard, classical thermodynamic principles leads to the gravity-thermal catastrophe whereby radiative losses heat the object so it radiates faster and collapses faster and faster. This obviously does not happen because observation tells us that most celestial bodies are inherently stable and the crux is that the the stable heat transfer gradient, or lapse rate moves with the object and dominates the evolution by making sure that the energy released from gravitational potential is stabilised. The smaller, hotter object has a higher stability gradient as dT/dh =-g/Cp and gravity increases as the object becomes more dense after losing total energy. The steeper envelope stability gradient stops the radiative outer layer being as hot, or anywhere near as hot as the interior and radiates far less than an isothermal atmosphere would. This process maximises entropy production by ensuring that the object radiates at the lowest possible temperature within physical constraints.
Hence, the argument that if we switch off the Sun, Uranus would start to lose energy to space by radiation at 0.5W/m2 from its entire surface area. The result of this lost energy from its total energy would be a slow collapse whereby gravitational potential energy would be transferred into the thermal states of the entire body. As the object becomes smaller its gravity increases, and the core is adiabatically heated by this compression. Hence the core temperature rises as the surface cools to space. This is stabilised by an increase in the stability gradient which ensures hydrostatic stability monitored and maintained at the local sound speed.
The surface losses reduce the internal heat production as they slowly approach equilibrium with the background of space and eventually cap losses and internal heat production from subsequent collapse and further release of gravitational potential energy into the hot interior.
Sorry, I missed your comment earlier about free expansion. Free expansion, where you release a body of gas into a vacuum is isothermal. The gas as a whole retains its kinetic energy distribution as it expands against nothing. This is exactly what I said earlier. I never said the gas cooled as the pressure drops. ΔT=0 at all times in the expansion as the pressure drops. I know you have said that you like to argue, but please dont add things to my comments that I havent said 🙂
Hi Nate, thanks for the comments. I will try to be more careful about specific terms if even after I have given you specific examples you are unable to understand.
I am comforted by the fact that when you first complained to me about this, you used a general term and added specific conditions to this form,
You said,
No Geoff. Equilibrium has specific requirements, like 0 heat flows, that are standard in science.
Perhaps you meant thermal equilibrium, or thermodynamic equilibrium? Dunno. You were not specific about the type of equilibrium.
Anyway. Moving on. I am comforted by the fact that you havent brought any real conjecture to the bulk of what has been said, other than hinting at that because of literal meaning of certain words you cant understand what I am saying.
It appears from the data that temperature as we know it generally, is not uniform at maximum entropy in a gravity field. The isothermal column is predicted by consensus for a non radiative atmosphere. However, the isothermal atmosphere is not a maximum entropy profile in a gravity field. This honour is held by a reversible adiabatic profile which is both equal and maximum entropy. Equal in that all changes that occur by random/spontaneous process uphold this state of equilibrium. You could possibly bleat about my use of the word equilibrium here, but as a state of maximum entropy it cannot evolve further by spontaneous process.
The isentropic profile preserves potential temperature, not absolute temperature as a function of altitude. This gradient is predicted by a mechanical model of particles moving in a containment field as a kinetic energy gradient opposes the potential energy gradient and the containment force clearly redistributes the particulate kinetic energies perpetually, particularly as the model is mechanical with no radiation possible.
This model replicates the observed gradients of tropospheres extremely well, without having to accept multiple competing processes, which by happenstance provide a really complicated method to replicate this inherent simplicity.
Roy….”You dont need a heat energy source to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss”.
Agreed, but you can’t reduce dissipation via trace gases like GHGs acting as a blanket. The equation governing heat dissipation is Stefan-Boltzmann, namely:
P = ebA(T^4 – To^4) that’s T^4 minus T^4 for WordPress filters.
P = radiation, e = emissivity, b = S-B constant, A = surface area, T = surface temp and To = atmospheric temp next to surface.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
It’s apparent from S-B that heat dissipation is reliant mainly on the difference in temperatures between the surface and the atmosphere in contact with it.
Even at that, surface radiation should play a minor role according to R. W. Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR radiation. He felt the bulk of heat transferred from surface to atmosphere was due to conduction and subsequent convection of surface heat. He felt that once absorbed by the predominantly nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere content (99%) the heat would be retained for some time due to the poor radiating ability of N2/O2 at terrestrial temperatures.
That offers an alternative explanation for GHE warming. It also better explains the moderate warming in UAH temperature series.
If he was right, the radiation from the surface is minimal due to S-B and most heat is transferred via convection, a la Lindzen, and radiated from TOA.
There is no raising of the temperature to begin with. The Sun heats half the Earth to ~303 K avg. (using same S-B calc as the 255 K, but with 1/2 insolation v 1/4), every day, and it cools from there.
BWD, If you actually do the math, the phrase “it cools from there” will tell you that the average temperature will be COLDER than 255 K in any scenario you can invent.
Basically, if you have time for 1/2 to warm up close to 303K, you have time for the other half to cool down near 3K.
Think of it like a feedback-biased transistor. The quiescent output is affected by the feedback circuit.
I think that the two positions might be reconciled in another way.
Roy Spencer is saying that much evidence suggests that the sensitivity of the real climate is much lower than the GCM’s calculate.
One objection to his conclusion is that, if the sensitivity is as low as he says it is, how can he explain the observed temperature of 288K in 1850? Without any GHG’s at all (not just the non-condensing ones, but water vapor too) basic physics says it should be 255K. How do you partition the gap if sensitivity to non-condensing GHG’s is as low as Roy says it is?
Lord Monckton can be seen as saying that that particular objection to the conclusion of a low sensitivity is invalid because it assumes that the gap between 288K and 255K must be explained solely by the effects of non-condensing GHG’s and the feedback to them.
In reality, he is saying, the gap between 288K and 255K also includes a response of water to the 255K. Hence, the sensitivity to the non-condensing GHG’s is indeed lower, as Roy argues from the evidence that he has looked at.
You cannot refer to the pre-industrial situation to say Roy must be wrong.
The usual way it is phrased is that without an atmosphere you get the 255K number. That is based however on the albedo with clouds, a strange assumption given the lack of atmosphere. If instead the surface albedo of 0.123 to 0.13 globally and annually averaged (Roesch) is used you get a temperature of over 269K, about 4K below freezing. Of course this albedo includes the ice caps and seasonal snow cover. Now the suns energy,just like the albedo would not be uniformly distributed, so add an atmosphere and at the equator we should get open water with an albedo closer to 0.08 and water vapor. We might get a greenhouse warm atmosphere even without CO2 and CH4. We might even escape snowball earth without CO2 if the snowball is dirty enough.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 23, 2018 at 6:14 PM
The usual way it is phrased is that without an atmosphere you get the 255K number. That is based however on the albedo with clouds, a strange assumption given the lack of atmosphere.
*
This is wrong, Martin Lewitt.
The effective temperature of 255 K is valid for a planet with either no atmosphere, or with an atmosphere that doesnt absorb electromagnetic radiation to any significant degree, and with an emissivity factor assumed to be 1.
(The emissivity e.g. of the oceans is around 0.92).
The emissivity of oceans is about 0.94, which can be determined with the help of Fresnell equations. But total surface emissivity is 0.92 on average.
The 255K however are not valid, as clouds have a “GHE”. It is like basing a theory on Schrdingers cat, where clouds both do exist and not exist at the same time. You need the albedo effect of clouds to get to 255K, but you must not have their “GHE” (which is the wrong terminology btw.). And that just will not work, not even in theory.
Leitwolf says:
March 29, 2018 at 7:00 PM
The 255K however are not valid, as clouds have a ‘GHE’.
What’s that?
If you have clouds, you have water vapor creating them.
Again: the 255 K refer to a planet with either no atmosphere, or with an atmosphere that doesnt absorb electromagnetic radiation to any significant degree, and with an emissivity factor assumed to be 1.
What I am saying is, that you can not divide the two sides (upper and bottom) of clouds. That will not make sense, not even in theory. Either you have both sides, or none.
The “trick” if you will is to say that
a) clouds would be part of the surface
b) they would also be a GHG!? and
c) that the both of which had nothing to with each other.
I am afraid, clouds do reflect LWIR, just as they reflect solar light. Otherwise they could not do what they do. They reflect radiation both ways which largely evens out. And that is the problem you need to trick around to argue a GHE.
Leitwolf says:
March 30, 2018 at 8:27 PM
What I am saying is, that you can not divide the two sides (upper and bottom) of clouds. That will not make sense, not even in theory. Either you have both sides, or none.
*
Nobody does what you are telling about, maybe some alarming pseudoscientists excepted.
*
And that is the problem you need to trick around to argue a GHE.
*
Typical nonsense written by a person lacking experience about DWLWIR measurements during clear sky periods.
*
Unter einem ‘Leitwolf’ verstehe ich aber wirklich etwas ganz Anderes als Sie.
At earth’s distance from the sun, assuming no albedo, an objects temperature would reach 393K at equilibrium. NASA
The atmosphere, through reflection (albedo)and its giant HVAC process of evaporation COOLS the planet.
At .08 albedo for water (as noted above) near the equator, we can see why tropical bodies like the gulf can reach 360K. CO2 “forcing”, I.e. LWIR is fully absorbed in the first few microns. Anyone who has ducked their head under water in the gulf in July, knows the temperature is warm to a significant depth and CO2 did not warm it.
How science has embraced the idea that our atmosphere warms the planet will be an interesting retrospective study akin to phrenology and Theloniuos Painter’s 24th chromosome.
Typo correction “Gulf can reach 310K”
“Anyone who has ducked their head under water in the gulf in July, knows the temperature is warm to a significant depth and CO2 did not warm it.”
Have done that. It didnt tell me anything about CO2.
“LWIR is fully absorbed in the first few microns.”
And as a result this energy just goes away? Doesnt count? First law my friend. The energy went somewhere.
As usual Nate, you do not understand. FTOP is referring to the fact that LWIR is not able to warm much below the surface. In fact, a 14.7 micron photon from CO2 would be unable to warm 75 F water anyway.
Uggh,
Ive tried the experiment, heating water with an IR ceramic lamp from above. It works quite well.
The surface and bulk are thermally linked.
“a 14.7 micron photon from CO2 would be unable to warm 75 F water anyway”
The evidence for this is what?
My microwave only penetrates 1 cm in water. How is it my whole cup of coffee gets hot?
Cmon people!
Nate competes for top clown:
Clown Nate: “I’ve tried the experiment, heating water with an IR ceramic lamp from above. It works quite well.”
Nate, what was the temperature of the ceramic lamp? That means, if you put your hand too close you will suffer severe burns. If you put your hand close to an ice cube, it will not burn you. But, more humor, please.
Clown Nate continues: “a 14.7 micron photon from CO2 would be unable to warm 75 F water anyway”. The evidence for this is what?
Nate, try warming your cup of coffee with an ice cube. An ice cube emits photons with more energy than CO2.
Clown Nate continues: My microwave only penetrates 1 cm in water. How is it my whole cup of coffee gets hot?
Nate, you might enjoy learning about heat transfer in liquids.
2018 is turning out to be a GREAT year in climate-comedy.
“Clown Nate continues: a 14.7 micron photon from CO2 would be unable to warm 75 F water anyway. The evidence for this is what?
Nate, try warming your cup of coffee with an ice cube. An ice cube emits photons with more energy than CO2.”
You are learning the straw man dance from MF, the strawman specialist.
A 14.7 micron photon has the same energy, whether it comes from an ice cube, CO2 in the atmosphere, or my warm (300C) ceramic heater.
When it hits the 75 F water, it will be (95% chance) absorbed, and impart its energy to the water, no matter what its source.
“Nate, you might enjoy learning about heat transfer in liquids.”
You guys are the ones who need to learn heat transfer in liquids with your ‘LWIR only absorbed at the surface will not heat the water’ argument.
Nate reveals his confusion: “When it [14.7 µ photon] hits the 75 F water, it will be (95% chance) absorbed, and impart its energy to the water, no matter what its source.”
Sorry Nate. That’s funny, but inaccurate.
There is NOT a 95% chance such a long wavelength will be absorbed by 75 F water. But, even if it were, it would not raise the temperature of the water.
To understand, think of the photon as corresponding to a temperature. And, realize that temperatures do NOT add. For example, if you have a bowl of water at 75F, and you add more water that is 55F, the combined water does not rise in temperature to 130F.
I now return you to your hilarious pseudoscience.
‘To understand, think of the photon as corresponding to a temperature.’
No. Just no. A photon is a photon. It has well defined energy. Has nothing to do with temperature.
“There is NOT a 95% chance such a long wavelength will be absorbed by 75 F water.”
No G*. The temperature of the water is irrelevant. Only the its emmissivity matters. Water is close to being a black body at 15 microns.
Why do you feel that you can just make up your own facts? How bout actually looking things up before making false statements?
“even if it were, it would not raise the temperature of the water”
The photon adds energy to the water. That means it cools slower than otherwise at night.
The temperature is higher than it would be without the added energy of photons such as this one.
Nate believes: “A photon is a photon. It has well defined energy. Has nothing to do with temperature.”
Sorry Nate, but an emitted photon gets both its energy and wavelength established by temperature.
But, your pretending to know something about photons is hilarious.
More, please.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“an emitted photon gets both its energy and wavelength established by temperature”.
No, temperature gives you a spectrum.
Where on that spectrum is your photon?
Hilarious!
G: ‘And, realize that temperatures do NOT add. For example, if you have a bowl of water at 75F, and you add more water that is 55F, the combined water does not rise in temperature to 130F.”
Arguing by an analogy with poor match to the situation is a clue that you are unable to understand the actual science.
Photons add energy to the water when absor*bed, WITHOUT adding new water. So they can add to temperature.
And you still seem very confused about photons, they have well-wavelength and energy, that has nothing to do with source temperature. What a 14.7 micron photon does when it hits water has nothing to do with the temp of the water or source.
The numbers of 14.7 micron photons will depend on source temperature. The spectrum of wavelengths will depend on source temperature. But since liquid water is close to being a BB, most of the IR spectrum will be abs*orbed, whatever the source temperature.
If you want to argue these points, try this time with real physics.
(I just found this, searching for something else. I had missed the responses by Nut. His response was hilariously nutty!)
nutty Nut: “And you still seem very confused about photons, they have well-wavelength and energy, that has nothing to do with source temperature.”
Nut, energy level, or molecular vibration, is determined by temperature. the energy of the photon is then established by the emission frequency.
g*e*r*a*n,
Do you get a single frequency for a specific temperature, or do you get a spectrum?
I understand and agree with Roy’s point, but I can also understand Monkton’s point. I think part of the difficulty lies in the way Monkton expresses the concept.
Roy is correct, and Monkton agrees, that the climate models do not directly use forcing values.
It seems to me that what Monktons team has done is create an electronic black box to validate a concept that is equivalent to the effective forcing values created by the various climate models. I agree with the fundamental conclusion and conceptual idea.
Im not so sure that the climate modelers have made a fundamental physics mistake I think it is more likely that the accumulation of factors, formulas, and equations they use create an effective forcing that is incorrect. The fact that it aligns with the fundamental physics mistake is interesting.
I plan on reading both analyses a few more times.
I appreciate the efforts of both individuals to try to sort through the issue cordially.
It is obvious that any excessive temperature rise induces a feedback reaction. Proofs are changes in ENSO.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inino5_1996:2002.png
Currently.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inino5_2014:2018.png
La Nina is reborn.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Dr. Spencer has nicely identified Lord Moncktons misapprehension. Lord Monckton has not provided a scintilla of evidence that climatology assumes there’s be no response to the 255 K emission temperature that would prevail at the surface in the absence of greenhouse gases. He has provided no evidence, for example, that the climate models assume that in the absence of non-condensable greenhouse gases thered be no cloud or water-vapor response to surface temperature.
Whether you call those responses feedback or not is irrelevant. If non-condensable greenhouse gases are then added, and thereby raise the surface temperature, those responses to surface temperaturewhich maybe you didnt call feedback before but now you doact on that temperature just as they did before the addition of non-condensable greenhouse gases. Lord Monckton has given us no reason to believe that the climate models, poor as they are, fail to reflect this. He has given us no reason to suppose that the climate models turn on those responses “as if by magic” only for the addition of non-condensable greenhouse gases.
The electric circuit is a red herring. Its an analog computer whose output is only as good as its programming. If the equations you program it with define the problem to everyones satisfaction, then those equations solution is adequate, independently of whether you use an analog computer to solve them or a digital one.
That said, I agree with Lord Monckton that not much turns on whether the models explicitly include feedback terms in their equations. They implement feedback and so at least their equilibrium conditions can be characterized by the feedback equation.
The models don’t implement feedback any more than you would if you were writing a little model that describes how warm a pot of water will get on the stove. If you pump energy into the pot at a constant rate, then conduction and radiation of heat to the cooler surroundings, evaporation, etc., will all combine to limit the water temperature to a certain equilibrium value after some time.
Now, when you wrote those equations predicting how warm the water would get, did you “implement feedback”? It’s the same with climate models.
Dr. Spencer:
It may seem strange to a climate-science type, but, yes, I’d say that the equations would implement feedback. If an output (such as temperature) responsive to an input (such as net heat flow) itself affects that input, then I call that feedback.
Now, nothing turns on whether you or I call an effect feedback; what’s important is that it happens. And it’s probably true that in the insular world of climate science most folks tend not to look at it the way I do.
But I was discussing feedback with experts in the field while you were still a schoolboy. And I can guarantee you that many of them would find my analysis quite natural (if they were still alive, anyway). Since the equation is still y = (x + fy)g (for linear equilibrium), where x is input, y is output, g is open-loop gain, and f is feedback, it’s a feedback system.
Your call, but you may want to entertain the possibility that there’s more than one valid way of characterizing the same thing. Being able to move among the different ways characterizing feedback may be helpful in speaking with varied audiences.
Hi Joe,
Well it’s interesting that you state that so clearly. However, it seems to be direct contradiction with your “g is open-loop gain”.
Here you are referring to the Planck feedback , not as a f/b , but as open-loop gain. Because at least some parts of GCMs are based on basic physics, it has been found that this gain is not constant but somewhat convex, ie it curves down slightly as temperatures rise due to the non-linearity. That much is encouraging.
After that, all the ad hoc parameter tweaking is a total fudge factory, which as Roy states, is just to get the results they think they should get. All the super computer mumbo-jumbo is a red scarf trick to gain unwarranted credibility in the process.
It may also be helpful in looking at a problem from different perspectives to highlight any contradictions or misconceptions.
There may be a nomenclature problem here. (Everyone thinks he knows the correct nomenclature, but in fact what we think is correct is just the nomenclature we heard first.)
Here’s the nomenclature I use. In the simplified equation y =(x+fy)g, f is the feedback coefficient, g is the open-loop gain, and g/(1-fg) is the closed-loop gain. As I say, though, I haven’t seen uniform nomenclature agreement.
Anyway, I take it by “Planck” feedback you mean a hot bodys radiation. That would be fy (where f is negative). Of course, the simplified equation doesnt capture everything, because that feedback is highly nonlinear. It might be better to express things as y = g(x+f(y)), where g and f are functions. But Ive never seen the equation expressed that way, and this forum is hardly the place to launch into complications.
Even for a linear system, things are usually more complicated; the equation is often given in terms of Laplace transforms. That’s what happened in my second drawing. I made g equal 1/Cs, where C is heat capacity and s is complex frequency. In other words there’s no equilibrium value for open-loop gain, because the open-loop system can’t reach equilibrium.
Anyway, this has already gone too far into the weeds for this site. I just wanted to make sure we had been clear about nomenclature.
I’m not saying using feedback is an invalid way to talk about climate system response to a forcing. I’m saying you cannot estimate climate sensitivity with the information Christopher is using as inputs.
You misunderstand my point, apparently. I’ve published simple models of the climate system using the feedback paradigm, so I’m not faulting it.
What I’m saying is that you cannot deduce the sensitivity of the climate system using the inputs Christopher is using. If you KNEW the climate sensitivity then you could express it in feedback terms. But you can’t go in the other direction.
Fair enough.
As I mentioned above, Christopher can be interpreted as using climate sensitivity in the way you suggest in order to rescue your prior analysis from a criticism that could otherwise be levied against it.
You have argued that various sorts of data on recent climate history imply that the climate sensitivity is low. An objection to that conclusion is that a sensitivity as low as you claim it is cannot account for the pre-industrial average temperature if the system is presumed to be in equilibrium that time. Specifically, a low sensitivity to the non-condensing GHG’s present at that time cannot account for all the difference between an average temperature of 288K and an average temperature without GHG’s of 255K.
Christopher can be interpreted as saying that this ignores the fact that condensing GHG’s multiply not only the indirect 8K of heating from non-condensing GHG’s but also the 255K of “forcing” from the sun.
His arithmetic thus shows how the low sensitivity that you have deduced on other empirical grounds can also account for the difference between 288K and 255K so long as the pre-industrial climate is also interpreted correctly as involving feedbacks to temperature regardless of the source — including the sun’s effect in producing the “base level” 255K.
Despite his claims to the contrary, I do not think he is PROVING the sensitivity has to be as low as he (and you) say it is. Rather he is proving that a low sensitivity is not inconsistent with the pre-industrial facts — an argument that the low sensitivity that you have deduced on other grounds would otherwise have to confront.
Peter, how can you say “An objection to that conclusion is that a sensitivity as low as you claim it is cannot account for the pre-industrial average temperature if the system is presumed to be in equilibrium that time.”? That’s EXACTLY the assumption that I and others (Otto et al, 2013; Lewis & Curry, 2015) have made in getting low climate sensitivity… that the system was in balance in the mid-1800s! So I am totally mystified how you (and Christopher?) could make such a statement.
-Roy
“Thats EXACTLY the assumption that I and others (Otto et al, 2013; Lewis & Curry, 2015) have made in getting low climate sensitivity that the system was in balance in the mid-1800’s.”
Yes — the low sensitivity explains the temperature RISE since 1850 in response to the ADDITIONAL 400-270=130 ppm of CO2 (plus other non-condensing GHG’s– but to keep the discussion less convoluted just talk about CO2) assuming that the system was in equilibrium in 1850. The issue Christopher is drawing attention to is: Can the 270 ppm of CO2 in 1850 account for the difference between the measured temperature then of 288K and the theoretical temperature in an imaginary world with no GHG’s at all but albedo otherwise identical to the actual albedo in 1850? His arithmetic says it cannot if:
(1) The temperature response to ∆CO2=270 ppm (with a direct temperature impact of 8K) is as low as you say it has been to the added CO2 from 1850 to now; and
(2) All of the gap between 288K and the “theoretical world” temperature of 255K has to be explained only by the effect of non-condensing GHG’s and amplification of their forcing.
He shows that the sensitivity you have calculated for the extra 130 ppm of CO2 from 1850 to now can ALSO account for the 288-255=33K “theoretical gap” in 1850, however, if one allows for the feedback effects that apply to the first 270 ppm (and the next 130 ppm) of CO2 to also apply to all sources of energy that yield the initial 255K in the absence of GHG’s.
The physical evidence does not support amplification.
The climate system’s response to a very large step change is a year without summer rather than a couple of decades without summer.
The physical response of the climate to a step change is negative feedback. I.e. The planet resists warming or cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death)[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]
P.S. The assumed 1.2C rise for a doubling of CO2 ignores the fact that temperature does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels in the paleo record. Obviously there is something fundamentally incorrect with assumptions concerning the 1.2C rise.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf
The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.
Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between CO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative.
Marginal radiative forcing (DRFCO2), the change in forcing at the top of the troposphere associated with a unit increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, was computed using MODTRAN.
The correlation between DRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in DRFCO2….
…This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
Earth also reacts in a natural way to changes in TSI.
A)Monckton has tried to use feedback models coupled with observed trends to prove low sensitivity before, particularly in a paper they were trying to write/submit a year ago. This may be an extension of that work, but I cannot really follow it anymore.
This is a copy of what i stated to him in several emails of dialog back then:
1)”…Basically you are using a linear small signal (perturbation) feedback equation which is defined around a large signal quiescent point, and is only valid for small signals. However you are using large signal inputs! The equation does not hold for large signals!, only for small signals around the large signal quiescent point. The climate “equations” are very complex and nonlinear, but can be simplified and linearized only in the small signal sense, fortunately.
You are inadvertently assuming and extending the linearity and validity of the feedback equation far beyond reality, by using large signal absolute temperature values. I believe the Orthodox “feedback” formulation is correct for
small signals , and that your criticism, and formulations are wrong…with respect.
2)…Also consider this: What makes the Kelvin scale so special in this case? Why not use the Celsius scale which is also an “exact” temperature, ie not an anomaly? Your results would then be different again. A solution which fundamentally varies with the choice of temperature units is rarely correct. [I realize that absolute kelvin has a special physical importance[[in non linear large signal radiation equations]], but not in regard to this
formulation.]
3)…but I still think the use of kelvin, or any other absolute temperature scale is purely arbitrary,
producing variable results, which is unacceptable, and incorrect. Only small signal deltaT is appropriate.
But, thank you very much for your interest in my opinions and Good Luck!” [end of communique]
B)Further, long term temperature trends over the past century(s)are probably “contaminated” with natural decennial scale trend components that are not accounted in the models, or solely by CO2 warming. This is the problem with ANY attempts to determine sensitivity using decennial scale(or larger) trends, by Monckton or others. In particular,the sensitivity results of Otto and Curry and Lewis will be too low if there has been an unaccounted natural cooling COMPONENT during the last half of the 20th century. Dr Spencer has noted recently the effect of such a warming component on determinations of sensitivity (and indicating that sensitivity is lower than commonly perceived), but does not seem to acknowledge the possibility of a cooling trend instead (which is what I tend to believe–for reasons not addressed here).
I think that a global temperature is imaginary , you can imagine that this temperature exists and calculate what it might be but an imaginary temperature does not determine how much radiation the Earth emits to space, it cannot be a cause. The real temperatures on the Earth determine the value of the global temperature and the real temperatures go up and down for deterministic reasons. We don’t witness an Earth where temperatures can only go up but nothing could cause these temperatures to fall nor an Earth that energy in always equal energy out because of this fictitious global temperature. We are told that if there were no green house gasses then there would be ice at the equator but an Earth that was much colder at the poles and the same temperature at the equator would have the same global temperature so the same global temperature can be caused by many different climates and is not determined any single climate.
I don’t know what you mean by “imaginary”. There is a real 3-dimensional distribution of global atmospheric and surface temperatures that largely determines how much energy is lost to space through infrared radiation. That energy loss is part of what determines temperature. So, I’m not sure what part of all this you consider to be “imaginary”.
An average height of people is imaginary height of people. It might tell you something.
For instance, Earth average of 15 C, tells you Earth is mostly cold, if you know that the tropics or %40 of surface has average surface air temperature of about 26 C.
It’S also useful if you know that ocean surface temp is 17 C and average land surface is about 10 C.
And that ocean waters warm land surfaces.
OK, well “imaginary” is not a good adjective, then. How about “misleading”?
15 C might misleading to people who worried the most about “global warming”. Most of India has higher average temperature than 15 C, so might be interesting in terms of whether Indians wondering why Europeans are worried average temperatures getting warmer than the frigid temperature of 15 C.
The Germans generally tend to be quite desperate about a warmer world than 15 C and they are living in natural environment colder than 15 C.
And no one who is worried about global warming, sets their own house thermostat at 59 F or 15 C.
Generally it seems there is a lot imagination involved by people who have no understanding of science or reality.
And idea of saving the polar bears is imagination going amuck.
Even more amok is the belief that everyone will (or even could) stop emitting enough CO2 to change the atmospheric concentration.
Will the surface temperature of the ocean in the southern hemisphere increase in winter? I am afraid that low solar activity will not allow it.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/f0v2udwg3c52.gif
The global temperature is simply determined by the amounts of energy leaving and entering the earth.
The question is what influences this?
I say it is not CO2 because I still say CO2 is a result of the environment not the cause. This is why it has always lagged the temperature.
Again I am looking for what terrestrial items if changed would cause the energy balance on earth to change.
What changes those terrestrial items to change.
It keeps going back to the sun /geo magnetic fields and the associated effects they would have when they weaken significantly in tandem.
Ranging from changes in galactic cosmic ray intensities , where on the earth these galactic cosmic rays are directed, how these galactic cosmic rays effect the global electrical circuit ,global cloud cover, and silica rich volcanic activity.
Also examining how less EVU light, UV light would effect overall sea surface temperatures and the atmospheric circulation. Not to forget any chance in overall solar irradiance itself, no matter how slight.
The upshot being of all the above is less energy coming into the earth, more leaving (higher albedo) and overall cooling sea surface temperatures.
No disrespect to Lord Monckton , but I think trying to prove why the climate models are wrong is a waste of time.
They have already been proven wrong as well as the asinine AGW theory.
All the basic principals this theory was based on have FAILED to materialize ranging from the lower tropospheric hot spot to the atmospheric circulation(just to name two).
Usually when the basic premises a theory is built upon fail the theory is considered a failure but lives keeps living on.
But now finally the test is on and I say this year will be a turn point in temperatures.
CO2 Obviously does not lag temperature when we are digging up fossil fuels and burning them regardless of the temperature. I am just amazed how many people cannot grasp this simple idea.
It lags temperature every single time without exception.
I’m going to have to agree with David here. Even if the ice core record could be proved to always show temperature change following CO2 change, what does that have to do with the fact we are now putting CO2 into the atmosphere? Are we burning fossil fuels in response to warming temperatures?
So Dr. Spencer you think this time is different because of man’s contribution of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
I do not know the answer to be honest. I guess IF the temperatures of the oceans should decline along with the global temperatures and CO2’s rate of increase does not slow down much less picks up you may be correct.
I get what you are saying which is in the past the factor of man putting CO2 into the atmosphere was not present.
Even so I think what matters is the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor is it there? I say no. I think you agree with me on this.
But if CO2 is really causing the temperatures to increase even in part I think you Dr. Spencer have it correct on all points.
The question is ,is it really causing the temperatures to increase and if so what percentage of that increase is due to increasing CO2?
PS: Does your water use lead or lag temperature?
I would have to generally agree with you Salvatore, there are many variables that we need to understand concerning global temperatures. As far as CO2, do you have any thoughts on what impact it would have? I only ask because most discussion on CO2 is focused on outgoing IR. Since the sun generates IR, what impact would CO2 have on daytime surface temperatures? Assuming the same logic for outgoing IR, incoming IR would be less.
The evidence shows that temperature extremes/heat waves are lower now than in the early 20th century and winters are generally warmer. Could CO2 be moderating temperature extremes by limiting incoming IR from reaching the surface and reducing the cooling rate? Couple that with recent studies showing the increase in biomass. Would a CO2 level of 1000 vs. 400 help reduce winter related deaths and extreme heat events and increase crop production to help alleviate hunger? Would it not benefit society to determine the ideal level instead? Your thoughts?
I think one mistake concerning CO2 is that since human activity is raising CO2 levels, it must be that this is causing the equilibrium temperature to be higher. I believe based on the evidence that the planet cycles dominate the long term trend and then there is a lot of noise created by volcanic activity, solar activity, cosmic rays, geomagnetic and more noise on that related to El Nino/La Nina. CO2 is simply there for the ride.
All things being equal if CO2 were to increase you would expect higher temperatures to some degree.
I think that CO2 is controlled by the climate rather then it controlling the climate.
We will have to see in the next few years how it all unfolds.
Considering “All things being equal”. If there is higher CO2, would not incoming infrared be reduced during the daytime? Thus the daytime surface temperature would be cooler than if no CO2 was present. There would be less IR from the surface to be redirected by the CO2 in the atmosphere (day or night).
The question I have is if the result would be moderated temperatures. The overall average temperature may be higher all things being equal (may be lower). See Figure 6.3 in the following.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/
What is the amount of IR energy provided by the sun compared to IR provided by CO2? I have seen IR photos of the atmosphere showing significant amount from the bottom of clouds and the sun, but very little from clear sky. CO2 just does not seem like it would significantly effect average temperature. And when you add the greening of the planet and impacts to water vapor quantity and other factors, maybe it lowers the average temperature. Your thoughts?
salvatore…”The global temperature is simply determined by the amounts of energy leaving and entering the earth.
The question is what influences this?”
*********
Something I have been mulling over, but it’s very preliminary, so don’t hold me to it.
Solar energy heats the surface, no question. However, the heated surface heats the molecules of air above it, which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and that heated air rises.
The air near the surface is relatively dense due to gravity and that air is heated at a relatively higher pressure. As the air rises it will travel through a pressure gradient that diminishes with altitude, therefore the temperature will be reduced naturally as the air rises.
I am having problems with conservation of energy. Energy in should = energy out, but how about energy distribution? The Sun only shines so many hours in a day and the rest of the time the atmosphere cools naturally.
Or does it? You can reduce temperature (heat) by reducing pressure. Air warmed at the surface will rise because it becomes less dense than the surrounding air. It should keep rising till the density becomes equivalent to the surrounding air. Also, as it rises, it loses pressure naturally therefore it cools naturally.
If you take a gas at a high temperature in a reduced volume, the temperature is higher because the atoms/molecules are tightly packed and colliding a lot. If you double the volume, the pressure reduces and so does the temperature.
Our atmosphere is unusual in that gravity is acting to form a negative pressure gradient from the surface upward. The atmosphere behaves as if the container described above is gradually increased in volume.
In this case it’s not so much a problem with conservation of thermal energy as it is a multi-facted change in energy. At higher temps there is an issue with higher kinetic energy which translate to higher heat levels. If you reduce the KE by allowing the gas to expand, or the pressure to drop, you naturally reduce the heat without having to dissipate it.
There will certainly be radiation to space no matter what, but what if the surface air cools naturally by redistributing the surface heat through the atmosphere by a natural process of air rising and cooling naturally at lower pressures at a higher altitude?
Of course, it does not cool completely overnight since N2/O2 are poor radiators. Next day, solar energy replenishes the lost heat.
I know the first argument I will get is related to conservation of energy. But what if the so-called GHE rise of 33C is a natural process related to the mechanism I have just described and has nothing to do with GHGs?
Critiques??? Preferably, without the ad homs.
The Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget focuses on the idea that the Earth cools primarily by radiation from the surface. I don’t think it does and neither did Wood, 1909, who was an expert on IR radiation.
I’m late to the debate but I agree, and I think we will be forced to change our understanding of surface heating by considerations you mention.
In particular it seems that a long-standing view of surface heating is that the LW energy emanating from the surface is absorbed by GHG molecules, which in turn excite and hence warm up the surrounding N and O: that’s why our atmosphere warms up, we’re told. I think this is very wrong; GHGs simply don’t have enough oomph to do that. It seems instead that the surface warms by conduction, and the evidence is at our feet: an asphalt driveway in the sun warms the air above it. This heating by conduction is the basis of the UHI effect, is it not? Look at the hottest places in the world: many of them are deserts, and it could very well be that part of the reason they are hot is lack of shade to cool the surface. Death Valley: one of the hottest places in the world with a higher-that-usual lapse rate right off the surface, which makes sense if the surface is conducting heat directly to molecules of N and O. Death Valley is relatively dry, yet we’d expect that being so it would be cooler since there are fewer radiative molecules to accept IR from the earth and transmit this energy to N and O.
Other ideas of surface warming are also confused. Reflected LWIR warming the surface? But a cooler body can’t warm a warmer body. GHGs acting as a blanket or trapping heat? But GHGs don’t inhibit convection, as a real blanket would. And GHGs don’t directly affect N and O, which don’t absorb IR, so that means that GHGs would act by transferring vibrational and rotational energy to N and O, but intuitively this seems like such a paltry mechanism when we compare it to, for example, a 200-degree surface temperature at Death Valley (I understand it has gotten that hot) conducting that energy directly into the translational energy of N and O: I think if we stand at the surface then we’ll no doubt where the heat is from! With a 200-degree surface, the heat is not coming from the atmosphere. Since N and O are poor radiators of IR, they keep that translational energy even as the air rises and cools by expansion, and even as collision with slower-moving molecules (presumably from higher up) eventually takes some of this translational energy from them as they ascend.
So just from the point of view of which concepts are clearest and make the most sense, it seems that the idea that GHGs do any significant warming of the atmosphere is just plain wrong, and that the people who promote these gases want to take all the glory from conduction and transfer it instead to the GHGs.
GHGs become interesting above convection.
Here’s a primer for you:
https://tinyurl.com/ycnmblnj
I think the idea that the emissions height will be raised by CO2 and so we count down from there to get the surface temperature is misguided; the lapse rate starts at the surface and decreases according to pressure; there is no term whatsoever in the lapse rate either for emissions height or for radiative properties. Let the radiative emission height be whatever it wants to be. If the emission height were at the surface (no GHGs) then would that really affect surface temp? How? Would the absence of GHGs cause conduction to cease? Would the absence of GHGs cause the lapse rate to cease? Would Death Valley’s atmosphere be significantly cooler? Would a driveway in the hot sun cease to conduct/convect upward? If GHGs made such a difference, then why are some of the hottest places on earth also some of the driest, when one would expect that a lack of water vapor would lead to a diminished radiative stimulation of nearby molecules, such as what is posited for warming of N and O by IR stimulation of CO2 and H20?
I understand a lot of radiative physics. I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense, and the basic mechanism that says that GHGs warm a surface has never been experimentally proved by showing the actual temperature rise that the theory predicts.
Nahle replicated the Wood/Pratt experiment and found that trapped IR did not warm a surface. That seems to tell us a few things: one is that the N and O were not significantly warmed by the vibrational and rotational movements of CO2 and water vapor in the air, which according to theory absorb the trapped and reflected IR, become excited, and transmit that energy, presumably, to the translational energy of N and O (experiment, please?) Well, it doesn’t seem to be happening; if it is, then all the radiative physicists need to stop resting on radiative math and pony up an experiment that proves what the theory predicts.
Yes, if the surface was visible from space in IR, it would run a radiation deficit and cool until it emitted 240 W/m^2.
No.
Explained by Norman here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7m9yg84
Roy Spencer answers here:
https://tinyurl.com/p7y98v3
Svante,
If there were no GHGs the earth would emit at 240 W/m2. But that does not mean that the N2 and O2, which don’t radiate IR, would not warm up due to conduction/convection from the surface. What would prevent them from warming up? And once warmed up, what would cool them off, except for the natural lapse rate and collisions with slower-moving molecules?
Regarding Goodwin Creek and Desert Rock, I accept what the radiation diagrams say but I’m not sure what they mean. I’m not trying to be stubborn but what it comes down to is that not one single person has shown through a controlled experiment how IR from CO2 and H20 cause a temperature increase in N2 and O2. Are we confusing the heat capacity of H20 with its radiative effects? There’s so much debate and so many theories (such as mine, and such as yours) that can only be cleared up experimentally by testing for the exact mechanism in question.
Regarding Spencer’s experiment, I don’t think this is definitive, and in my opinion Nahle’s experiment is more carefully controlled, and better documented, than Spencer’s. However, once again if we’re not sure then perhaps we should replicate the experiment carefully?
I’m happy to accept the mainstream GHE if it in fact is real. So far it seems to me that everything that is claimed for this GHE can be explained more simply by atmospheric pressure, conduction, the heat capacity of gases, and the lapse rate, none of which require an input for the radiative properties of gases. But the thing that really throws me off is that no one has ever tested the assumed mechanism for greenhouse warming, and I find that astonishing. We really are working off of all sorts of assumptions.
Take two one-meter square boxes, one with N2 and the other with air at 3% water vapor. Heat both from the bottom. Will the one with N2 be cooler than the one with air? I say it’s impossible for the air cube to be warmer since no extra energy is added.
If it’s possible, then someone should demonstrate this. Otherwise it seems the theory of IR heating of molecules, which causes the vibrational and rotational energy of GHGs to be transferred to N2 and O2 to heat up a volume, is flawed.
The air volume will warm up slower and cool down slower than the volume with N2 because of the heat capacity of H20. Once both volumes are heated up, it does not make sense that the N2 volume would be cooler.
The bottom will warm if you reduce the heat transfer out at the top.
Heat transfer depends on temperature difference.
Part of the heat transfer is radiation.
Convection implies a temperature gradient.
If the gas is more opaque the top radiation balance will be partly settled against a layer that is cooler than the bottom, and therefore reduce the heat transfer.
The difference will be miniscule in your example, because convection is strong.
I’m sure you can find an experiment that shows GHG opaqueness, the rest is just logic.
I disagree that going from GHG opacity to temperature change is “just logic,” and that’s really my point. It seems that a lot of assumptions are made about what GHGs must be doing yet these assumptions are not tested.
In the box experiment, I envision that both boxes are closed and insulated.
Unless I’m greatly mistaken, one of several theories of GHG warming and one that seems to be prominent is that the rotational and vibrational energy of IR photon-excited GHGs is that this internal energy is transferred to non-IR absorbing molecules. Maybe this is too small to measure in a 3% water vapor atmosphere; OK, so make it a 50% CO2 atmosphere.
I know what the radiative theories say. I know what the math says. I know what the IR opacity of GHGs implies. What I don’t know is if any of this has actually been tested in carefully controlled experiments to confirm that what we “know” is true, because it may turn out that things aren’t working out quite as we thought: that’s why science is supposed to do experiments.
As a recent thread on WUWT has pointed out, emissions radiation is not the same as emissions temperature, and the assumption that these are the same is likely causing us problems. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/07/a-rebuttal-to-an-ugly-amicus-brief-attack-in-the-exxonknew-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2784704
and
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
Don132 says:
“emissions radiation is not the same as emissions temperature”.
Yes, you have to multiply by emissivity, which can be different for different frequencies.
It is actually difficult to calculate the exact effect in the atmosphere, because it has to be done ‘line by line’, layer by layer.
MODTRAN “has actually been tested in carefully controlled experiments” by the US Air Force, and is thoroughly battle proved.
Try it here:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Info:
https://tinyurl.com/ybgq76xy
Modelling is not a physical experiment. It is not a physical experiment! Whatever we think modelling is telling us, whatever we think radiative opacity is telling us, whatever we think climate radiative physics is telling us, we simply must test those assumptions by physical experiment, period, no ifs, ands or buts. That’s how science is supposed to work.
It’s remarkable that climate science has avoided hard, concrete physical experiment. Where is the carefully controlled experiment that proves that back-radiation warms an atmosphere? It simply does not exist, and Spencer’s experiment needs much more careful controlling and documenting, and then it would read replication. If you think that no testing through concrete experiment makes climate science a more solid science, then I, a non-scientist, have to tell you that this is nonsense.
To say that radiative this or radiative that proves whatever is just avoiding the obvious question of “how is your theory grounded”? Do a physical experiment! That’s the ONLY way to prove that what you “know” is true really is true, and is not merely an assumption that you continually refuse to test.
Climate science is an untested phantasm, nothing more, until it’s grounded in concrete experiment.
Emissivity is different according to different materials.
John Tyndall did carefully controlled experiments around 1859.
Here’s the history, reads like a novel!
https://tinyurl.com/y94jowrs
Tyndall did not measure temperature change caused by IR opacity! No one has! It’s all assumptions and computer modelling. None of it is based on actual physical experiment that shows a direct link from IR opacity or back-radiation or excitation of N2 and O2 by IR leading to a temperature change. You MUST demonstrate the alleged temperature change; a start would be to carefully re-do the Wood/Pratt/Nahle/Spencer experiment, replicate it to be sure of results, and then figure out what the experiment is telling us.
Figuring out what the modelling/theory is telling us and then using that to make assertions about the physical world has it all backwards.
I will believe it when I see a physical experiment that proves it: demonstrate that the alleged mechanism induces an actual temperature change.
You mean like this?
https://tinyurl.com/y6wo2fz2
Yes, like that. Except… a carefully controlled experiment, fully documented and transparent. I would not consider that experiment carefully controlled for pressure or temperature or experimenter bias, among other things.
That experiment proves nothing except that a half-baked experiment can be used to seduce people.
You wouldn’t find that in any contemporary scientific papers, it was settled a long time ago (starting with Tyndall).
You need textbook experiments, or a basic physics course.
Norman would have good references.
No definitive experiment from anyone anywhere means that this is supposition and assumption, and nothing more. Come up with proof; it’s as simple as that, unless we want to throw the scientific method overboard and go by virtual reality.
Classic error: assuming that X implies y without any physical proof, and without ever bothering to test that assumption.
“allows us to diagnose what equilibrium temperature the models would predict”
It doesn’t diagnose what the models would predict. In fact, we know what models predict from the paper of Lacis etc al, here. They did a GCM run following removal of non-condensing GHG gases, and tracked the evolution over 50 years:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/03/lacis2.png
ZOD is a thought experiment. Suppose you could remove all GHG’s, including water vapor and clouds, but somehow keep the albedo constant. Then to maintain heat balance, the surface temperature would have to be 255 K, 33 K less than we have. That is a measure of the greenhouse effect.
Can we actually do that? It’s a thought experiment; you can do anything. There isn’t a real world that it corresponds to. But Lord M wants to take that 255K number, which depends only on TSI, albedo and Stefan-Boltzmann, and say that somehow there will be feedback to it, which all the climate scientists are missing. And they are mistaking that “feedback” for the real feedback consequent on the removal of non-condensable GHGs, which Lacis computed.
Lord M tried the following arithmetic at WUWT. Lacis et al actually find a state where temperature is reduced by 36°C. Water vapor is not eliminated entirely; about 10% remains. Albedo and clouds have risen. So he applied a ZOD, says that the higher albedo implied a lower “emission temperature” of 243 K, and so Lacis 252 K shows a feedback from that 243 K.
But the 243 K is just another thought experiment. Suppose you could from that state clear the air but keep the albedo at that higher level. That is what you could get. But you can’t do those things. The 9 K difference is not a real feedback from anything. It is a measure of how the thought experiment was unrealistic. In this case, it is exaggerated because the cooling SW reflection of the clouds has been included in the albedo, which is preserved by fiat in the ZOD, while the warming IR effect is assumed removed.
I think that sums it all up rather succinctly. Thanks Nick.
Another red herring from C of B.
nick…”They did a GCM run following removal of non-condensing GHG gases, and tracked the evolution over 50 years:”
What is a non-condensing GHG gas?
I have seen this term used in this article and it makes no sense to me. What does it mean?
I have heard the term applied to furnaces. Natural gas forms water as a byproduct as it condenses after passing through the heat exchanger. Some furnaces implement a secondary stage to deal with the condensates.
To the extent that water vapor is a “greenhouse gas”, it is a condensing “greenhouse gas”, because it condenses and releases its latent heat of evaporation in the process. CO2 remains a gas under practically all conditions found on Earth’s surface and in the atmosphere.
BWD…thanks.
Gordon,
Water vapor condensation provides a positive feedback.
An initial cooling leads to more condensation and further cooling, and vice versa.
Non-condensing GHGs can prop it up and give WV some back-bone.
Dr. Spencer
I am just a bit shy about offering comments but your excellent article and reply inspired me.
You may remember this chart you posted not too long ago.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Otto-vs-anthro-fraction-ECS.jpg
Well, having spent 35 years involved in signal analysis I have been tracking datasets and analyzing them for some time. When I examined your chart and my analysis of the H4 global dataset the values from your curve seemed to have substantiated what I have done.
I apologize that the figure is only available from my one drive.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgZZVVDbhEjVO59_AUw
The calculated ECS of .222 lines up quite well with your figure.
I have been doing this for a while now and originally did not include any contribution from CO2. The cyclical fits were good then too. Later, I introduced a contribution from CO2 while trying to maintain the good fits that I had.
Thought there might just be some interest.
At first I found Lord Monckton’s very promising, but then I realized a flawed assumption. Imagine two identical earths, except for the composition of the atmosphere. One has a emission temperature 255K without GHGs in the atmosphere. The other earth has a slightly cooler emissions temperature of 247K, but it has non-condensing GHGs that causes 8K of forcing, the total temperature becomes 247+8 =255K.
If I understood everything correctly, Lord Monckton assumes that the two Earths would have an equal water vapor feedback, because water vapor cannot tell the difference between 255K of pure emission temperature and 255K of “emmission + non-condensing GHGs” temperature. The two earths has equal temperature at the surface, and therefore the magnitude of the feedback is equal. However, this what is think is the flawed assumption, because the temperature of the atmospheres will be different between the two earths, the lapse rate will be different. The GHG molecules will transfer heat to nearby molecules by collisions. The different lapse rates will affect the water vapor content. I don’t know by how much, and if it is significant, but I think it is. 8K of GHG forcing is not equal to 8K of emission temperature.
I hope that I have made a mistake and that Lord Monckton is right.
As one who has only the haziest idea about the maths of feedback circuits, whether in an electrical test rig, or in the atmosphere, I’m hesitant to enter this argument, but I’m struck by the clash of different approaches to the matter I see in this debate and I’m trying to make sense of it. The two sides seem to talking at cross purposes. Let me try to frame it in terms of my understanding of the problem, which is not much changed since I first started to read about it some years ago.
As a biologist, I’m used to the idea of complex feedbacks producing something like an equilibrium. As far as climate goes, in fact, I regard it as self-evident that there is, effectively, a thermostat which operates. I won’t go into the details for fear of sidetracking the argument at hand, so bear with me on that. The claim of mainstream CliSci, based on radiation physics, is that CO2 produces about 1.2K of warming per doubling, but that this induces a feedback response, primarily from water vapour, of about three times that.
But – the water vapour feedback response is actually a response to temperature. It is not a response to CO2 itself. And that response to temperature is there anyway, even in the absence of non-condensing greenhouse agents, as long as there is plenty of water to evaporate, hence the difference between the 255K emision temp and the 287K or thereabouts observed. This is essentially what Lord M is saying when he points out that the 255K itself promotes a feedback, and uses his electrical circuit analogy claiming to prove it.
What then happens when non-condensing greenhouse gases are added? Likely, very little – because the warming they produce is provoking the same feedback response as is already present without them. The system stabilises**. It is even possible that the 1.2K theoretical warming from CO2 is neutralised, because, as Lord M says, the feedback response doesn’t care what the origin of the ‘forcing’ is, in fact there is no way it can tell..
Have I misrepresented the argument? I stand to be corrected.
**In asking about this on mainstream sites the only substantive response that I got (where I haven’t been totally ignored) was “because the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is so short, it cannot potentiate its own warming”. This I found very unsatisfactory indeed. However, it is true that water in the atmosphere is not evenly distributed, and Carbon Dioxide might act at altitude, or in polar regions, where there is much less H2O, so we might get a differential feedback reponse to CO2 in those areas. If the GCMs can reproduce this differential effect faithfully, on a small enough grid, and if they also represent the H2O feedback and thermostat effectively, we might take more notice of their results. Lord M’s logic refers to the Earth as a whole, and I’m unclear whether he would accept that a modifier of this kind is necessary to confirm his thesis for all parts of the globe.
I was with you until:
“What then happens when non-condensing greenhouse gases are added? Likely, very little because the warming they produce is provoking the same feedback response as is already present without them. The system stabilises.”
It’s the “Likely, very little” part that to me seems not to follow. A sudden slug of CO2 will cause a radiation imbalance that raises the surface temperature and–here’s the important point–that temperature increase provokes *more* of the feedback response. (The higher surface temperature raises the temperature at the higher effective radiation altitude to return the system to equilibrium.) I don’t see why you say that more feedback response is “very little.”
Anyway, what Lord Monckton seemed to be saying is that the climate models provide feedback only when non-condensable greenhouse gases are present. In my view he’s given us no reason to believe that.
Joe –
I don’t think Lord M is saying that. The 287K-255K effect is the result of the water vapour feedback, or, if you prefer, the GHE. But I’m sure he’ll answer for himself!
As far as the ‘slug of CO2’ [I don’t know why you add ‘sudden’ to that] is concerned, it’s no different from the feedback point of view as a ‘slug of H2O’ which is always available to be produced from its effectively limitless source on the surface. Except, just maybe, at the poles, where we all agree we may see/are seeing ‘polar amplification’. However the rationale for that amplification may be rather different to that which I alluded to above
Sorry for the “sudden.” I was thinking about making clearer what we actually mean by forcing, but I didn’t follow through, and I now don’t think I will. In any event, I agree that feedback from a temperature increase should be the independent of what caused the temperature increase.
As to what Lord Monckton meant, who knows? What I thought he contended that the in climate models the feedback in response to a temperature increase isn’t implemented independently of what caused the temperature increase. But there were breaks in his logic train, so your guess is as good as mine.
mothcatcher says:
As far as the slug of CO2 [I dont know why you add sudden to that] is concerned, its no different from the feedback point of view as a slug of H2O which is always available to be produced from its effectively limitless source on the surface.
It is different — excess water vapor (above the w.v.’s saturation pressure) will precipitate out of the atmosphere. CO2 doesn’t.
Joe promises: “”A sudden slug of CO2 will cause a radiation imbalance that raises the surface temperature”
Any evidence of such a thing Joe, or just your belief?
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
appelly, you’ve tried this comedy routine before. Try something new and original.
Have you considered pushing carrots into your nostrils?
Glad to help.
You’re still avoiding discussing this evidence.
You don’t have any science.
There’s a reason you and Flynn always deflect, deny and insult when you’re presented with the evidence for the greenhouse effect. The only think you never do is refute it.
appelly, you can’t understand the science, so how can you understand the refutation?
Clowns don’t know science, they only know humor.
We found that daily Ld [global atmospheric downward longwave radiation] increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.
— Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008,
Kaicun Wang and Shunlin Liang, JGR, 1 October 2009, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011800.
mothcatcher,
“But the water vapour feedback response is actually a response to temperature. “
No, it’s a response to change in temperature. A way I find useful to think about it goes:
1. CO2 raises T by one unit
2. That evaporates more water, a GHG, which raises T by, say, 1/2 unit
3. That evaporates more water, which raises T by 1/4 unit
and so on, with a geometric progression. T rises by 2 units (1/(1-r), where r=1/2).
That sequence of events may not actually happen, but it describes the result.
Now try that with a steady 255 K resulting from radiative balance. You could say that it evaporates water, raising T to ??. This raises 255 to, well 255. That was a fixed calc. You can’t make a sensible feedback model out of it. 255K was an ideal based on no GHG in the atmosphere. You can’t then perturb it by adding wv. That stops the basis of the calc.
—–
“because the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is so short, it cannot potentiate its own warming”
I don’t think that is the answer to wv feedback. It is the answer to wv forcing. You can raise the amount of wv in the air by raising the surface temperature. That works because wv is always in equilibrium, pretty much, with liquid in the sea, and you change the “constant”. You can’t raise it by letting off steam. Temperature can shift the equilibrium, but not adding wv (because always there is liquid).
“1. CO2 raises T by one unit”
That’s a belief, but not science.
Thanks, Nick.
Try substituting your point 1.
for “1. CO2 raises T by one unit” read
“H2O raises T by one unit” or, if you prefer,
“The sun raises T by 1 unit” which it does, rather frequently.
For CO2 to produce the effect we are talking about, it has to operate outside of the normal solar evaporative cycle. Maybe it does, but just calling it a forcing doesn’t do the trick.
CO2 is a forcing because if you put it in the atmosphere, much of it stays there. That is what raises T by 1 unit relative to what was before. Sunlight isn’t a forcing, unless it varies (sunspots etc). It isn’t a change. There is a duality here:
1. forcing – CO2 stays in the air, but has no source(except us) to replenish it.
2. Feedback – wv is at equilibrium (approx) with a continuously available source/sink. So you can’t force by adding it. But the eq constant changes with T, and if that is increased, wv evaporates and warms. Hence the geometric progression.
It isn’t quite so clear-cut because CO2 is slightly soluble. This makes it slightly less of a forcing, and a weak feedback. That is of some importance at end glaciation, but otherwise a minor distraction. Mainly it acts as a forcing.
Can’t see why CO2 is different, and a forcing, because it ‘stays there’ (though, agree it does). So does wv stay there – although the individual molecules are different over time.
For the purpose of Lord M’;s argument, and my instinct, all greenhouse gases, whether condensing or non-condensing, have equal effects regarding feedback. Only spatial separation of those GHGs can account for a differential response. And that’s the question.
?Anyone else like to come in on this.
Nick believes: “CO2 is a forcing because if you put it in the atmosphere, much of it stays there.”
Nick, you should look up “photosynthesis”, and “food chain”.
Glad to help.
No, G-e-r-a-n
Off target. Doesn’t help. But I think you probably know that.
CO2 is a forcing in present context merely because it is the very and sole parameter in the system that is modified in the first place by anthropic emissions. Its increase implies an energy imbalance at TOA and thus transient heat accumulation in the system. It is the perturbation to which one would like to know the response of climate system.
Water vapor is not considered to be a forcing in this context simply because it is not directly modified by mankind ( except by the minor effect of irrigation practices in agriculture). It’s change is a reaction of the system to the initial CO2 change and therefore it a feedback to the change in CO2, as is albedo via induced ice or cloud cover changes.
Of course both changes in CO2 and H20 vapor have an effect on TOA energy balance. Yet what is labeled forcing and what is labeled feedback depends of course on context.
If mankind didn’t emit a lot CO2 and change its amount in atmosphere but happened to increase instead in a sizable way the mean H2O vapor content of atmosphere by irrigation practices for instance, one would have to talk of vw as the forcing GHG and CO2 as the feedback ! CO2 would be expected to change as a reaction of the system because the forcing of additional vw might increase the mean temperature which in turn increases atmospheric CO2 content via a change in equilibrium “constant” between ocean and atmosphere.
W I B T G I R
Not sure what I should make of your combative handle..
But you’re just giving me definitions, not explaining the feedback system
Sorry mothcatcher, but it’s exactly ON target. The discussion is “what is the forcing”. Atmospheric CO2 contributes zero forcing. Some people just don’t know that.
Another quote, for example: “[CO2’s} increase implies an energy imbalance at TOA and thus transient heat accumulation in the system. It is the perturbation to which one would like to know the response of climate system.”
1) CO2 does NOT imply an “energy imbalance”
2) CO2 does NOT imply “heat accumulation in the system”
It’s okay to ask questions.
mothcatcher:
I don’t for a moment think Lord Monckton is right. But on whether water vapor is just as much a forcing as carbon dioxide is, I agree with you.
“Forcing” is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W /m^2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.
Everything else being equal, more water vapor means less radiation out from the tropopause for the same surface temperature, i.e., it means greater net radiation in. The same is true of carbon dioxide.
The term “change” only means there’s a set point you subtract from the resultant net radiation. It has nothing to do with whether the radiation change came from more water vapor or more carbon dioxide.
“Everything else being equal, more water vapor means less radiation out from the tropopause for the same surface temperature”
Yes. But the forcing issue is whether you can get more water vapor. And you can’t (for long), at constant temperature, because water vapor is in equilibrium with another phase (sea and rain). CO2 is not.
Heat a saucepan of water. At first, temperature rises according to the heat supplied. The flame forces temperature. But when the water boils, the temperature no longer rises. The vapor pressure has risen to 1 atm, and water is in equilibrium with another phase (steam). Heating now does not force temperature rise, but steam production.
That is the situation with wv in the air. Air is effectively saturated, because it is in contact with the sea. It isn’t literally saturated everywhere. But any wv that you put in the air will within a few days reach a point where RH is 100%, and then clouds and rain. This goes on normally all the time, and evaporation from the sea replaces the loss. The combination of sea evap and rain regulates the amount of wv in the air, and the only way it can be shifted is by changing the equilibrium point, by changing T. Else adding wv forces, not humidity, but rain. CO2 doesn’t have this interaction.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Nick believes: CO2 is a forcing because if you put it in the atmosphere, much of it stays there.”
Nick, you should look up photosynthesis, and food chain.
And when the plant and animals die?
appelly, rhymes with jelly, the plants and animals will die about two weeks before you get a job.
Don’t worry, that won’t happen in your lifetime.
“But the forcing issue is whether you can get more water vapor.”
No. Forcing is what I said it was. If you think more water vapor doesn’t mean more forcing, make your case. Otherwise, please please don’t obfuscate. I’m an old man, and I don’t have time to play games.
JB
If you think more water vapor doesnt mean more forcing, make your case.
Water vapor and CO2 are both greenhouse gases and in particular asudden change at time t=0 in their atmospheric concentration induces a sudden change in TOA energy imbalance.
Nobody disputes that.
Yet to distinguish forcing and feedback time t but be included in the discussion and thus adjectives like “sudden” !
Indeed TOA energy imbalance at time t is not simply what’s called forcing ! What’s called forcing is the initial TOA energy imbalance at time t=0.
Here the initial perturbation of the system brought about by humans is CO2 not water vapor. And what is called forcing, by convention, is the relevant initial energy imbalance at TOA with everything else being unperturbed in particular water vapor concentration, cloud and ice cover etc.
That is, when the system had not yet reacted to the initial sudden CO2 perturbation.
The forcing is thus not the actual TOA energy imbalance after a while, at time t, once the system is allowed to react and change the amount of water vapor in air ,that is, when feedback takes place.
It’s important to grasp that the initial perturbation by CO2, the TOA energy imbalance doesn’t stay constant but varies with time. As the system reacts and readjusts this imbalance progressively evolves and finally decreases and vanishes once a new steady state is reached.
In real climate system CO2 concentration augments continuously and the perturbation can be viewed as a series of small successive sudden steplike increases as the single one discussed above.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight :
Actually, that was a well-stated argument. And it was helpful for you to state what I had avoided complicating my comment with: that the forcing is still there after the irradiation imbalance has gone.
Moreover, you’re right in a sense about forcing versus feedback. If we look at the linearized feedback equation, y=(x+fy)g, we ordinarily think of the CO2 forcing as x and the water-vapor feedback as fy. So in that sense you’re right that in the context of distinguishing forcing from feedback the water-vapor component should mostly be classified as the latter rather than the former.
But I think that mothcatcher was getting at a different point, which is whether the output y responds differently to the forcing x than to the feedback fy. It doesn’t.
Furthermore, couldn’t it happen that, the complexity of the system being what it is, a water-vapor change can result from something other than a temperature change? Could you still classify the water vapor’s radiative effect then? I don’t think so.
So I’m happy to agree that water vapor can be looked at mostly as feedback rather than forcing. I just don’t think looking at it that way really goes to mothcatcher’s question.
Joe,
“If you think more water vapor doesnt mean more forcing, make your case.”
I’ve made my case. But I can’t put it more simply that this:
1. If you put CO2 in the air, it stays there, hinders IR, and raises temperature. CO2 forces temperature.
2. If you put water vapor in the air, it doesn’t stay there. The air can’t hold more water for long. Water vapor forces rain.
But
3. If you warm the air, as with CO2, then the air can hold more water. Sea water evaporates. This hinders IR and causes warming. Water vapor is a feedback.
nick stokes…”1. If you put CO2 in the air, it stays there, hinders IR, and raises temperature. CO2 forces temperature”.
There’s no proof of that. In fact, Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR who was fully aware of the absorbing qualities of CO2, claimed CO2 could not cause such warming.
At the time the greenhouse theory was named, it was believed greenhouses warmed because the glass trapped IR. He knew immediately that was wrong and created an experiment which disproved it. He postulated that greenhouses warm because the glass traps molecules of air, which are 99% nitrogen and oxygen. In other words, greenhouses warm due to a lack of convection.
Regarding IR, Wood thought it would be ineffective more than a few feet above the surface due to inverse square law. You can prove that to yourself to an extent by turning on a 1500 watt electric stove element and seeing what effect you can detect at 5 feet. If you feel anything it’s likely due to air molecules being heated directly by the ring and passed to you by convection.
I have used Dalton’s law of partial pressures to guestimate the heating effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to Dalton, the total air gas pressure should be the sum of each gas pressure. The partial gas pressure should indicate the partial temperature contributed by each gas, due to collision.
The partial pressure of CO2 would be in line with it’s 0.04% of air. That means, the temperature it contributes is in the order of 0.04%. If the atmosphere has warmed 1C in the past century, it means CO2 could have contributed no more than about 0.04C.
There is no way that a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere caused that 1C warming.
“In fact, Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR who was fully aware of the absorbing qualities of CO2, claimed CO2 could not cause such warming.”
Nonsense. He did not.
Joe Born
Unfortunately I can’t clearly see what the point mothcatcher tries to convey actually is.
He said: As a biologist, Im used to the idea of complex feedbacks producing something like an equilibrium. As far as climate goes, in fact, I regard it as self-evident that there is, effectively, a thermostat which operates.
The idea that something merely holds the temperature of climate system essentially constant when CO2 or an other perturbation is applied is by no means self-evident. As I already pointed out feedback is in general not simply negative feedback that neutralises the initial perturbation as observed in the phenomenon of homeostasis of biologists.
Water vapor in air is definitely a positive feedback that actually amplifies the response of the system to the CO2 perturbation. A thermostat instead is by essence negative feedback.
We are dealing with a dynamic chaotic complex system. Such systems are in general characterized by a set parameters that determine their behavior. CO2 concentration in air or the solar “constant” are such parameters. Changes can indeed be applied to them and results in relevant “forcings”.
INow if one considers that water vapor pressure because of the physics of liquid- vapor equilibrium tends to remain essentially saturated in air ( as assumed by Nick Stokes) or equivalently and more realistically if one assumes that relative humidity remains essentially constant, vapor pressure is an internal variable that cannot be set independently . It is thus not a system parameter at all and therefore never a forcing, just feedback.
In reality, as I explained in a previous post, things are not really that simple,
H2O liquid/H20 vapor are not merely in thermodynamic equilibrium and H2O vapor is not saturating and so could in principle become a forcing for instance by massive irrigation in agriculture that systematically moistens the atmosphere. Yet this still doesn’t lend more sense to Lord M or mothcatcher’s considerations.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
I don’t think we’re really disagreeing in substance. You’re discussing how the water vapor got there and what its concentration is likely to be. And you’re looking at forcing in the forcing-versus feedback sense. I don’t disagree with that.
And I may be wrong about what mothcatcher was asking. Here’s what I thought he was asking. Scenario 1: You magically and instantaneously put a slug of water vapor into the air when radiation had been at equilibrium, and an imbalance results. Scenario 2: You magically and instantaneously put a slug of carbon dioxide into the air when radiation had at equilibrium, and the same imbalance results. The question I was hearing is, Is the temperature response to that imbalance different because it was caused by carbon dioxide rather than water vapor? My answer was no.
Furthermore, if the beginning equilibrium states so differed between the two scenarios that the system state is the same for both after the perturbation, the resultant feedback should be the same even though the perturbation causes differed.
Maybe that wasn’t his question. And I’m not sure what conclusion he wanted to draw from it. But that’s the question I attempted to answer.
nick stokes…Nonsense, he [Wood] did not”.
Oh, ok, id YOU say so. Guess this article by Wood must be wrong.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
ps. ignore the dumb comments by Connelley, he’s an uber-alarmist who programs computers.
Joe Born
As to your scenarios with the same initial radiative imbalance from H20 vapor and CO2 slugs I can’t see how one could expect the same long term response. As already pointed out water vapor is internally regulated and the applied perturbation to atmospheric partial pressure of water vapor won’t stay there and perturb radiative equilibrium for more than a couple of weeks. It comes rapidly down to the ocean in the form of rain or snow, in sharp contrast with the CO2 perturbation that persists for hundredths or thousands of years.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
“As to your scenarios with the same initial radiative imbalance from H20 vapor and CO2 slugs I cant see how one could expect the same long term response.”
I believe you misunderstood the scenarios. I said their states so differed at equilibrium that they were identical after perturbation: the one equilibrium state’s H2O and CO2 concentrations so differed from the other equilibrium state’s that one state’s H2O and CO2 concentrations immediately after its H2O slug were the same as the other’s immediately after its CO2 slug.
Although the same states resulted from different perturbations, they’re still the same states, so the same state trajectories thereafter unless they again get different perturbations.
Joe Born
So with identical final states, your scenarios would imply that in the initial states one state had less CO2 and the other had less water vapor than the common final state.
If this is indeed what you mean then I cannot see how both initial states can be at radiative equilibrium or better in steady states. Only one of them may correspond to radiative balance. So one doesn’t simply perturb equilibrium but non equilibrium states and subsequent trajectories need not be identical.
Water vapor and CO2 are not independent quantities at equilibrium. A given concentration of CO2 implies a given concentration of water vapor when the system is at radiative equilibrium.
Now possibly I still misunderstand what you said.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
“So with identical final states, your scenarios would imply that in the initial states one state had less CO2 and the other had less water vapor than the common final state.”
Correct.
Immediately before perturbation:
System 1: no imbalance, 1 W/m^2 H2O forcing, 0 W/m^2 CO2 forcing.
System 2: no imbalance, 0 W/m^2 H2O forcing, 1 W/m^2 CO2 forcing.
Immediately after perturbation:
System 1: 1 W/m^2 imbalance, 1 W/m^2 H2O forcing, 1 W/m^2 CO2 forcing.
System 2: 1 W/m^2 imbalance, 1 W/m^2 H2O forcing, 1 W/m^2 CO2 forcing.
Here I’m using “forcing” generically, to include what you would call feedback. Independently of how System 1’s water vapor immediately before perturbation got there, that is–i.e., independently of whether you’d call it forcing or feedback–its sudden disappearance would initially cause a -1 W/m^2 imbalance. And that’s the point.
I may have confused things by calling the initial state “equilibrium” rather than simply zero radiative imbalance.
Joel Born
If there is any forcing in the initial states then there is also radiative imbalance in these initial states
Forcing by definition is what perturbs the radiative balance reached in a steady ( which is technically the proper adjective rather than “equilibrium” ) state which is precisely characterized by zero radiative imbalance.
So I still can’t get what you actually mean.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
“If there is any forcing in the initial states then there is also radiative imbalance in these initial states.”
Ah! That’s our problem. Yes, forcing is defined by reference to an initial radiation imbalance. But here’s the thing: forcing does not mean that an imbalance necessarily prevails currently. If it did, forcing would stop when carbon-dioxide concentration stopped increasing. But that can’t be; the temperature elevation that’s a response to the carbon dioxide remains, and the temperature elevation is (in our models) determined by forcing.
For the sake of simplicity, start with a totally non-radiative atmosphere so that the surface is radiating directly to space exactly as much power as it’s receiving from the sun. Also assume there’s no water, life, or other complicating factors. Call that the zero-forcing state. (Climate types call some other state the zero-forcing state, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Now inject a slug of carbon dioxide instantaneously throughout the atmosphere. Before the surface temperature has had a chance to respond at all, there’s a radiation imbalance caused by the carbon dioxide’s impeding outward radiation. The carbon dioxide is associated with a forcing, and that forcing is the initial imbalance.
“Initial” is the operative word.
In the fullness of time, that imbalance causes the earth’s surface to warm enough to redress the imbalance: the imbalance eventually disappears. But the carbon dioxide is still considered to exert a forcing, namely the imbalance it caused initially, even though there’s no imbalance now.
The forcing delta_F is causing a temperature change delta_T. That delta_T persists. The quantity delta_T / delta_F is the system’s open-loop gain.
Again, so long as carbon dioxide is there, its forcing is there, as is the resultant elevated temperature.
Joel Born
Well, the concept of forcing is the initial radiative imbalance that results from some perturbation of the system. It refers to an initial steady state that by definition was in radiative balance.
So yes, in your example, the CO2 forcing certainly persists once a new steady state with zero imbalance is reached. Yet it persists only as a forcing of the system with respect to its initial state. Reference steady state is essential to determine what is forcing !
If the new reference state is the final state with zero imbalance re-established there is no forcing anymore with respect to this final state unless a new perturbation (more CO2 or stronger sun) is applied.
Lord Monckton when he “derives” a feedback factor f from temperature data without and with condensable GHGs actually refers to a hypothetical steady state of the system at 0 K.
This is plain nonsense as pointed out by other commenters before.
JB
It should read a steady state “without and with non condensable GHGs”
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
We finally converged. Sorry if my nomenclature choices confused things.
Yes, I agree with your statements about reference points.
I also agree with your diagnosis of Lord Monckton’s approach–to the extent that his approach is intelligible.
Lord Monckton’s modus operandi seems to be to use enough ambiguity and omit enough information that most serious observers give up trying to make sense of it. As a consequence, the few serious commenters who remain get drowned out by his fanboys.
Joe Born said:
Lord Moncktons modus operandi seems to be to use enough ambiguity and omit enough information that most serious observers give up trying to make sense of it. As a consequence, the few serious commenters who remain get drowned out by his fanboys.
You sum it up very well indeed.
“But the water vapour feedback response is actually a response to temperature.
No, its a response to change in temperature. A way I find useful to think about it goes:”
A bit of nit picking here Nick. I think everyone understood what mothcatcher meant
It’s n ot nitpicking. It’s Lord M’s key misapprehension. I just want to stop it spreading.
Nick, you might like this:
“In the climate system, CO2 concentration is a forcing, whereas the water vapour concentration is a feedback. To illustrate the difference, here’s a crude analogy:
Suppose that I’m trying to lose weight, but I’m reluctant to reduce the 300 grams of delicious chocolate cake that I eat every day. Having read that the human body is around 80% water by weight, I conclude that the cake can’t be a problem: after all, I drink 2 kg of water per day, so it would make more sense to reduce that! So I cut down to 1 kg of water per day and maintain my cake intake. Several weeks later, I’m surprised to find that I haven’t lost any weight! What’s happened? It turns out that the human body regulates its water content, so reducing my intake just reduced my output. Fat storage isn’t regulated in the same way, so the cake keeps piling up.”
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/7502/is-there-any-experiment-to-prove-that-co2-with-the-atmosphere-concentration-can/7511
Don’t fret, snake. Fat clowns are funny too.
Just ask appelly, rhymes with jelly.
It is even possible that the 1.2K theoretical warming from CO2 is neutralised, because, as Lord M says, the feedback response doesnt care what the origin of the forcing is, in fact there is no way it can tell..
The 1.2 K “theoretical” warming from CO2 is the bare effect with everything else being unchanged or without any feedback.
To “neutralise” the bare effect overall feedback must be at least negative. H20 vapor in atmosphere is positive and there are a lot of others from what physics tells us.
So it is rather wishful thinking to expect that feedback response in climate might even neutralize the effect of the CO2 on temperature as homeostasis regulates the body temperature of an animal.
Now, there is no doubt, feedbacks are clearly the real Achille’s heel of all existing climate sensitivity “calculations”. We simply don’t know yet how to do this reliably.
when…”Now, there is no doubt, feedbacks are clearly the real Achilles heel of all existing climate sensitivity calculations. We simply dont know yet how to do this reliably”.
We most certainly do know how to deal with it, stop using contrived science and start using established science related to feed backs. Climate modelers have invented their own definition of feedback as demonstrated by Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS, who apparently does not understand what positive feedback means.
See my reply to mothcatcher for a link about this.
Mothcatcher.
Similar to u I am a geologist so not into the models. As i understand him and your summary i think he has identified that the models dont consider the existing ghg warming and this reduces the total expected warming from man’s co2 input significantly or reduces the climate sensitivity. In other words the natural system already used some of the available feedback. Roy doesn’t like feedback because they are not a forcing included in the models and must be derived.
As I understand it WV can be a strong ghg or a cooling variable depending on its state. So all water could become ice and a runaway negative feedback, whereas CO2 is Not compressible at earth temp ranges. So it sort of provides the stabilizing backbone of atmospheric temp that keeps WV in the atmosphere and warming. Didnt read everything. Hope im not missing your question. This is how i was taught.
mothcatcher…”Have I misrepresented the argument? I stand to be corrected”.
*************
The argument is far more complex than what anyone seems to let on.
Gavin Schmidt, who runs NASA GISS and also the uber-alarmist site realclimate once described positive feedback as follows:
“A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it”.
See halfway down the page under ‘Gavin Schmidt On Positive Feedback’.
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
If you look around the Net you will see just as many incorrect definitions of PF as that, all with the notion that positive feedback can cause amplification without an amplifier.
Roy has addressed that issue recently and if I am understanding him correctly he is saying we should not equate the feedbacks mentioned in climate science with feedbacks used in disciplines like electronics. That’s fine with me but it means climatologists are using the term feedback incorrectly as it is defined in physics.
As a biologist, you are likely dealing with a form of feedback that is more akin to servo-systems. That differs markedly from the kind of positive feedback being suggested by Schmidt above that could lead to the mystical tipping point.
That’s really what it’s about, is it not? Modelers are trying to establish that CO2 being added to the atmosphere can produce a feedback that warms the planet.
In a servosystem, the feedback does not require amplification, it’s a control signal that indicates to an error comparator which way the driving mechanism should respond. For example, the feedback could be a signal from a tachometer on a motor shaft indicating whether the RPM is above or below a set point RPM.
The type of feedback referenced by Schmidt above is a positive feedback that requires an amplifier. An input signal (alternating current in an amplifier) is fed into the amplifier and amplified. A sample of the output signal is fed back in phase with the input signal, it adds to the signal, and the summed signal is amplified each cycle. The output becomes an exponentially increasing signal and under certain conditions it will become amplified indefinitely.
It’s not desirable in electronics to have such a PF under normal circumstances. It can occur without the intentional internal feedback signal in a public address system when the microphone gets too close to the speakers. Acoustic pressure from the speakers is picked up by the mic and fed back to the input. The same exponential gain occurs and you hear the familiar squeal associated with that situation.
Turning off the power stops it immediately. No amplification, no feedback. That’s closer to what Schmidt is trying to describe than the electronic amp with a built in feedback loop. However, oscillators, which are a vital part of electronics, use a modified and controlled form of positive feedback.
Having said all that, one needs to focus on what is being implied by feedbacks. Besides the cloud feedbacks mentioned often by Roy, for which I have no argument, the feedbacks used in models seem geared to the notion that CO2 in the atmosphere can feed back energy from the atmosphere and cause warming.
I have expounded on this enough and won’t focus on it here. Let me say, however, that two versions of anthropogenic warming exist. One version is that GHGs in the atmosphere are trapping heat, or as Roy claims, slowing down the dissipation of heat from the surface. I claim that is not possible and physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, in his book on atmopsheric radiation, suggests the concept is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly (not Roy’s version, the heat trapping blanket part).
The other version is that IR back-radiated from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface and added to solar SW input to super-heat the surface beyond what it is heated by solar energy. I don’t think that’s possible either. For one, the re-circulation of energy that has already been emitted from the surface, back to the surface to heat it more, is perpetual motion. The other problem, one that by now likely drives Roy nuts, is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids the transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Models are geared to bypassing the 2nd law and they indulge in feed backs that permit that. One of the culprits, Stefan Rahmstorf, suggested a positive net balance of energies, meaning electromagnetic energy, can satisfy the 2nd law, which is completely false. Heat cannot be transferred as EM from a cooler body to a warmer body.
I don’t know why Lord Monckton is wasting his time with model theory. the proof that disqualifies AGW is already there, in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which was ironically proposed to remove the perpetual motion allowed by the 1st law. AGW would appear to be based on the first law with modelers oblivious to the existence of the 2nd law.
The problem is that in the dense troposphere, greenhouse gases can not be separated from others. Until we calculate what the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be if there was no troposphere, we do not know what the greenhouse effect is.
“thats a mathematically-describable object … ”
.. and there’s the rub
.. We only know a small percentage of the physics involved with the long-term weather patterns of many climate regions. .. We are not even close to any certainty, precision nor accuracy in our mathematical discription of the “world’s climate” or any regional climate type
.. inadequate data, incorrectly modeled physics & math
.. plus the fact that small errors multiple rapidly into lage errors when one tries to make forward projections
.. last I check .. “climatologists” can’t agree if CO2 is 2% or 9% or 20% of the greenhousegas effect, that borders on speculation rather than “science”
What physics dont we know?
For you, appelly, the list is too long.
I’ve seen some radical claims on climate change blogs but DA’s apparent claim to omniscience, is quite extraordinary.
DA…”What physics dont we know?”
1)2nd law of thermodynamics
2)Ideal Gas Equation
3)Dalton’s law of partial pressures
4)atomic theory
5)quantum theory
6)Stefan-Boltzmann’s equation
Physics know all of those six areas very well.
Try again.
Graviton! David physics doesnt know how gravity fundamentally works. Since im on quantum scale, I am optimistic you will get into quantum climate change and how galactic cosmic rays (GCR) interact with the atmosphere as cloud seeds changing water from a ghg to albedo. Then how solar activity deflects the GCR based on suns magnetic field strength. And finally how GCR vary in time. All such an under explored part of climate science.
For pecentages, see Lacis et al Science 2010.
erik…”.. last I check .. climatologists cant agree if CO2 is 2% or 9% or 20% of the greenhousegas effect, that borders on speculation rather than science”
It is speculation and backed by consensus, not proof.
The real science related to gases like our atmosphere tells a different story. PV = nRT. Couple that with Dalton’s law of partial pressures with constant volume and you get a temperature produced by CO2 closer to 0.04C for a gain of 1C. The rest of the warming obviously came from nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of atmospheric gases.
You’re ignoring quantum mechanics and radiation transfer. On purpose.
Dr. Spencer, The climate commitment study of Wigley, et al,(2005), did attribute a portion of the unrealized commitment to past natural forcing:
“A breakdown of the natural and anthropo-genic components of the CC commitment, together with uncertainties arising from ocean mixing (Kz) uncertainties, is given in table S1. Past natural forcing (inclusion of which is the default case here) has a marked effect. The natural forcing component is surprisingly large, 64% of the total commitment in 2050, reducing to 52% by 2400.”
It goes without saying that the climate was not in equilibrium in the mid-1800s, it takes centuries for the oceans to reach equilibrium with new sustained levels of forcing and the forcing is always changing. I don’t know if Wigley’s natural component was due to interpreting the warming prior to 1950 as natural, which appeared to be the consensus at the time. But if the Little Ice Age was global and the end of it was due to natural forcing, we still would have climate commitment in the mid-1800s and even now from that new level of forcing, assuming it was still at a higher level than in a long global Little Ice Age that cooled the oceans.
ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Wigley_2005%20Sea%20level%20commitment.pdf
I happen to agree with you that there is likely a natural forcing component, possibly still in progress. But even if we assume it DOESN’T exist (Otto et al., 2013; Lewis & Curry, 2015), you diagnose a climate sensitivity only around 1.5 deg. C (based upon assumed forcing, surface temperature rise, and ocean heat content increase).
So, to the extent that some natural warming was ALSO occurring since the mid-1800s, that would make the sensitivity even lower.
Furthermore, with recent research that the aerosol cooling effect has been overestimated, it reduces the sensitivity even further.
This is the current best method for diagnosing ECS, in my opinion. Long-term changes in forcing, surface temperature, and OHC. Unfortunately, uncertainties abound, in OHC (what was it 100 years ago?) and in forcing (was there a natural forcing happening?)
Roy wrote:
“Furthermore, with recent research that the aerosol cooling effect has been overestimated,”
What paper(s) is this? Thx.
David,
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22974
and commentary here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/546483a
Martin Lewitt says:
“But if the Little Ice Age was global….”
It doesn’t seem to be:
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Whether these pre-instrumental episodes were global or not goes back and forth. This from 2014
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htm
That study “involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America.”
How can one area outside of Europe and North America say anything about the rest of the globe?
It adds a data point in another part of the world, that is interpreted as a change in weather patterns: “Our study is significant because, while there are various different estimates for the start and end of the Little Ice Age in different regions of the world, our data show that the most extreme phases occurred at the same time in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. These extreme episodes were abrupt global events. They were probably related to sudden, equator-ward shifts of the Westerlies in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Atlantic depression tracks in the Northern Hemisphere.”
While the data point is local, if it reflects a shift in known track effecting more than just that data point, broader conclusions can be supported. Of course, for the artificial global temperature statistic to be cooler in a period, the whole globe does not have to be cooler, it is enough for some places to be cooler and others not compensatingly warmer.
DA…evidence re Little Ice Age
You don’t really think that a 1C cooling applied only to Europe over 400 years, do you?
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/project2/group4.htm
Talks about evidence of harsh conditions in Europe and North America. I have read this in book by explorers to North America between the 1600s and 1800s where they observed an inordinate cold.
*************
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
“The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period”.
So, according to the IPCC, who have mandate to find proof of anthropogenic warming, and a propensity for lying in that respect, there was only regional cooling by the LIA over a 400 year period.
Three cold periods in China during LIA:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/little-ice-age-climate-near-beijing-china-inferred-from-historical-and-stalagmite-records/E88F2B571CA53E4888EB957EC9F893A8
Also… http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/summaries/asialia.php
*************
LIA in South America:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htm
See PAGES 2k, which uses 511 time series:
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Gentlemen
I think this will settle the argument.
Christopher said
“Now, assume ad argumentum that the naturally occurring greenhouse gases induced no radiative forcing at all. In that event, the entire 32 K difference between the natural temperature in 1850 and the emission temperature is the feedback response to emission temperature itself. ”
Christopher ,
You will be laughed out of court with arguments like the above. A feedback has to have some actual physical meaning. Any feedback has to either involve sound, electromagnetic light waves either seen or not or pressure of some sort. There has to be some physical process. So when you are talking about gases in the atmosphere they change temperature because of some physical process. Any feedback from that temperature change also has to involve a physical movement of some kind of energy through some medium. A temperature cannot change a temperature. A temperature doesnt exist. It is only a measuring tool of mankind, not a physical entity. So what you really mean is that the initial temperature change was caused by reflected IR being absorbed by greenhouse gases which caused more evaporation and enabled more IR to be trapped as a feedback. You cannot have a temperature change without having a net (incoming – outgoing to space) IR amount being trapped.
But this is where the alarmists are wrong. The real graph should be around 31.4 K for the clouds and water vapour part with the rest being CO2 for about 0.8K. The 1st key thing is that in the beginning there wasnt any clouds and water vapour in the atmosphere but there was CO2 and a lot of it. Therefore the temperature rose from the emission temperature 255.4 to the equilibrium temperature of 287.6. That initiated evaporation from the oceans enabling clouds and water vapour to form for the 1st time and thus an equilibrium temperature was reached. The 2nd key thing is that there is always enough water vapour in the air to absorb the net difference in IR. And when the amount gets saturated, precipitation happens and the amount drops back. Thus the total global level of H2O vapour in the atmosphere has never really changed from the beginning. Thus when the CO2 levels went down 325 million years ago because of increased plant growth ( the plants really got started big time around 325 million years ago) the temperature also dropped. There can never be any feedback (ie increased water vapour) (except a very very small one) from increased CO2 because the levels of CO2 since then by itself cannot cause a large enough temperature change. So when you talk about feedbacks you need large amounts of CO2 as in 8000ppm like the atmosphere had 530 million years ago. So the initial feedback to create the clouds and water vapour in the 1st place is really the only big feedback that has occurred. If mankind was to put 1000’s of ppm CO2 into the air we could get the temperature up but we would have to burn every last piece of carbon in the ground. Dont forget that since 1980 mankind has burned 75% more fossil fuels but has only increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 21%. The alarmists have no answer for that statistic.
There can never be any feedback (ie increased water vapour) (except a very very small one) from increased CO2 because the levels of CO2 since then by itself cannot cause a large enough temperature change.
Nothing but a tautology.
I suspect that Monckton uses the 255 K temperature to mean the surface temperature with no greenhouse gas feedbacks in play; the 279 K temperature to mean the surface temperature with all feedbacks operating except non-condensing gas feedback; and the 287 K temperature to mean the surface temperature with all feedbacks, including non-condensing gas feedback.
When the surface emits radiation at 255 K into an atmosphere which contains water vapor, some radiation will be absorbed and re-radiated in all directions, about half of which will head back to the surface causing some warming, i.e. +24 K, raising the surface temp to 279 K. Adding non-condensing greenhouse gasses will raise the temp by 8 K more.
How does this not make sense?
That is exactly what I said
Except reread what I say from the beginning. What is wrong with what I said?
Sorry Alan. I read many comments upthread and got the impression that people were obscuring Monckton’s central point with too much detail, so I skipped to the bottom and added my two bits, trying to keep it simple. -J
John asks: “How does this not make sense?”
John, it makes a kind of “sense”, it’s “nonsense”.
If you start with surface temp of 255 K, and the water vapor “warms” the surface to 279 K, then the “magic gas” heats another 8 K, to 287 K. Then, what’s to prevent the “magic gases” from heating the surface another 32 K. Then, another 32 K. Then, another. ..
But, maybe you believe in the “magic gases”, and “runaway” temperatures?
G*
If you put on a pair of wool sox your feet will get warmer. Let’s say 5 C.
What’s to prevent the “magic fabric” from warming your feet another 5 C, then another, then another……?
snake, if you believe the atmosphere acts as your socks, then you’re a clown.
because, as your feet warm, the temperature gradient through the sock increases, which increases the rate of heat flow. Eventually an equilibrium is reached where your skin is warmer, but the outside of the sock isn’t.
A more appropriate example would be to compare temperature change at two locations, one a desert with low humidity (e.g. Death Valley) and the other an area of high humidity (e.g. Miami). Both locations are near sea level with clear skies. Daytime temperatures would be the same but nighttime temperatures would be very different, with the dry desert air being much colder.
-J
Dr Spencer,
I hate analogies.
Put a corpse in the Sun, until it is as hot as it’s as hot as it’s going to get.
Put socks on its feet. Watch the temperature of the feet drop below that of the heated parts of the body.
Cheers,
Roy…”…as your feet warm, the temperature gradient through the sock increases, which increases the rate of heat flow”.
I think you meant ‘decreases’ the rate of heat flow, did you not?
I presume you are referring to convection and conduction because IR does not care about socks, it goes straight through.
I wear a heart rate monitor when I’m out walking and in winter I wear several layers of clothing, including a heavy winter jacket, over the transmitter strapped around my chest. That EM frequency is much lower than IR and it goes straight through the clothing to the receiver on my wrist.
The heated air against my chest does not dissipate much through the clothing. Sometimes I wear a windbreaker of a dense material that makes it feel like I’m in a steam bath when it’s zipped up. I sweat profusely in sub-zero weather while wearing it and over several layers of clothing.
Even though the windbreakers seals in hot air, it transmits the EM from my HRM trasmitter on my chest to the receiver on my wrist, which itself is often buried under several layers of sleeving.
I don’t think IR radiation is very effective at cooling.
Gordon asks, “I think you meant decreases the rate of heat flow, did you not?”
He meant what he said, Gordon. That’s why sox don’t cause runaway warming.
g*e*r*a*n says: “If you start with surface temp of 255 K, and the water vapor warms the surface to 279 K, then the magic gas heats another 8 K, to 287 K. Then, whats to prevent the magic gases from heating the surface another 32 K. Then, another 32 K. Then, another…”
So, water vapor is not a “magic gas” but non-condensing GHGs are? How does that work? Citations, please.
If you started with surface of 255 K…
If Earth was 255 K, what would it look like?
Let’s see, there couple ways, one do this.
One could simply have Earth further from the Sun.
Or if wanted planet without an atmosphere though like
Earth, you move Mars closer to the Sun. At Mars current distant it is about -50 C or about 220 K
So move Mars closer so gained 35 K.
Another way is to mix the entire Ocean of Earth, so not requiring more Sunlight (or increasing the amount of heat).
Average ocean temperature is 3.5 C and if mixed to have uniform ocean temperature, it’s surface temperature would change from about 17 C to 3.5 C.
And bring tropical average air temperature from about 26 C to
3.5 C. Land surfaces in tropics would be able to reach about 30 C in day time and would get well below freezing at night. And one would get snowfall as fairly common weather in tropics and even over the tropical ocean.
And tropics would have a lot less water vapor and could have as much water vapor has one current has outside the tropics which is about 0 to 1%. So tropics could have about 1% instead of 4 to 5%. Or 1/4 the amount water vapor in tropics.
And outside of tropics it should be less than 1/4 of current
levels.
Outside of tropics during summer, and below 45 degree latitude
you also get daytime highs on land also reaching 30 C, but due to weather one could have daytime in summer at or below freezing. Above 45 degrees latitude in summer it’s never going get as high as 30 C even in good weather. And during winter above 45 degree latitude it’s going to get very cold. So English channel would freeze.
Currently US is about 12 C, and with the ocean it could like Canada or around -4 C in terms of average temperature and Canada average temperature could lower by 30 K or have average temperature of about -35 C. Or coldest temperatures in Canada could be about -100 C. And Europe would be like Canada, and Russia a bit colder than Europe.
Of course you would not have the Gulf Stream and all the other oceanic currents and this would cause more winter time freezing of ocean water. And so average global surface temperature would be near 255 K (-18 C ).
John, some bad news for you. If you are supporting the concept of GHE and “magic” gas, it is YOU that must provide the evidence. CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. It can NOT “heat the planet”. It can NOT “trap heat”.
The industry of pseudoscience wants to “define” CO2 as a “pollutant” and “heat source”. Many Alarmists and Warmists believe/accept that definition. It’s about as meaningful as “defining” that your bank account now has 10 billion dollars.
Fantasy land.
Evidence for the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
See also:
“There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus,” 10/9/11.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/
appelly, did you ever hear Einstein’s definition of insanity?
I guess not.
You’ve avoiding discussing the science presented.
You haven’t presented any science.
When presented with evidence, you and MF deny, distort, avoid and insult — everything but actually confronting it.
Clown, you have no evidence. You have no science.
You believe the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K, and the Earth is warming the Sun!
You’re a clown.
More humor, please.
See, you did it again.
It’s evidence you can’t refute, or you would.
You haven’t presented any science, appelly.
CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source.
For the Nth time, no one is claiming it is. Enough already.
Are you in “denial”?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim CO2 can warm the planet, then claim you are not claiming it is a “heat source”.
Getting yourself tangled up in your pseudoscience is fun to watch.
john…”So, water vapor is not a magic gas but non-condensing GHGs are?”
Now I get it, non-condensing GHGs refer to CO2 since it does not condense to water as does WV.
Who started this lunacy? The only other significant (for want of a better word) GHG is CO2. Methane is ridiculous as a GHG.
So, now we have to divide GHGs into condensing and non-condensing since some alarmist scientist thinks CO2 increases WV.
I suppose this pseudo-science is aimed at the notion that WV does not persist in the atmosphere. Supposedly, all WV disappears after a while leaving CO2, at 0.04%, as the big bad GHG. Has anyone noticed that WV is replaced as fast as it condenses, making it essentially static?
What difference does it make whether WV condenses or not?
Here in Vancouver, in a rain forest climate, the relative humidity seldom goes below 70%. Even when it hasn’t rained for a spell.
Hilarious!!!
So, now we have to divide GHGs into condensing and non-condensing since some alarmist scientist thinks CO2 increases WV.
Not “now” — scientists have known this since Arrhenius.
There is a big difference in how condensing and non-condensing gases operate in the atmosphere — the atmosphere can only hold so much of the former, but there’s no limit on the latter.
A simple question: in times of low solar magnetic activity, jet stream over the oceans becomes more meridional. How much does it increase the cloud cover over the oceans?
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
That is one of the important questions. I do not know the answer.
Ren,
You state: “in times of low solar magnetic activity, jet stream over the oceans becomes more meridional.”
Do you have a citation? Svensmark and Christensen (something like that) quantified cloud cover change at about 4%. Here is a basic article. The peer reviewed paper is 2nd link.
https://principia-scientific.org/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000011
How does explain the fact that allowing for solar distance, Venus has the same temp as Earth at the same pressure despite Venus 95% CO2 vs Earth 0.04% CO2?
The GHE on Earth works by CO2 hindering one part of the thermal IR spectrum, and water vapor another. On Venus CO2 blocks its part more effectively, but the wv part lets IR through.
The stated 37 degrees C (which is the average human body temperature prior to viral attack) corresponds to 310 Kelvin (K) (Celsius temp plus 273). If we enter the Venus altitude-versus-temperature graph at 310 K and go straight up (red line) to the temperature profile, and then horizontally to the left axis we find a corresponding altitude of 52.5 kilometers (33 miles).
Now, as a rough cross-check, we enter the Venus altitude-versus-atmospheric pressure graph at 1000 millibars (the Earth’s average sea level atmospheric pressure) and go up to intersect the altitude-pressure profile line, and across to the left axis where we find the corresponding altitude of 49.5 kilometers (31 miles). This altitude is only three kilometers (or six percent) different than we found from the temperature graph.
So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a region in the Venusian atmosphere which approximates that of Earth with respect to temperature and pressure. But there may be problems.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080205025041/http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
The temperature in the troposphere of Venus, as on Earth, drops linearly with atmospheric pressure.
The Troposphere of Venus, just like the Earth’s troposphere, ends at a level just below the 100 hPa pressure level.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
Nick, does “hindering” translate to “warming”? In pseudoscience, the answer is “yes”. In reality, the answer is “no”.
Your choice, pseudoscience or reality?
does adding insulation to your house hinder the loss of heat in the winter, and lead to warming of the interior for the same energy input from the heating system?
The problem with analogies like insulation, clothing, blankets, etc. is that they omit the cooling capabilities of the atmosphere. To use house insulation as an analogy to the atmosphere, there would need to be automatic louvers installed in the insulation. The louvers would open as temperatures rose above a set point.
But energetically, they ARE similar. A blanket DOES have a cooling capability. As temperature on one side of the blanket increases, there is greater rate of heat transfer through the blanket, and the blanket then loses heat faster to its surroundings through both conduction and radiation.
Seriously, g*e*r*a*n, I cannot believe you are still beating this drum… unless someone is paying you to do so.
-Roy
A blanket is a passive “system”. It’s just there.
The atmosphere is a dynamic system. Working with oceans, It responds to increased temperatures in a number of dramatic ways. Possibly you’ve heard of El Nio and hurricanes. The Gas Laws explain that the atmosphere expands as temperatures increase. Stefan-Boltzmann explains that emission increases dramatically, as temperatures increase.
Seriously, Dr. Roy, I cannot believe you are still beating the drum that the atmosphere is a blanket. You sound more like a “Warmist” than someone that just wants to claim the middle- of-the-road until they can figure out which way to jump.
El Niño!
Yes, stop thinking about blankets, Roy. It’s just woolly headed.
Re: blanket
At 288 K, the Earth’s surface emits an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 is observed entering and leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
Well just going by inverse square law and putting toa at about 10k above sea level, i would expect about 60w/m2 outgoing…
Better question is how does all that additional energy get to the toa?
appelly, there is no “missing 150”.
It’s just that your pseudoscience doesn’t add up.
You need some pseudo-arithmetic to go with your pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
roy…”does adding insulation to your house hinder the loss of heat in the winter, and lead to warming of the interior for the same energy input from the heating system?”
Roy…you need to be more specific. Insulation in walls and ceilings slows heat loss mainly due to conduction, it has little or no effect on radiation. In construction, if they want to address radiation loss, they use a reflective surface to reflect the radiation.
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/weatherize/insulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)
When you suffer from hypothermia, like after a marathon where your core temperature drops, they will sometimes put you in a thermal body suit, or use a blanket that incorporates aluminum. They were designed initially by NASA for space and I presume the idea is to reflect back radiation that would represent a heat loss.
Keep that to yourself or eco-alarmists will be spreading them everywhere to reflect solar radiation.
wiki…space blanket…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_blanket
The Earth’s surface receives an average of 240 W/m2 from sunlight at its surface, but, at 288 K, emits 390 W/m2.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
appelly, I know you can not figure that out. You don’t have an understanding of the physics. You can’t even understand the toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Hilarious.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
Well just going by inverse square law and putting toa at about 10k above sea level, i would expect about 60w/m2 outgoing
Better question is how does all that additional energy get to the toa?
How do you figure that? Any correction to the inverse square law will go like 2h/R, where h is height and R is the Earths’ radius. For h=10 km this is only 0.3%
philJ,
Inverse square in this situation means multiplying by Re^2/(Re+h)^2, so 6500^2/6510^2 gives about .996.
“A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020?WT.feed_name=subjects_giant-planets&foxtrotcallback=true
Dr. Spencer, I’ve written a rebuttal to Dr. Myles Allen’s presentation, but because you have a much larger following, it would be great if you or one of your frequent guests would do the same.
Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sophistry-in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-the-lie/
You’ve indeed managed to capture most of the denialist disinformation.
One of my favorite examples is your “graphic 13”, which begins with a graph which is not referenced and which doesn’t even include a scale on the vertical axis and which is obviously smoothed with an unstated filter. The second graph is taken from ice core data from Greenland, presumably the delta18O data, that represents only high latitude temperature and likely ends before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The polar latitudes are much more sensitive to changes in climate, thus the temperature range shown is not representative of global changes. The last graphic begins 600 million years back, while the present climate of repeated Ice Ages only kicked in around 3.3 MA, most likely the result of the closure of the Isthmus of Panama, which resulted in a fundamental change in ocean circulation. Thus, all previous periods are not representative of our present situation and can not be used for comparison.
Eric, the graphics are fairly widely accepted. Of course ice core samples, tree rings, and “600 million years” are all “soft science”, but do you also consider the 2LoT “disinformation”?
“Youve indeed managed to capture most of the denialist disinformation “.
“Denialist” is a pejorative term used in climate alarmism propaganda intended to equate CAGW skepticism with Holocaust denial; its name-calling, the lowest form of argument lower even than ad hominem.
Those employing it show cognitive bias “… a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment …” (Wiki).
Wrong. “Denier” had a well understood meaning before the Holocaust, and it retains that meaning after it.
Deniers just use the Holocaust to play the victim.
As in “davie is a denier of reality”.
He just likes to play the victim.
Indeed, if upset about being called a denier then you may be also called a snowflake.
I started using the term “denialist” to describe a group of folks who insist on denying the scientific evidence of AGW. I have never “intended to equate CAGW skepticism with Holocaust denial”, a misdirection by the denialist camp, who have an anti-science agenda. I’m happy to see the term appearing in the main stream media as an identifier of group think much like the term “neocon” has become common in describing another group with an agenda.
The example I pointed to above is one such piece of work, where science like graphics are presented with no references and no real relationship to the underlying data. What good is a graph without a scale? There are only two temperature data points noted, one for the Little Ice Age and the other for 1998. I think the graphic is little more than a cartoon, an intentionally deceptive graphic used for political ends.
Similarly, the “15 thousand year” graphic is delta18 Oxygen data from an ice core, which is a proxy for temperature in the source region for the precipitation. That graphic shows “present temperature”, which isn’t correct, AIUI and the data does not represent global temperature.
Eric claims: “I started using the term “denialist” to describe a group of folks who insist on denying the scientific evidence of AGW.”
Eric, just so no one can accuse you of delusion, would you mind presenting the “scientific evidence of AGW”.
Thanks.
If you don’t know the evidence for AGW — readily available to anyone who’s interested — how can you claim there is none?
appelly, I’ve seen the AGW “evidence”. It’s hilarious. Almost as funny as your 800,000K nonsense.
Again no refutations. Never any.
appelly, there is NO evidence that you can understand the physics, but 5800 K can NOT radiatively heat an object to 800,000K.
But, keep insisting that the 2LoT is invalid.
It makes for great climate-comedy, and is fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“there is NO evidence that you can understand the physics, but 5800 K can NOT radiatively heat an object to 800,000K.”
If an object gains a steady amount of heat per unit time but has no way to shed heat, what maximum temperature will it reach?
Jelly, the Earth could not receive a “steady amount of heat”, after it reached equilibrium of about 400 K.
You need to learn some physics.
swannie…”I started using the term denialist to describe a group of folks who insist on denying the scientific evidence of AGW”.
What evidence? There is good evidence from Tyndall that CO2 absorbs infrared energy but not a shred of evidence that the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere has warmed the planet by close to 1C in a century and a half.
In fact good science, a la Dalton and the Ideal Gas Equation, suggest strongly that such a rare gas as CO2 could not possibly raise atmospheric temps more than a few hundredths of a degree C over a century and a half.
Even the IPCC cannot claim CO2 is warming the atmosphere, all they claim is that it is ‘likely’. It appears far more likely that the planet has re-warmed due to a reversal of the process that caused the Little Ice Age.
Gotta keep an open mind, Swannie. Never hurts to be skeptical in science.
Gordon Robertson says:
What evidence? There is good evidence from Tyndall that CO2 absorbs infrared energy but not a shred of evidence that the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere has warmed the planet by close to 1C in a century and a half.
“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:
“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/
GR, Yes, a good scientist is always skeptical and when new evidence is presented, a good scientist must consider it. For example, my Green Plate demos have shown that a cooler body can warm a hotter body under certain conditions. If you are a good scientist, instead of a denialist, you would accept those results and recant your previous claims. You are a good scientist, aren’t you?
Eric, your hilarious comedy-routine of trying to disprove 2LoT is perfect timing.
April 1st is this Sunday!
g*e*r*a*novich, Yes, I need to get-er-done. My latest results at 250 microns show the same obvious temperature increase for a warm body by a colder one as before. You denialist clowns better get used to reality because reality always bites back.
Eric, that’s great!
See if you can get your “experiment” on CNN, for April Fool’s Day. The rumor is they’ll do anything for ratings.
E.Swanson wrote:
The last graphic begins 600 million years back.
Also, the data points” on that figure are about 10 Myrs apart, and come from climate-carbon models. So CO2’s influence on any climate phenomena shorter than about 10 Myrs isn’t going to show up there.
It also excludes the fact that the Sun was much weaker in distant times past. (The Sun’s irradiance has been increasing by about 1% every 110 million year.) And that the continents were of different shape and in different places, meaning the planet had a different albedo and different climate dynamics.
That figure is a cartoon, not data.
The next question is: can the increase in geopotential height in the stratosphere over the polar circle cause a drop in temperature in North America?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2018.png
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
I can see some sense in what Christopher Monkton is saying in that the Earth being very large will take a lot longer than a pot of water to cool down, there is a difference in scale here between the Earth and the examples cited here. The Earth will cool down slower and slower and it is subject to daily warming it may remain warmer than the loss of the greenhouse gas warming would suggest for all I know.
donald…”I can see some sense in what Christopher Monkton is saying in that the Earth being very large will take a lot longer than a pot of water to cool down…”
The opposite applies as well. It took a long time following the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850, for the Earth to re-warm. All those glaciers to melt as well as accumulated ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland. All those oceans to re-warm.
Akasofu predicted 0.5C/century re-warming and he seems to be pretty close. I think we’re almost there.
“It took a long time following the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850, for the Earth to re-warm.”
Systems don’t warm without a cause.
Some warming after the continental LIA came from a slightly warmer sun, diminution of the ice-albedo feedback that cooled into the LIA, and early GHGs.
But what caused to system to become WARMER than it was pre-LIA?
A problem with CO2 is it doesn’t explain why Venus is hot.
(And another problem with CO2 is it doesn’t
explain glacial and interglacial periods- and roughly such things are what greenhouse effect theory is “suppose to” explain).
Now, the analogy of greenhouse gases house insulation has a problem that home heating elements are quite hot. They are so hot that they can burn down a house and sunlight is that hot.
And the lack of hotness of sunlight is the problem with Venus – why is its rocky surface so hot.
So insulation does not make the source hotter. A flame burns it a certain temperature depending on the chemical reaction (lit match is about 2000 degrees- and paper ignites at 454 F). Electrical elements depends electrical factors like voltage and electrical resistance, but over 3000 K is doable.
The sunlight in terms of a blackbody at earth distance is about 120 C and on Earth surface with 1000 watts of direct sunlight
it’s temperature is about 80C.
And BTW sunlight going thru the thick atmosphere and clouds of Venus doesn’t have direct sunlight at it’s rocky surface, so couldn’t heat a blackout surface.
and yet the core of the sun is estimated to be 15 million deg C., despite producing less energy per kg than the human body does through metabolism.
Yes, insulation DOES make something hotter. As long as you pump energy in, if the system cannot lose energy, it keeps getting HOTTER.
Basic thermodynamics. Conservation of energy. It doesn’t get more basic.
Dr Spencer,
I’ll be brief.
Put a thermometer on the ground. Let the sun heat it to stable(ish) temperature.
Throw a blanket over it. The temperature drops.
The Earths “blanket” stops around 35% of suns radiation reaching the surface, even accordibg to NASA,
Even Tyndall measured the increase in surface temperature as you go up, as the amount of “blanket” lessens. Keen mountaineer, as well as scientist and experimenter of brilliance.
No magic one way insulator, Dr Spencer. Things get hotter, and colder. All the fancy SB calculations in the Warmist world cannot explain the temperature when the surface was molten, before the first liquid water formed, or even when the average was 10 K hotter than the present!
I’ll leave you alone – insulators do not provide energy, or heat. The Sun is an external heat source, not an internal one. Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth, and all the other Warmists are wrong.
I’m right, and I’m not even sorry about it. Just a fact.
Cheers.
The point is, that while the Sun is an external source, its short-wave radiation comes through the transparent blanket, becoming de facto internal. And then the outgoing radiation bumps into the blanket, which is no longer transparent for Earth’s emission.
I don’t really really see why simple arguments need to be said again?
CO2 is not just a ‘blanket’, it’s a half-transparent, ‘selective glass’.
Your mountaineer thing just proves the point. It is what is to be expected. In space, sunlight is even harder. The blanket is ‘one-and-half way’ – only working well on long-wave from the Earth, not well on the shortwave from the Sun.
‘ insulators do not provide energy’
Trust me we know. But the CO2 does not only insulate, it selects wavelengths.
Now everything is said. Why it needs to be said again? Why these circles? What’s this about? Are you possibly just making fun of us? Why am I reading this? This is the most immensely vain thread on the planet.
wert, in all that rambling, did you have a valid point?
Yeah, I didn’t think so either.
Wert
Mike lives where it’s very hot and thinks insulation is only useful for keeping things cool.
Flynn, you confuse radiation and temperature badly. Place your thermometer to read the temperature of a surface outdoors in the sun. Later put something over the thermometer that lets sunlight through to the surface but blocks the infrared from going from the surface to outer space. A glass dome for example. Your thermometer will read a higher temperature after a few minutes.
I know you will complain that greenhouses mostly work by halting convection. So you actually should do this experiment on the moon in a vacuum. Thermometer will still read higher. Just a fact.
D,
Unfortunately, you cannot produce this magical one way insulator, can you?
The atmosphere does not change at night. Same CO2. Temperature drops anyway.
Try your glass dome experiment. You’ll find you have been dreaming.
You are talking nonsense. Urban myth, unsupported by fact.
Cheers.
dmac…”Later put something over the thermometer that lets sunlight through to the surface but blocks the infrared from going from the surface to outer space. A glass dome for example”.
Watt disproved that circa 1909. He was an expert in IR and consulted by Niels Bohr for his expertise on radiation. Nahle replicated and corroborated his experiments more recently.
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf
Watt concluded that glass does not block IR, that a greenhouse warms because the glass traps molecules of heated air and prevents them cooling due to blocking the natural influx of cooler air.
In the atmosphere, heated air rises and cooler air replaces it via convection. As Joe Postma claims, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
Watt lived before the understanding of quantum mechanics and radiative transfer. You do too.
A or any heat source has limit to it’s temperature, this is related to a fundamental limit to the performance of chemical rockets. A nuclear rocket could heat gas to a higher temperature and can therefore have higher rocket exhaust velocity.
The Sun is about 5800 K but it is far away from earth and it’s temperature reduces with distance. One can increase the temperature of direct sunlight by magnify sunlight- collecting a larger area and focusing the sunlight into a smaller area. But regardless of how much area is collected the temperature will limited to the sun temperature (5800 K).
But with earth, the sunlight is unmagnified, and with 1000 watts per squared meter of sunlight in insulates box, a blackbody surface can only reach about 80 C.
And if box wasn’t insulated it might be instead be 70 C, or insulation can increase temperature but not higher than the heat source.
And basically what an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody is doing is smearing the energy of sunlight of area of disk over an area of a sphere. Or if had heat source of 120 C and increase the area by 4 times it should about 5 C if the increased area is radiating into vacuum of space.
True but a sidetrack. The Earth is nowhere near 5800.
By the way, if you could collect all sunlight from the Sun to a one place, that would have to become in balance with the Sun that then prevented the Sun from emitting freed energy. The temperature of the surface of the Sun would rise slowly towards the maximum possible related to its fusion reactions.
gbaikie says:
“The Sun is about 5800 K but it is far away from earth and its temperature reduces with distance.”
No it doesn’t. Its temperature is its temperature. The amount of radiation per area decreases with distance, but it still retains its blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 5800 K.
Yes, sunlight does keep it’s spectrum, if it didn’t you could not increase its temperature to 5800 K by magnifying the sunlight. Or you could get 1360 watts of light from cooler and closer heat source, but that light can not have it temperature increased by magnification as much as one can with sunlight.
Why is Monckton ignoring
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
See Figure 2 – removing all noncondensing GHGs from the atmosphere leads to an equilibrium temperature 35 K lower in 30 years.
For that NASA publication to be correct, liquid water would have to have no vapor pressure unless CO2 was present. It is appalling that you and NASA apparently dont know better.
Water vapor partial pressure vs water temperature: http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/1515sp01/database/vpwater.html
That graph doesn’t show water vapor going to zero.
That the vapor pressure does not go to zero on the graph is indeed a relief that such a well-known relation was not overlooked. But that leaves the more insidious prospect that the model itself is faulty. Simply impose feedback (definition of fb as used by CS) from water vapor low enough to produce the graph.
The issue raised by the observation that water vapor varies tremendously over the oceans in spite of CO2 fraction being essentially constant everywhere remains unaddressed.
So you agree that your first point — “For that NASA publication to be correct, liquid water would have to have no vapor pressure unless CO2 was present” — was wrong.
The issue raised by the observation that water vapor varies tremendously over the oceans in spite of CO2 fraction being essentially constant everywhere remains unaddressed.
Regions will obviously vary.
Does the global average change much?
Here is the aerosol article with the result that the aerosol effect which had been assumed to be cooling is much less that the models have parameterized, so that a slight warming may actually be within the range.
“This suggests that estimates of the net negative radiative forcing due to the total ACI1 can also be significantly reduced and its uncertainty range could even include positive values.”
The implications are that this may also explain the high sensitivity and attribution to CO2 in the models and resolve some of the discrepancies with other estimates
I note that even with likely over sensitive models Lacis kept 40% of the oceans with their 0.08 albedo ice free. While Lacis repeatedly characterize clouds and water vapor as fast feedback processes, over open ocean at lower latitudes they persist and induce feedbacks themselves. Without CO2 a significant part of the earth might remain habitable … if only plants could grow.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03379-6
No one is proposing to get all CO2 out of the atmosphere — just the manmade part.
appelly, have you heard that “Toys-R-Us” is going out of business?
Kind of like your pseudoscience, huh?
But there are those proposing that CO2 is so important, that without it there would not be significant enough water vapor for the earth to be habitable. Whereas near the equator, with the ocean albedo of 0.08 the average emission temperature is 290K. Plenty warm enough to have an H2O vapor pressure of 0.02 atmospheres, enough to have greenhouse impact on temperature and positive water vapor feedback to that that temperature increase. Let just view the hype about CO2 and results from climate models with high CO2 sensitivities with some skepticism
IF there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, calculations suggest the average surface temperature of the planet would be < 0 C. This would cause the water vapor saturation pressure to drop, a lot of ice to form, reflecting ever more sunlight, dropping the temperature still further.
DA…”Why is Monckton ignoring”
Because it is co-authored by Gavin Schmidt who is an uber-alarmist.
I don’t see you interviewing skeptics like Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH for your science articles.
I have a time or two asked John Christy for his thoughts. But I rarely, if ever, write about satellite measurements.
Gavin Schmidt is right to be an alarmist. We should all be alarmed about the rapid pace of global warming.
appelly believes: “We should all be alarmed about the rapid pace of global warming.”
Hilarious, jelly. More humor, please.
Again, no science. Again.
That’s correct, appellly, you have no science.
Alarmed isn’t good, it feeds hysteria. Many prey on hysteria. The smart commit to learning and innovation. Innovation? Has been happening at a blistering pace the last 200 years.
We shouldn’t be hysterical, but we should be alarmed. A surface warming at +0.15-0.20 C/decade is hardly normal….
Here is a way to address the climate change issue in court:
Climate Alarmist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool
Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, with the Glacier National Park Glacier. He claimed that man-made global warming is the cause of the decline of the glacier. The problem is, Glacier National Park is in the middle of nowhere, and there is no urban heat island effect. There has been no warming in that area since 1994 and temperatures have actually been in a slight DOWNTREND!!!
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/climate-alarmist-is-playing-san-francisco-judge-as-a-complete-fool/
Except in very obvious cases, you can’t determine a trend just by eyeballing. You’d need to turn the temperatures into anomalies and calculate their trend and statistical significance using something like least squares analysis.
From USGS:
“…Despite occasional big winters or frigid weeks that occur, the glaciers of GNP, like most glaciers worldwide, are melting as long term average temperatures increase. Analysis of weather data from western Montana shows an increase in summer temperatures and a reduction in the winter snowpack that forms and maintains the glaciers. Since 1900 the mean annual temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has increased 1.33C (Pederson et al. 2010), which is 1.8 times the global mean increase. Spring and summer minimum temperatures have also increased (Pederson et al. 2011), possibly influencing earlier melt during summer. Additionally, rain, rather than snow, has been the dominant form of increased annual precipitation in the past century (Selkowitz et al. 2002). Despite variations in annual snowpack, glaciers have continued to shrink, indicating that the snowpack is not adequate to counteract the temperature changes.
“In conjunction with the past centurys long-term temperature increase, ocean-driven climate trends (Pacific Decadal Oscillation of PDO) influence GNPs regional climate….”
“Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park,” USGS https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
“The daily temperature time series reveal extremely cold days (≤ −17.8C) terminate on average 20 days earlier and decline in number, whereas extremely hot days (≥32C) show a three-fold increase in number and a 24-day increase in seasonal window during which they occur.”
— “A century of climate and ecosystem change in Western Montana: what do temperature trends portend?” Gregory T. Pederson et al, Climatic Change, January 2010, Volume 98, Issue 12, pp 133154.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9642-y
Anecdotal evidence. Not attributed. Could be just bullshit if true.
Scientific studies are not “anecdotal” — they’re the opposite.
Can you refute the study?
appelly, your “scientific” studies are hilarious.
800,000K!!!
It’s fun to watch.
DA…”Scientific studies are not anecdotal theyre the opposite”
Anecdotes are fine for climate alarmists. If they all agree on something, they take it to a journal editor who agrees, and he farms it out to a reviewer who agrees. Ergo, anecdotes get peer reviewed.
You have no evidence of any of that, Gordon. You’re just frustrated that your own POVs aren’t accepted by science, but because you can’t disprove the science, you’re reduced to making up conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them.
Pierrehumberts claim: “In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22e17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800 000 K aftar a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
– Physics Today, January 2011, pg 33
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Proof:
dT = dQ/mc
Given: (dQ/dt)_net = 1.22e17 J/s in => 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 (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.
appelly, do you remember the definition of insanity?
appelly has attempted to use that silly calculation, numerous times. In his head, it is “proof” that the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000 K. That just shows you how little appelly understands physics.
His “given” is that the Sun can continue to heat the Earth, even after the maximum temperature allowed by physics (S/B equation). Even closest to the Sun, and with zero albedo, the maximum insolence would not exceed 1450 Watts/m^2, which corresponds to about 400 K. But, pseudoscience doesn’t care about reality.
A simple analogy would be if appelly stated that he could run 10,000 mph (16,000 kph). Someone might say that was impossible. Then appelly would provide the “proof”:
d = rt (distance = rate multiplied by time)
r = d/t
r = 10000 miles/1 hour = 10,000 mph
appelly would then state, “QED”!
He loves his pseudoscience.
G*
A better analogy: if someone gave you $1450.00/second, and you didn’t spend any of it, there would be no limit to how rich you would get.
snake, have you figured out what planet you’re on yet?
g*e*r*a*n says:
His given is that the Sun can continue to heat the Earth
That is the assumption of the thought experiment.
…even after the maximum temperature allowed by physics (S/B equation).
This is a very bad misunderstanding of the SB equation.
Snape says:
A better analogy: if someone gave you $1450.00/second, and you didnt spend any of it, there would be no limit to how rich you would get.
Yes, thanks.
Give up Roy. Some folks are just too thick.
The real problem is when La Nina meets with low Sun activity.
In Australia, for example, there will be a lot of rain now and the ice in Antarctica is growing rapidly.
Please see how La Nina and the jet stream cooperate in Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The amount of snow this year shows that the temperature of the atmosphere in medium latitudes can change quickly year on year.
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
La Nina could be strengthened.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Do you think we will have more Atlantic hurricanes this year?
This is very likely.
Why?
If Society Cant Trust Science, What Can They Trust? Climate Alarmist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool
Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, with Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/climate-alarmist-is-playing-san-francisco-judge-as-a-complete-fool/
‘ The graphic describes a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.’
Your claim is simply wrong. The graphic shows a log dependency.
But to add an insult, the relation is linear enough to be well approximated linearly for decently small changes in ppms.
The forecast of ozone in the lower stratosphere on March 30 indicates frost in the northern US.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/i7aswbtjdii6.png
Hummm, would true equilibrium be achieved when all of the CO2 is put back where it originally came from in its original form?
There is enough confusion about the science, maybe we should pause for a quick review.
1) The atmosphere is NOT a blanket, clothing, or home insulation. Anyone that clams to such nonsense just doesn’t understand the related science.
2) CO2 can NOT “trap heat”. It absorbs certain infrared wavelengths, and then re-emits them. The absorbed/emitted wavelengths are of such low energy that they can NOT raise Earth’s temperatures. An ice cube emits photons with higher energy than CO2.
3) A photon emitted by a source, if somehow reflected back to that source, can NOT raise the temperature of the source.
4) Temperatures do NOT add. For example, two glasses of identical water at 40 degrees, poured together have a temperature of 40 degrees, not 80. Two object at 40 degrees radiating to a third object can NOT raise its temperature above 40 degrees.
Science: Learn it, love it, live it.
Consequently, the “forcing” from atmospheric CO2 is ZERO, zilch, null, nada. AGW is a hoax.
PS A horse is NOT rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track.
I generally agree with you say, CO2 doesn’t warm, nor it been proven that CO2 prevents cooling, though I think it might do this by some small amount- doubling from 300 to 600 ppm is less than 1 K added to global surface air temperature, but it’s possibility and I can’t say what the mechanism involved
is. Or no one has mechanism, I can cite, which seems to me is
testable – or valid.
I tend I think greenhouse gas “effect” is mostly confided to low elevation.
Anyhow as general thing, I don’t think that Earth is warm
and if one could mix the ocean the global air would be much colder.
If had 40 C glass of water and added careful to a 1/2 glass at 20 C water, the surface of water of glass could be near 40 C, bottom at 20 C.
So average temperature of water is 30 C, but it’s global air surface temperature is about 40 C.
Or our global average surface temperature is due to warmed water rising.
So the ocean heat gradient has highest temperature at the surface and warmed water is losing most of it heat via evaporation, and tropical ocean evaporation is warming the air of atmosphere, globally. Though more ocean heat transported as warmed ocean waters pole ward.
And this related to lack radiant energy emitted from tropics into space.
There is also atmospheric heat gradient generally called lapse rate and also has the warmest air temperature at the surface.
So where warmest water and warmest air is, is what we call the temperature of Earth, but it’s like calling a glass with 1/2 40 and 1/2 20 C a glass with temperature of 40 C.
Earth’s ocean and sky and land is quite cold and on top of that 59 F is still not warm, but my current air temp is 48 F and 1 pm and 59 F would be an improvement.
1) How does home insulation raise the temperature of a house?
2) An ice cube emits photons of all energies.
3) The greenhouse effect does not work via “reflection.”
4) No one (but MF) thinks temperatures add.
1) Red herring.
2) WRONG!
3) Red herring.
4) WRONG!
appelly has NO science, but an abundance of debate tricks.
Hey jelly, you avoided mention of the toy train.
Hilarious.
DA…”1) How does home insulation raise the temperature of a house?
***It blocks heat by conduction.
2) An ice cube emits photons of all energies.
***Not so. It has a very restricted EM bandwidth.
3) The greenhouse effect does not work via reflection.
***Might as well. Absorbing a fraction of surface IR and spitting back a fraction of it is not even as good as reflection, unless the mirror is mighty dirty.
G*R raised an excellent point. When you emit EM from a radiator, you cannot send equal or less energy back to raise it’s temperature. Something to do with perpetual motion. Also, something to do with the energy being modified in intensity and frequency due to the back-radiator being at a lower temperature.
1) and the GHE works by inhibiting radiation, which also carries energy. Both work by redirecting some outgoing energy.
2) “It has a very restricted EM bandwidth.”
Where is its spectrum?
3) Reflection redirects ALL incident energy. The GHE only redirects a fraction.
“When you emit EM from a radiator, you cannot send equal or less energy back to raise its temperature.”
The Earth’s surface, at 288 K, emits an average of 390 W/m2. Yet only 240 W/m2 leaves the top of the atmosphere. Where is the other 150 W/m2?
appelly, your ongoing confusion is amazing.
Is this a great year in climate-comedy, or what?
No refutation, as usual.
Jelly, your fascination with the 150 Watts/m^2 is hilarious.
GR wrote
FALSE. Insulation in a house blocks convection and creates a space filled with air mixed with fiberglass (or rock wool or maybe plastic foam). The resulting material exhibits lower heat transfer by conduction than would be the situation without it’s presence. It’s amazing that you haven’t grasped the difference between conduction and convection, as it’s basic engineering and you claim to live in cold Canada.
Eric, with his obvious ignorance of 2LoT, attempts to teach “heat transfer”.
It’s fun to watch.
swannie…”Insulation in a house blocks convection and creates a space filled with air mixed with fiberglass (or rock wool or maybe plastic foam)”.
Where’s the convection between the drywall and the outside wall? Convection acts between interior walls. It’s the wind blowing out of your hot air registers coming from the furnace.
Insulation slows conduction after heat transfers through interior drywall. Modern wood frame construction adds a vapour barrier of tough plastic between drywall and studs. They even put plastic boots around the electrical boxes.
It’s no wonder you got confused in your experiments regarding convection. You don’t know what it is.
GR wrote
That’s an easy one, GR. In a stud wall without insulation, convection begins due to thermosyphoning. The warm inside of the sheetrock (or what ever) heats the air next to it and the cold outside wall cools the air nest to it, the result being a convection loop. The heat transfer due to this convection dominates the conduction thru the air. Properly installed insulation blocks this process, however, if the insulation is not sealed at top and bottom, the convection can still proceed, though at a lower rate. As the warmer air likely includes some moisture, the moisture condenses on the outer wall, which can result in damage to the outer wall over time. The placement of the vapor barrier depends on the climate and in warmer climate where air conditioning is used, the barrier on the outer wall may be important. With a super insulated wall, the vapor barrier might be placed mid way thru the insulation, which is the way I built my house, which has about 12 inches of fiberglass in the walls.
g*r…”1) The atmosphere is NOT a blanket, clothing, or home insulation. Anyone that clams to such nonsense just doesnt understand the related science”.
I agree that is the case for IR radiation but I am warming up to Kristian’s idea that the atmosphere behaves like an insulator….in a way. I think Mike Flynn mentioned something similar. It apparently absorbs 1/3 of the solar energy incident at the TOA, it absorbs ultraviolet in the stratosphere, and it retains heat it scavenges from the surface, better explaining the GHE metaphor.
I think the atmosphere may be significantly warmed from the outside in due to warming over the bandwidth beyond the IR spectrum.
Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR radiation, felt the atmosphere acted to retain heat it absorbs at the surface, likely because N2 and O2 are poor radiators at terrestrial temperatures.
I think the GHE is explained quite well by the natural properties of the oceans and the atmosphere.
What thinkst thou???
Wood didn’t even know about quantum mechanics. 1909 was before even Bohr’s model.
DA…”Wood didnt even know about quantum mechanics. 1909 was before even Bohrs model”.
Did not stop Bohr consulting with Woods re IR. Who knows, maybe Wood put him onto ideas that lead to QM.
What says Bohr consulted Watt? And about what?
What did Watt know about IR that Arrhenius didn’t?
The Sun heats the planet. The atmosphere and oceans control how warm the surface gets. Thermodynamics works.
The greenhouse effects works by more than thermodynamics — radiative transfer. Even if Watt knew a lot about IR, he didn’t know much about the interaction of matter and radiation. For that GHE, that’s where it’s at.
Sorry appelly, the GHE does NOT work. There’s nothing to it. Same as your head.
DA…”The greenhouse effects works by more than thermodynamics radiative transfer. Even if Watt knew a lot about IR, he didnt know much about the interaction of matter and radiation. For that GHE, thats where its at”.
I wonder if it has occurred to you that we are talking about heat transfer. Thermodynamics is the science associated with that.
What could be beyond heat transfer in the atmosphere?
Watt knew enough about IR to realize the surface does not cool well via radiation. He reasoned it was the major gases, N2 and O2, responsible for cooling the surface and warming the atmosphere.
What do you think of Boltzmann estimating the atmosphere absorbs 1/3 the solar radiation appearing at TOA?
Gordon Robertson says:
What could be beyond heat transfer in the atmosphere?
Radiative transfer (another form of heat transfer).
What did Watt know about IR that Tyndall or Arrhenius did not know?
Gordon
“I am warming up to Kristians idea that the atmosphere behaves like an insulator….”
Kristian’s idea?? Lol!
g*r…”3) A photon emitted by a source, if somehow reflected back to that source, can NOT raise the temperature of the source”.
Good point, and that applies equally to bazillions of them.
A surface emitting energy cools. If some of that energy is returned, it cools less.
Cooling “less”, if it could even be verified, is NOT warming.
Just another fail for appelly jelly.
Your body disagrees.
Now, you’ve mis-applied your pseudoscience, adding to your confusion. You just keep hitting new record lows.
It’s fun to watch.
Again, refutation = zero.
Jelly, the refutation was there. You’re just not smart enough to get it.
It’s fun to watch.
Yes, I certainly did “miss” it.
Where was it again?
Jelly, I wouldn’t waste the electrons to respond to any other clown. Consider yourself “special”.
The Earth is not a human body.
Hope that doesn’t confuse you.
(Hilarious.)
Would you body keep warming if it had no way to get rid of its heat?
Nope.
DA…”A surface emitting energy cools. If some of that energy is returned, it cools less”.
Not according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Or Clausius, who thought heat could NEVER be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Gordon, SB says nothing about energy returning, it is only about energy emitted.
Gordon Robertson says:
Or Clausius, who thought heat could NEVER be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Wrong. Clausius didn’t say that.
You get this consistently wrong, but are so pigheaded you won’t even go read, or quote, what Clausius actually did say.
Gordon, you confuse heat and energy.
You need a lesson from Kristian, I’ve taken a couple.
Gordon states: “Good point, and that applies equally to bazillions of them.”
Yes, and that is also the reason the “green plate can NOT warm the “blue” plate.
PS A horse is NOT rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track.
If it didn’t, it could only run in a straight line.
Hilarious!
Things in space, only travel in straight lines.
Unless they’re in orbit.
Everything in space in orbit (in many orbits ie, we are in a orbit around the milky way galaxy and our galaxy is in orbit with other galaxies- and if an orbit required spinning we would spinning every which way.
And I repeat, everything traveling in space is going in a straight line.
Or Newton first law is still law.
gbaikie, the simple definition of a straight line is “the shortest distance between two points”. By that definition, an orbit is definitely NOT a “straight line”.
You’re not trying to use some new-age, unrelated, space-time, distracting, nonsense definition, are you?
In a low earth orbit, the rotational time is about 90 mins- or one can go to other side of earth in 45 mins and it’s the fastest way to get to other side of the planet.
Earth takes 365 days to orbit the sun or 1/2 of year to get to other side of the sun. At earth distance from the sun, earth orbital path is fastest way to get to the other side of sun at earth distance.
In a gravity well, one could loosely say the faster you go, the straighter the line, but at about 30 km per second earth going in a straight line. If you go faster than 30 km per second, you would doing a hohmann transfer and could go further from sun at Mars distance on far side the sun, which requires about 8 months vs 6 months. So one could claim that is a straighter line (though not saying others would agree).
One can also lower Earth orbital speed from 30 km per second and end up at Venus distance and would reach the far side of sun at Venus distant in shorter time than 6 month. So if don’t care how far from the sun to are- that’s faster path to other side of the sun. You might claim it’s straighter line.
Of course you slow down a bit more and end up at Mercury distance and get there in 105 days (or about 3 1/2 months).
Or you slow down a lot and zip by the sun on far side at close distance and get to far side in less than 3 months. And NASA is going to send spacecraft very close to sun- not sure when or what orbital trajectory they will use, but to save on rocket fuel mass, it could be a long and crooked path.
NASA generally sends spacecraft to Mars in less than 8 months- taking about 7 months, and that trajectory is called a hohmann + patched conic trajectory. It’s one rocket burn at Earth (hohmann transfer) plus a few rocket burns as nears Mars distance (patched conic). But they are all paths which are straight lines (as you can only travel in a straight line in space) but gravity wells and velocity are the changing perimeters. Or patched conic is using rocket power to add velocity which adding straight lines (adding trajectories- or any kind of trajectory is a straight line).
One of my hobbies is getting to Mars in less than 4 months.
It is claimed by others that if you use ion engines it can be done in 39 days. And before ion engines were used, it was claim that nuclear rockets could get to Mars in 3 to 5 months, and not talking about a nuclear Orion, which could only get to Mars quickly, but could be used for star travel.
But I am not huge fan of ion or nuclear rockets or exotic rockets (though do like the nuclear Orions- but that is a common fedish).
My idea involves using chemical rockets to get to Mars in less than 4 months.
Now this would use a non-hohmann transfer. A hohmann transfer
is using the least amount of delta-v. And it’s adding to or removing the orbital velocity. So if in earth orbit going 7.8 km per second, adding say 2 km per second will raise apogee, and removing 2 km per second will lower the perigee and you will enter Earth atmosphere. Adding 2 km per second doesn’t get you out of Earth gravity well, rather it is about halfway to Moon, though 4 km per second could get you to Venus or Mars (or Moon- BTW, in a rather short time period).
So what I mean by nonhohmann is not adding to earth’s orbital velocity or said differently the added delta-v to changes earth’s orbital velocity direction/vector.
And that would be be still going in straight line- as all trajectory have to do.
But it is similar to hohmann transfer in that’s one burn.
Or if going to the moon from LEO, you don’t add 1 km per second to a 7.8 km sec orbital velocity and raise opogee, and add another 1 km per second when at opogee. If wait until again at perigee, and add 1 km per second, that’s fine,but if burn at apogee, it circularizes the orbit and wastes delta-v if you trying to go out to the moon.
Or add velocity at perigee when going to escape trajectory or high earth orbit.
So, this non-hohmann does that, it burns at perigee, but it “starts” from high earth orbit.
Oh, forgot why I mentioned it, the less than 4 month trajectory, which is a non-hohmann trajectory is a shorter line to Mars.
So, you are trying to use some new-age, unrelated, space-time, distracting, nonsense definition.
That’s what I thought.
The facts remain, orbiting is NOT “traveling in a straight line”; the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; and, the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis, as it orbits Earth.
If you are rotating, do you always face in the same direction?
Jelly, see how you refuse to use the correct phraseology?
There are TWO distinct, independent motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. You have to correctly understand both. You need to study Kepler and Newton.
But, you won’t.
Consequently, it’s fun to watch.
gbaikie…”Its one rocket burn at Earth (hohmann transfer) plus a few rocket burns as nears Mars distance (patched conic). But they are all paths which are straight lines (as you can only travel in a straight line in space) but gravity wells and velocity are the changing perimeters”.
I studied this stuff in engineering as part of an in-depth physics course and we worked it all out without Hohmann transfers, gravity wells, space-time, and the likes. I am quite dubious about modern terminology even though Hohmann dates to 1925. That makes it pure theory since there were no satellite or spacecraft orbits then.
The Earth is always moving in a straight line. It’s orbit is a resultant between it’s straight line momentum and the perpendicular attraction of solar gravity. Therefore the apparent curve of an orbit is an infinitesimal series of straight lines as the Earth is nudged from one tangential straight line to the other.
Same with the Moon. If it was rotating around a local axis the tangential lines would have a moment to the them (angular momentum or torque) and they don’t since the Moon is tidally-locked.
Gordon,
You don’t think gravity bends space, and I do. Newton’s laws still stand, and work fine for most uses, and I am not arguing against Newton, rather I think that gravity bending space is in accordance with Newton laws.
And for Newton and Einstein, gravity (and light) remain a mystery. Not do I have any near term hope of a unified theory. Or science will continue.
But I would say my idea is or could be said to be pre hohmann and not particularly connected to Einstein’s theory. Or can work with Newton physics, only
The only thing I would suggest that needs to be considered or added is the oberth effect which is about rockets.
Plus addition to vectors. Throw baseball out of moving train, and where does it go.
The Earth is always moving in a straight line.
An ellipse is not a straight line.
Period.
a*: I’m not talking about orbiting — motion around the Earth — but about rotation — rotations about the Moon’s axis.
They are different.
Poor jelly is so confused.
Sadly you are the one who is confused.
In this animation, which Moon is rotating about its own axis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Jelly, how many times are you going to ask the same question?
The one on the left is NOT rotating on its axis. It is “orbiting”. The graphic confuses you because you have NO knowledge of orbital motions. Just as you have NO knowledge of physics.
That’s why you have your career as a clown.
More humor, please.
Everything, not just the moon, orbiting without spinning is tidal locked. The toy train, horse racing on a track, biker on a velodrome. Always the same side to the spectator in the middle. But it makes one rotation around it’s axis during one orbit. That is orbiting. Spinning is different, The moon is not spinning, the earth is.
DA…”PS A horse is NOT rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track.
If it didnt, it could only run in a straight line”.
Straight lines gently curving into a curved line do not cause rotation. The Moon restrained to an orbit when it’s tidally-locked does not rotate about an axis.
Mind you when we trained for soccer we would sometimes rotate on a local axis as we lapped the field to build up the groins. As you run, you turn sharply to the left then sharply to the right without breaking stride. Requires fancy footwork.
Gordon Robertson says:
Straight lines gently curving into a curved line do not cause rotation.
Straight lines don’t curve, Gordon!
(Unless they’re on a curved manifold, which is not the case here.)
DA…”Straight lines dont curve, Gordon!”
A curve is a series of infinitesimal straight lines. The slope of a curve at a point is a straight line…remember???
Gordon, a straight line isn’t a curved line.
Surely you’re not going to deny this????
That whole argument requires a lot of fancy footwork, lucky those groins are well built up.
shady hangs back in the shadows, waiting for the best shady-shot.
It’s all part of being shady.
It’s fun to watch.
Svante, when a*n*g*e*r writes “Its fun to watch,” you can be sure that’s the most intelligent response he was able to come up with. Which is not impressive in the least.
Jelly, thanks for your desperate effort.
It’s fun to watch.
svante…”That whole argument requires a lot of fancy footwork, lucky those groins are well built up”.
I’ve had both groins torn at the same time…not a lot of fun, unless you walk only in a straight line. Hip rotator cuffs are not much fun either.
Ouch, nasty. Hope you are fully recovered now.
I think Lord Monckton said it best: game over! The question is whether the green goblins will let us drive our trucks and eat our steaks in peace? Prolly not, since most alarmists will never get the message. And those who do, can’t admit they are wrong.
“The bottom panel, the residual anomaly, is the panel of interest. You can see how little the temperature has varied over the seventeen years of record. The El Nino of 2016-2017 is quite visible … but other than that there isn’t much happening.
There is one thing that is interesting about the residual … other than warming as a result of the 2016-2017 El Nino, the temperature anomaly only varied by about ± 0.2°C. Among other places, I’ve discussed what I see as the reason for this amazing stability in a post called Emergent Climate Phenomena.
The next question of interest to me is, where is the temperature changing, and by how much? Here is a Pacific and an Atlantic centered view of the warming trends recorded by CERES, in degrees C per decade.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/24/where-the-warmth-is/
Why was the last El Nino 0.4 C warmer (surface) than the 1997-98? Why was it 0.4 C warmer than 1982-83?
Why is the ocean gaining heat every year?
DA…”Why was the last El Nino 0.4 C warmer (surface) than the 1997-98?”
You mean 0.04C, don’t you?
Unless, of course, you are referencing the fudged NOAA data.
No, I mean 0.4 C — peak for surface temperature.
Why?
A Huuge lunar aquarium.
The have a lunar aquarium, some things need to be done and then we need the magic of capitalism or we need more markets in space. We currently have a global satellite market which generates about 200 billion dollars as an entire industry and perhaps in ten years it could be more than 250 billion dollar market. All countries in the world are involved and poorest countries want their own satellites to fit their particular needs and/or don’t want to rely on other nations or other parties- satellite “access” is a national interest need.
Though national military security is also another factor.
Basically in terms military security, satellites are vital and
increase military security at a low cost. Though satellite in general, are all about lowering costs in order it increase capability, such as, improving weather forecasting at lower costs compared to trying to do, this without using satellites.
NASA is not really about lower costs and NASA is small part of global satellite market. NASA likes to imagine it’s lowering costs and lots of people think space activities is the same thing as NASA, mostly because NASA has astronauts and space station (and a flyby of Pluto and mars rovers).
Most money spent on space activity by the US is not NASA spending, rather it’s military space and black programs (or not publicly transparent).
Anyhow NASA should be doing things which lower costs, and way to do this is by doing important exploration.
And important exploration would lead to more markets in space.
Which would be lunar mining and having towns on Mars (towns are and always have been, market places).
I want discuss lunar aquarium because it involves understanding climate. One needs to be able to predict the effect of sunlight in regards to water.
Lunar aquarium requires a pressure vessel and the needed strength of vessel is related to the temperature of the surface of the water.
So you could have solar pond which has lower surface temperature then the water below the surface and as long as warm water didn’t reach surface the structural strength needed could related to the lower temperature at surface.
So water at surface at 20 C doesn’t need much structural strength, whereas 100 C water requires a lot of structural strength. So 10 C water require around Mars pressure which is about 1/100th of Earth sea level pressure.
And 20 C is about 1/2 psi.
So if want say tropical water of say 26 C it has to be fairly strong but not much of problem to do it.
Though potential of forming ice could involve huge amounts of pressure- you simply can’t stop the expansion of water becoming ice. You have to allow it be able to expand.
Anyhow I am thinking that water in huge aquarium, does not freeze during the two weeks of lunar night.
OT diversion:
Place a donut on your kitchen table and give it a twist. It’s rotating about a central axis, right? Now take a bite out of the donut and do the same thing. Is it still rotating? Take another bite and repeat.
How many bites until what’s left of the donut is orbiting a central point rather than rotating about an axis?
Donut is spinning around it’s center of mass, if bite twice, each on opposite sides
it will rotate better, same if bite 4 times on opposite sides (or 3, 6, 8, etc).
If only eating on one side, it won’t work very good.
gbaikie
Let’s say you have just one bite left, and you move it in a circle around a center point on the table. That’s an orbital motion.
At what point did axial rotation morph into an orbit?
snake, you have NO knowledge of orbital motions.
At what point did you believe you did?
g* is NOT the sharpest tool.
Rotational and orbital motions needs to be considered separately.
This animation makes it very clear that the tidally locked Moon is rotating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
If it wasn’t rotating, it would always face in the same direction!
appelly, you still get it WRONG. But, that’s not a surprise.
And snake, it’s okay for you to handle donuts, but always have adult supervision before dealing with sharp objects.
Glad to help.
refutations=0.
If you cannot see that the Moon in the left animation is rotating, and that it is not rotating in the right animation, you are either willfully blind or lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
jelly, rhymes with appelly, the one on the left is “orbiting”. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Notice how you always avoid the phrase “rotating on its axis”?
It’s fun to watch.
But, you and the donut boy would make a great clown team. The “Jelly donut”.
(What a great year in climate comedy!)
the one on the left is orbiting. It is NOT rotating on its axis.
Does the black patch on that Moon circle around the small central white dot (its axis)?
If *you* were akin to the Moon and always faced the Earth, would you need to be constantly changing the direction you’re looking in?
jelly, please learn about “orbiting”.
Okay, don’t.
Just continue your hilarious clown routine.
It’s fun to watch.
Why is it you can’t understand the difference between rotation and orbiting?
If *you* were akin to the Moon and orbiting and always faced the Earth, would you need to be constantly changing the direction youre looking in?
jelly, if I were orbiting an object, and NOT rotating on my axis, I would always have the same side facing the object.
You STILL do not understand “orbiting”. You don’t understand physics. You don’t understand reality.
It’s fun to watch.
snape…”Lets say you have just one bite left, and you move it in a circle around a center point on the table. Thats an orbital motion”.
But is it tidally-locked?
if I were orbiting an object, and NOT rotating on my axis, I would always have the same side facing the object
Does “not rotating” mean always facing in the same spatial direction?
Say, in a 2D plane, always facing north?
Clown Jelly, AGAIN, you used “rotating” instead of “rotating on its axis”.
It’s like you only want to live in your confused world.
But, that’s why you’re a clown.
Does “not rotating” mean always facing in the same spatial direction?
Yes or no?
The poor clown STILL can’t differentiate between “rotating” and “rotating on its axis”.
That’s why he has a career in comedy.
Jelly, if you are NOT “rotating on your axis”, and you have no other motions, then you will face the same direction.
Most people that can think for themselves will understand.
But, at least you have your career in comedy.
So going have aquarium in a hole so sunlight only enters from the top and look into it like can do do with Sea World aquarium. With lunar aquarium one could see into from the sides and could enter the pool from sides or bottom.
The aquarium could be like a community park or part of commercial area (like a mall).
Dimensions:
100 meter long, 50 meters wide and deep.
10 meters deep on Earth has 1 Atm of water pressure, Moon is about 1/6 gravity, so 60 meters equals 1 atm pressure on the Moon. And adds whatever pressure from pressure vessel which could be 1/2 psi or bottom of pool could have less than 14.7 psi (1 atm). So could have situation not being able breath at top of pool but with scuba could breath in middle depth of pool. Though if have top able to withstand 2.5 psi, you could breath at top of pool – and top surface of water could be quite warm for an aquarium or swimming pool.
So side and bottom insulated from heat loss and top structurally designed with window panes of plastic and glass being about 1″ thick. And have at equator on the Moon.
What would the water temperature be?
Sea surface temperature anomalies have now dropped below 0.1 degree C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
If water had uniform temperature of 10 C and it was noon time would water increase or decrease in temperature?
It seems safe to say, it’s temperature is increasing.
And if pool was 1/2 meter deep, it would be warming quicker than if meters deep.
Now say there is a couple meters of air space between top of water and transparent ceiling.
And when water is 10 C the air pressure is 1 psi. And air has some water vapor in it.
Now in 60 mins of time what would happen?
One question is, is glass ceiling warmer or cooler than than water. If cooler, the water vapor will condense on it and if ceiling is warmer, it won’t.
And one could design the material of ceiling so it’s either colder or warmer than the 10 C water, but designing ceiling to be warmer than water at night time, might be complicated and undesirable. Let’s say ceiling is colder at night and gets warmer during the day.
And this might mean that ice builds up on the ceiling during the lunar night.
If ceiling is warmer this would set or control water vapor pressure and when water surface temperature is warmer than ceiling that temperature sets or controls water vapor pressure.
Which means a much warmer ceiling will reduce evaporation by increasing vapor pressure and much colder ceiling will condense more water and increase the water’s evaporation.
Anyhow, most of sunlight can pass thru ceiling and thru the top inch of water and be absorbed by the water. And most of the sunlight will absorbed in top couple of meters of water.
Or something like 1000 watts per square meter per second. And not much heat will be radiated when water is around 10 C.
My God your examples are complicated.
Let’s look at Europe now. You can see that dry, cold air will flow from the north and there will be frost again in Europe.
It will also falling snow.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=europe×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
If it is possible that galactic radiation can produce ozone in the lower stratosphere during winter (temperature rise) then North America may now have a severe drop in temperature during the winter.
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism
Chris Monckton is not a mathematician.
He has a MA in classics, 1974 and diploma in journalism studies.
His occupations are listed as politician, journalist.
In 1995, Monckton and his wife opened Monckton’s, a shirt shop in King’s Road, Chelsea.
I would not bother paying him any more attention than I would an annoying wasp.
Earlier this month Monckton implied that the AGW consensus was only 0.3%:
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180316_docket-317-cv-06011_amicus-brief.pdf
Which is a whopping huge lie.
To clarify: he wrote this to a US COURT OF LAW.
Between 0 and at least 200 K, with the Earth an ice ball, there cannot be much if any water vapor or ice albedo feedback. It is all frozen.
The system is very nonlinear. Only as portions of the Earth’s surface melt, will there be the onset of such feedbacks.
So the idea of Monckton that feedback should be applied to the full range of 255 K, makes no sense.
On any spherical body the sunlight will be more intense when the sun is near zenith – it will be warmer.
Near equator and during the day, the spends more time nearer to zenith as compared to other locations on the sphere.
Anywhere on sphere one has about 6 hours of a 12 hour day in which has more intense
sunlight and this period is called “peak hours” and if harvesting solar energy peak hours is when you get most of the solar energy. And peak hours is centered on noon time or peak hours is about 3 hours before and after noon.
Or reason solar energy will never be a viable source of electrical energy is humans want electrical energy 24 hours a day and solar energy provides about 6 hours a day – assuming it not cloudy.
The upshot is tropics receive more solar energy at it’s surface and therefore warmer than other locations on the sphere.
The tropic is 40% of surface, if widen the tropics so region is 1/2 of Earth surface, that leaves you with two quarters, one north and other south which combined is other half of Earth’s surface.
The tropical half is warm and the quarters is cold. And if tropical half does not have a warm ocean the two quarters are very, very cold.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Oceans are in a definitive cooling trend . This was running around +.35c this summer.
Why does this matter, Salvatore? We’re in a La Nina, after all.
What is the long-term trend?
For all Greenhouse enthusiasts.
What is the highest temperature ever recorded in inside a greenhouse, resulting from exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?
What is the highest temperature ever recorded inside a motor car, resulting from exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun
What is the highest temperature ever recorded on the Earth’s surface, resulting from exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?
Now tell me again how “. . . all you need is a magical one way insulator . . . ”
No GHE. Not sorry about the fact at all. Keep on with the fantasy. Don’t let facts get in the way.
Cheers.
Mike, on a hot sunny day, please dont leave your dogs in the car in the sun.
Nate,
You don’t have a clue, do you?
The usual stupid dismissive response, given to avoid providing inconvenient answers.
Want to try again – maybe providing answers?
I didn’t think so!
Cheers.
Warmists love to use the “dog in a closed car” scenario. In their polluted heads, the fact that a closed car, in full sunlight, can kill a dog, is “proof” of the GHE!
If the windows are down, the dog will be fine.
And, Nate, the atmosphere ALWAYS has its “windows down”.
Hilarious.
G*, in this post, adults are trying to have a conversation, and you still need constant attention. Go outside and play with your friends.
Poor Nate, his pseudoscience is so easily busted.
It’s fun to watch.
Mike brought up the enclosed car in the sun, not me. He seems to believe it will not get very hot in there. Obviously most people, even you, understand that it will.
I dont know why he doesnt appear to know this.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“If the windows are down, the dog will be fine.”
Dumb.
How do you put the windows down on the Earth?
Clown, the Earth has no “windows”.
It’s hilarious how you always run from reality.
More, please.
Yes, the Earth has no windows — which is why your attempt to compare the GHE to a dog in a car with open windows was just dumb.
Sorry jelly, it wasn’t me that made that comparison.
Your claims, like your “science”, are somewhere between fallacious and fraudulent.
But, it’s fun to watch.
“If the windows are down, the dog will be fine.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-294227
And if the river is dry, no one will drown.
And if there is no CO2 in the atmosphere, there will be no life on Earth.
See you hilariously ridiculous your “ifs” can be, Jelly.
That’s great clown work!
Irrelevant. But I realize that’s often the best you can do.
Jelly, don’t consider yourself “irrelevant”.
The planet needs humor.
More, please.
Keep being irrelevant. Thanks.
Jelly, obviously I’m not “irrelevant” if you’re spending so much effort trying to run me off.
Your pathetic efforts are fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n says:
obviously Im not irrelevant if youre spending so much effort trying to run me off.
Is that what you need to think you’re happy, someone paying some attention to you?
You would know about the need for attention, Jelly.
One second you don’t like that I remain anonymous, then the next second you believe I crave attention.
Your confused logic is fun to watch.
Mike, have a point? Then make it.
Preferably without strawmen
N,
Get some actual temperatures. Then try and come up with a testable GHE hypothesis.
You can’t. That’s the point. Fact, not fantasy,
Cheers.
You brought up cars and greenhouses to make some sort of point or gotcha. I guess you no longer care. Fine with me.
As I said to G* and it applies to you. In this forum, adults are trying to discuss actual science. You are a child looking for attention, distracting the adults with silly nonsense. Go find some kids to play with.
“What is the highest temperature ever recorded in inside a greenhouse, resulting from exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?”
Here we go again.
The ignoramus with his non-sensical, irrelevant questions totally ignoring the point of this thread. You don’t undestand a single thing Monckton wrote.
S,
And as usual, faced with having to face inconvenient fact, another dimwit refuses to acknowledge that there is no GHE.
You could read Monckton’s response again, but it would remain as completely incomprehensible to you, as is presently the case.
Keep avoiding the truth. It doesn’t matter. Nature doesn’t care what you think. Nor do I.
Cheers.
You simpleton.
Roy agrees there is a GHE. Monckton agrees there is a GHE. The argument is about how much. Are you saying they are dimwits?
Your posts give us luke-warmers a bad name.
S,
The motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba”.
Dr Spencer and Lord Monckton can agree all they like. Nature doesn’t care – nor do I. Facts are far more persuasive
I don’t give a toss about your name – good, bad, or otherwise. Maybe you could try finding a few answers for yourself.
You are dimwitted. There is no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. This is science, according to you? Only a dimwit would think that physical facts are decided by consensus. Or have you changed your mind?
Cheers.
Simon, you appear very frustrated, being a “luke-warmer”.
Why would you expect that CO2 can “heat he plane”? Just because someone told you? Are you unable to think for yourself?
Without violating the laws of physics, what is the mechanism whereby CO2 can “heat the planet”?
Of course there is a GHE. It is easily testable.
Take a cloudy night comparable to a clear night – same wind, same starting temperature.
The cloudy night will remain warmer than the clear night.
Another.
Use a desert area. Find a similar / comparable area with humidity.
What happens at night on clear nights. The desert area loses heat faster.
Why? Lack of H2o in the atmosphere.
Simple fact is that the equilibrium radiative temperature of planet Earth is 255K yet the surface temperature is 287K.
How come you two simpletons cannot process this basic information?
Lewis says: “Of course there is a GHE. It is easily testable. Take a cloudy night comparable to a clear night same wind, same starting temperature. The cloudy night will remain warmer than the clear night.”
Lewis, that is NOT the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE. I have measured low clouds with temperatures as high as 95F, Clouds are water, not CO2.
Lewis says: “Use a desert area. Find a similar/comparable area with humidity.
What happens at night on clear nights. The desert area loses heat faster.
Why? Lack of H2O in the atmosphere.”
Lewis, again, that is NOT the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE. That is the NATURAL effect of humidity. It would happen even if there were no humans on the planet.
Don’t feel bad. A lot of people make those same mistakes.
Simon tries again: “Simple fact is that the equilibrium radiative temperature of planet Earth is 255K yet the surface temperature is 287K.”
Simon, 255 K is a calculated value. You have to be cautious when comparing two different things. You may get mislead.
The average surface temperature is due to the physics of how Earth’s systems work together to control it’s temperature. The Moon receives, on average, the same solar irradiance as Earth, but it has temperatures well above 250F (120 C) and well below -250F (-156C).
Facts are fun, huh?
287 K is also a “calculated value.”
appelly joins in: “287 K is also a ‘calculated value.'”
Very good, appelly. You’re learning.
Keep going.
Maybe someday. ..
“That is the NATURAL effect of humidity.”
And what is that natural effect, G? Could it be water vapor GHE? No that doesnt exist!
Good job, Nate. You answered your own question.
I repeat the question:
“And what is that natural effect, G?”
Read and learn, Nate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity
Glad to help.
” The Moon receives, on average, the same solar irradiance as Earth, but it has temperatures well above 250F (120 C) and well below -250F (-156C).”
That equates to an average temperature of 255K. Are you stupid? You have proved my point precisely. The moon has no atmosphere yet the average radiative equilibrium temperature is the same !!
Do you not believe or even read your own source, G*?
“Along with other greenhouse gases, water vapor is transparent to most solar energy, as you can literally see. But it abs*orbs the infrared energy emitted (radiated) upward by the earth’s surface, which is the reason that humid areas experience very little nocturnal cooling but dry desert regions cool considerably at night. This selective absor*ption causes the greenhouse effect. It raises the surface temperature substantially above its theoretical radiative equilibrium temperature with the sun, and water vapor is the cause of more of this warming than any other greenhouse gas.”
Yes, I always enjoy climate-comedy.
“and water vapor is the cause of more of this warming than any other greenhouse gas.”
So now you agree that water makes a GHE?!
So the much younger G*, who said there is no GHE, he should just be ignored?
No simple, it just proves you do not understand my point. The Moon would have about the same calculated temperature, everything else being equal, But Earth has a complex system of temperature control that the Moon does not. That’s why the Moon has such drastic temperature swings.
Maybe you don’t realize that the high temps on the Moon are well above the boiling point of water. Earth would get that hot, if not for its ability to cool itself.
See. as I indicated, facts are fun. Don’t be afraid to learn.
Do you or do you not now think there is an h2o GHE? You are being evasive.
@Lewis
“What happens at night on clear nights. The desert area loses heat faster.
Why? Lack of H2o in the atmosphere.”
I obviously do agree that temperatures fall much slower with clouds. In fact the differene is huge. I have analyzed these data, and temperatures will drop by about 85% less with overcast skies as compared to clear skies.
Than I ran the same analysis with regard to humidity, and there was essentially no difference. Wet or dry, temperatures drop at the same rate.
Also your statement is wrong. Temperatures do not drop more sharpely in the desert. That is only an urban myth. Under a clear sky daily temperature variation is up to (with clear skies) 20K. GHGs do not make any difference on that.
You may want to check this with climate data for the Atacama, Sahara, or the Tibetian plateau.
Wonderful rebuttle CO2islife. Thanks!
I posted a claim earlier by R. W. Wood that Nick Stokes dismissed as nonsense. Alarmists are quick with ad homs and short on fact.
Wood essentially proved that greenhouses do not warm by trapping infrared energy, that the warming is due to a lack of convection. He has essentially disproved the GHE and AGW.
Here’s an article by him on the subject.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
The article is posted by an uber-alarmist, William Connolley, who hangs out at realclimatee. Please ignore his dumb comments following the article, he’s a computer article and IMHO has no idea what he’s on about in physics or climate science.
Here’s a wiki article on R.W. Wood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
Pretty impressive credentials.
All Wood does is suggest that a garden greenhouse keeps warm mainly by slowing down heat loss via convection, rather than by radiation.
He does not disprove the fact that the atmosphere is radiatively active.
Note that he also states:
“I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
swannie…with all due respect to Roy, he is a meteorologist and Wood is an authority on IR. Do you really think a scientist with the expertise of Wood could mess up an experiment on IR? Do you think Neils Bohr would consult with a dummy?
Here is an in-depth reconstruction of the experiment done by Wood:
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf
Nahle explains why another experiment refuting Wood failed.
I respect Roy deeply for the work he has done at UAH and NASA. I just don’t agree with him on thermodynamics. I am under no delusions about how he regards me.
What expertise did Wood have re: global warming that Arrhenius did not have?
After all, you don’t need to know much to realize that CO2 causes global warming.
How does CO2 cause global warming, Jelly?
NO links, NO “bird cage liners”, just your own words.
(This will be hilarious.)
If by now you don’t know how CO2 causes warming, you can’t learn and there is no point in replying to you (again).
Translation: CO2 does NOT cause global warming.
Nahle’s experiment doesn’t replicate Wood’s experiment in which both boxes were insulated, necessary in order to cause most of the energy leaving the boxes to pass thru the covers. In Nahle’s 6 experiments, only the first uses an insulated box, his #4.
Nahle should have run a case with 2 insulated boxes, one with a glass cover and the other with a polyethylene cover, then run both first in the open then repeat with a glass sheet covering both, the glass placed some distance above them to filter the IR radiation but allow convection to both surfaces. Since the glass cover blocks IR, the box with a glass cover will receive less energy than the one with a polyethylene cover. Filtering the IR from both while running both configurations at the same time would provide a more accurate conclusion.
Also, Nahle doesn’t calibrate his thermometers against each other nor does he indicate which thermometer is used for each box.
profp…”All Wood does is suggest that a garden greenhouse keeps warm mainly by slowing down heat loss via convection, rather than by radiation.
He does not disprove the fact that the atmosphere is radiatively active.
Note that he also states:
I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter”
*********
You did read the wiki article on Wood??? It describes him as an eminent scientist with expertise in infrared radiation. How far do you think an expert would need to go into the matter in order to see the flaws in the GHE and AGW?
He suggested the atmosphere warms by scavenging heat from the surface and transporting it aloft. Since the atmosphere is a poor radiator, it retains the heat, a perfect explanation for atmospheric heating.
No GHE required.
What did Wood (Watt?) know about IR that Arrhenius did not know?
“Since the atmosphere is a poor radiator, ..”
Yes, you are correct. The atmosphere does radiate. Both up and down. The downward radiation is very important.
You are learning, very slowly.
Gordon, you seem to be a big fan of R.W. Wood. Did you attend one of his lectures in 1909?
Myki,
If you put real effort into it, you might appear more supercilious and patronising. Have you thought of trying harder?
Cheers.
Tell me old man – did he use a blackboard or any visual aids?
Was the lecture theatre lit by electricity or candles?
Myki,
If that’s the result of your best effort, you wasted your time at Stupid U.
I doubt you will ever be able to rise to the stupid level. Keep trying if you wish – a miracle might yet occur.
Cheers.
Old man – what was Theodore Roosevelt like as a president?
p,
Did you ever aspire to reach Myki’s level of stupidity?
What happened when you realised you couldn’t even get that far?
So sad. Too bad.
Cheers.
myki…”Gordon, you seem to be a big fan of R.W. Wood. Did you attend one of his lectures in 1909?”
I would love to have attended one but I was just returning from the North Pole, after having fought in the Boer War.
BTW…I admire many scientists, perhaps most…especially Wood, Bohr, Newton, Clausius, Schrodinger, Pauling, Feynman, Einstein, and Bohm. I admire the character in them as well as the scientist.
The main reason I admire Wood is that he came between Arrhenius and Callendar and he was the one with in-depth experience on IR. He took one look at the theory typical of Arrhenius and seemed to say, “that doesn’t sound right”.
These days when a good scientist takes that stance, Like Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH, or Peter Duesberg with the HIV/AIDS theory, they are ostracized. I really enjoy the fact that someone with the eminence of Wood stepped forward in the face of popular consensus and booted it up the butt.
Gordon, what “in depth experience” did Wood have on IR, that Arrhenius didn’t have?
Did he ever do a CO2 calculation of his own?
Gordon Robertson says:
Wood essentially proved that greenhouses do not warm by trapping infrared energy, that the warming is due to a lack of convection. He has essentially disproved the GHE and AGW.
Um, no.
About Robert Williams Wood:
“He is often cited as being a pivotal contributor to the field of optics and a pioneer of infrared and ultraviolet photography.”
Photography, Gordon, photography!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
The forecast of ozone in the stratosphere on March 29 shows very cold air over Canada.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/qpaj4gzca15i.png
Willis Eschenbach shows the real “hockey stick”.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ceres-decadal-temperature-trends-20171.png?w=635&h=613
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/2694_LOTI_201802_robin_sf200.png
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/images/small/gistemp.png
Thanks for that link. Look at all that red! I believe that, world-wide, it was the third warmest February on record.
Actually GISTEMP was the 6th warmest February. 30-year linear trend is +0.19 C/decade.
Hey gents, it’s GISS, aka, “pseudoscience-R-us”.
GISS calls this product “GISTEMP.”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
And, it has a 38% chance of being accurate.
Plus or minus 38%, of course.
It’s a shame, especially after UAH’s annual number posting of early January, that people still do not understand how to compare numbers when each has an error bar.
I agree appelly, rhymes with jelly, it’s a shame that so many people avoid reality.
But, it’s fun to watch.
So why are you mocking GISS for considering error bars when making annual temperature comparisons?
jelly, I’m not mocking GISS. There’s no need. Their track record leaves them with little credibility.
Their budget probably could be cut by 75%, and the US would gain.
Again you avoid all discussions of the science for some juvenile insults.
That’s all you ever do. It’s clearly all you’re capable of.
jelly, you have no science. You can’t understand simple physics. Basic orbital motion confuses you.
Face it, you’re a clown.
“Actually GISTEMP was the 6th warmest February. 30-year linear trend is +0.19 C/decade.”
Hey gents, its GISS, aka, ‘pseudoscience-R-us’.
Looks like global warming has been exiled to Siberia. What did it do wrong?
Huh?
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
According to the UMaine climate reanalyzer, today the world is +0.7 C above the 1979-2000 average, the northern hemisphere is +1.0 C and the southern hemisphere is +0.2 C.
More hilarious “cherry-picking”, to go with appelly’s pseudoscience:
*CO2 can heat the planet
*The Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K
*The Earth is warming the Sun
What a great year in climate comedy we’re having.
‘What a great year in climate comedy were having’
If you work hard enough, you can stay ignorant for another year. I know you can do it, G*!
Nate, with your ignorance, everything you don’t understand would be “ignorance”.
It’s not hard for you to mis-understand. That’s why it’s so easy to get you confused.
It’s fun to watch.
You still don’t understand what the 800 K thought experiment is about.
There are many things that go right over your head. And not by a small margin.
Jelly, it was 800,000 K, not 800 K.
And, even in a “thought experiment”, you do NOT get to violate the laws of physics.
But, your pathetic efforts are fun to watch.
It’s a thought experiment. Like Schrodinger’s cat or Einstein’s riding on a light beam.
Do you know what a thought experiment is? Seriously….
Jelly, if you violate the laws of physics, in your “thought experiment”, then the “thought experiment” is INVALID.
But, in your pseudoscience, obviously not.
Hilarious.
Thought experiments have a hallowed position in physics, and are often illuminating.
Pierrehumbert is keeping with that tradition.
When you violate the laws of physics, you are into pseudoscience.
G*, How is it after all the exposure to science you get here, that anyone could remain so ignorant of the basic properties of photons, or black bodies?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-294290
That takes real effort, G*.
Nate, you are so confused that you probably believe you have a point.
It’s fun to watch.
FYI Canadians
” Of the 18 UNESCO World Heritage sites in Canada, Ontario contributes just one: the Rideau Canal Skateway. Constructed in the early 19th century for steam-powered vessels and inscribed as a protected site in 2007, the slack-water canal contains sections of the Rideau and Cataraqui rivers, flowing south from Ottawa to Lake Ontario.
It typically takes a minimum of 10 nights of temperatures below 14F to freeze the canal. During the 2017-2018 season, however, two cold snaps in early and late December were still not enough to create solid ice. The Skateway was finally opened for its 48th season on January 5, 2018. It closed and reopened multiple times for the next month due to adverse weather conditions and their negative impact on the ice” and finally reopened on February 6 to an anxiously awaiting public. While the Rideau Canal Skateways typical season lasts for 50 days, the two years prior to the 2017-2018 season saw just 25-day and 34-day sessions.
In a 2012 study published in Enviornmental Research Letters, scientists claimed, Global warming has the potential to negatively affect one of Canada’s primary sources of winter recreation: hockey and ice skating on outdoor rinks. By comparing daily maximum temperatures from 1951 to 2005 and analyzing a variety of data points, including regional climate information, the researchers found that the outdoor skating season had already significantly shortened across the country, especially in central Canada, which includes Ontario.
If this trend of warmer winters continues, its possible that skating along the ice of this record-earning World Heritage site may one day be a thing of the past.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/destinations/canada/skating-season-shrink-world-largest-ice-rink-climate-ontario/
They are unnecessarily worried.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/uhv8v1qy6553.png
Current Snow in North America
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/na_swe.png
Another snowstorm is developing in the northeast of the US.
Also, Canada’s backyard hockey rinks are melting!
“Canadas Outdoor Rinks Are Melting. So Is a Way of Life,” NY Times 3/20/18.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/climate/canada-outdoor-rinks.html
The planet obviously needs more CO2.
Thanks for pointing that out, appelly.
The world had plenty of CO2 before man started to emit it by burning fossil fuels. Now it’s just ruining the lives of Canadian school children. No more Wayne Gretzky’s.
Jelly, the planet would flourish with CO2 at 550-800 ppm.
Learn some science.
Just kidding, stick with your career in comedy.
It’s fun to watch.
DA…”The world had plenty of CO2 before man started to emit it by burning fossil fuels”.
According to the IPCC, based on a CO2 density of 390 ppmv, anthropogenic CO2 makes up only a small fraction of natural CO2, at 0.04%.
Why did that nearly 0.04% right through the pre-Industrial Era, not cause catastrophic warming? Even if it was half that value, which is half of nothing compared to the size of the atmosphere, and still many times the size of what we have emitted in a century and a half, it did nothing to warm the atmosphere catastrophically.
If that’s not proof that CO2 has little or no effect on the atmosphere, I don’t know what is.
Gordon Robertson says:
“According to the IPCC, based on a CO2 density of 390 ppmv, anthropogenic CO2 makes up only a small fraction of natural CO2, at 0.04%.”
Wrong.
First of all, manmade CO2 doesn’t “make up” any fraction of natural CO2. They are different.
Secondly, atmo CO2 is now 409 ppmv. That’s 46% higher than the preindustrial level of 280 ppmv.
Gordon Robertson says:
Why did that nearly 0.04% right through the pre-Industrial Era, not cause catastrophic warming?
Because it was essentially constant (+/- about 10 ppmv) throughout the Holocene.
If thats not proof that CO2 has little or no effect on the atmosphere, I dont know what is.
Gordon, CO2 definitely had an effect on the atmosphere before the industrial era. No one, except you, is saying it didn’t.
See
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature,” Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind and Reto A. Ruedy, Science 2010 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
Jelly the clown reports: “First of all, manmade CO2 doesnt ‘make up’ any fraction of natural CO2. They are different.”
Jelly believes CO2 is different from CO2.
Hilarious.
Natural CO2 and CO2 from fossil fuels have different isotopic signatures, because the latter is so old its radioactivity has diminished to practically nothing.
Need a reference?
Yes Jelly, I’m aware of that branch of pseudoscience. Some clowns believe there is “new” and “old” carbon!
It’s fun to watch.
DA…”Canadas backyard hockey rinks are melting!”
From the NY Times, fast replacing the National Enquirer for fake news.
I guess you forgot that the same neck of the woods set records for cold during the winter of 2018.
For how many days?
“Observed decreases in the Canadian outdoor skating season due to recent winter warming,” Nikolay N Damyanov et al, Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 014028 (8pp)
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014028
profp….”It typically takes a minimum of 10 nights of temperatures below 14F to freeze the canal”.
The Rideau Canal is in Ottawa, the capital of Canada. Our Parliament sits there and sometimes there is so much hot air emanating from the House the canal doesn’t freeze at all.
Maybe. I’ve been to Ottawa several times. I experienced the coldest night of my life there, -30 C, and quite windy.
PS: But still loved the city, and walked up and down the Rideau Canal several times. (But not that night.)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/27/new-report-reveals-a-23-year-long-pause-in-stratospheric-temperature/
Dave what do you say? Another basic premise this theory has called for not happening.
OTHERS ARE:
No decrease in OLR
No lower tropospheric hot spot
No increase in a +AO/NAO
Now no stratospheric cooling.
The report is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a “think tank” who won’t reveal their funding sources. They aren’t exactly a trusted organization.
Is it peer reviewed? I don’t think so…and it’s not published in a legitimate science journal where it would have gotten a proper scrutiny. So right away I’m very suspicious.
Stratospheric temperatures are complicated by ozone loss, which is a warming factor compared to GHG’s stratospheric cooling. The word “ozone” does’t appear in GWPF’s report anywhere. So their report is far from a thorough analysis.
appelly, rhymes with jelly, did you have a point?
It appears you are just rambling–“funding sources”, “peer reviewed”, “ozone”.
You might want to learn how to think logically.
Glad to help.
Q: Why didn’t GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperatures?
Do you know how stratospheric ozone is formed?
Yes. But it doesn’t matter.
Why didnt GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperature trends?
Sorry jelly, avoiding science DOES matter.
Learn some science. It will answer some of your stupid questions.
Why didn’t GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperature trends?
jelly, you need to ask GWPF. I have no connection to GWPF.
Unless you consider that we both get the “big bucks”, for debunking pseudoscience.
Now, Dr. Roy won’t be able to sleep tonight.
☺
I knew you didn’t have an answer. Good to see you admit it.
I knew all you had were debate tricks.
Glad to see you admit it.
Sure, in your uneducated denier world, asking for an answer is a “debate trick.”
You should consider being a troll on some other site — you don’t have the chops to be one on a science site.
jelly, you have not been paying attention.
My rule, for clowns, is that I only consider “responsible” questions.
Asking me about what an organization “considers”, is NOT a responsible question. It is a debate trick, known as a “red herring”. It’s used frequently in pseudoscience.
But, your failed efforts are hilarious, so please continue.
You don’t answer questions because you can’t.
Whatever else you say is based on that.
Jelly, you know I have answered many questions, even some that are not “responsible”.
So, AGAIN, you are busted!
You’re not even a challenge. It’s like playing chess with someone that can’t even play checkers.
It’s fun to watch.
Why didnt GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperature trends?
Jelly, remember the rule: “responsible” questions, only.
Now, ask the same question again, proving that you are a clown.
It’s fun to watch.
You have no answer, so as always you go to name calling.
Jelly, you hilarious clown.
Your debate tricks are so trite that they are funny. You ask some nonsense question, as a “red herring”, hoping I will not recognize your deception.
It’s fun to watch.
So again, why didn’t GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperature trends?
Ask the same irresponsible question, over and over again, without getting any results.
People need to see how insane you are, if there are any that don’t already know.
DA…”The report is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank who wont reveal their funding sources. They arent exactly a trusted organization.
Is it peer reviewed?”
********
Scientific method does not call for revelation of funding or peer review. Is the article based on science or not?
Gordon,
The “scientific method” (whatever that is) is not the sole criteria for evaluating claims that are purported to be “scientific.”
From what I can tell, no, the GWPF report is not based on science.
Partial evidence: what I gave above about the failure to consider ozone changes in the stratosphere.
Why do you think they’re skipping peer review and journal publication? No one who is serious about their science does that. Ole Humlum, the report’s author, has a PhD and is well aware of that.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
What’s the long-term trend?
Very good, appelly. Keep your questions very short.
Don’t try any “facts” or “logic”.
That way you can hide your ignorance.
Whats the long-term trend?
The short-term trend appears to be that you are keeping your questions short.
Hopefully your questions will remain short, and involve something relevant.
We can only hope.
What is the long-term, climatological trend?
What is “long-term”?
The WMO considers “30 years” to be the smallest interval for calculating climatic trends.
I think the notion being introduced here by the British Lord and be viewed in a simpler light than electrical circuits.
Lord Monckton is basically attacking the notion that CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere with 8 watts of forcing and an average of 240 watts of solar insolation has nothing to say about it despite the claimed mechanism by which CO2 controls water vapor in the atmosphere via forcings that raise the temperature of the surface.
Does not the sun raise the temperature of the surface? Does it have no say in how much water vapor would reside in the atmosphere without CO2?
James Hansen has said we would be a snowball earth without CO2 in the atmosphere. Ignoring the sublimation of ice when the sun shines on it.
Thanks to Lord Monckton we now have this absurdity described mathematically. I nominate him for a Nobel Prize!
James Hansen has said we would be a snowball earth without CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is probably right. Without atmospheric CO2, the Earth’s average temperature would be below 0 C. This would reduce water vapor, and the parts of the planet that would begin to freeze over would create a self-reinforcing negative ice-albedo feedback.
From Pierrehumbert’s textbook:
“One sometimes hears it remarked cavalierly that water vapor is the ‘most important’ greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The misleading nature of such statements can be inferred directly from Fig 4.31…. If water vapor were the only greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature would be a chilly 268 K, and that’s even before taking ice-albedo feedback into account, which would most likely cause the Earth to fall into a frigid Snowball state…. With regard to Earth’s habitability, it takes two [water vapor and CO2] to tango.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, “Principles of Planetary Climate,” (2011) p. 271.
http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf
You have simply ignored what I said. Does the sun evaporate water and ice or not?
Does the sun evaporate water and ice or not?
It evaporates liquid water, but that depends strongly on temperature. And whether ice melts depends on the temperature. If air temperature is at -18 C, and a change in the Sun warms that to -17 C, ice still won’t melt.
You are giving me an example of where the sun doesn’t shine or shines very little. Indeed in such an environment little ice will melt and water vapor will be suppressed even with a lot of CO2.
bill, don’t expect appelly to know any science.
bill hunter says:
You are giving me an example of where the sun doesnt shine or shines very little.
I didn’t say anything about whether the sun shines or not, only about temperature.
Like I mentioned, bill. Don’t expect any science from appelly.
“I didnt say anything about whether the sun shines or not, only about temperature.”
so what is your heat source?
Bill: It doesn’t MATTER what the heat source is — the answers to your questions depend on temperature, not any PARTICULAR source of heat. It can be the Sun, or a hair dryer, it doesn’t matter.
DA…”Bill: It doesnt MATTER what the heat source is the answers to your questions depend on temperature, not any PARTICULAR source of heat. It can be the Sun, or a hair dryer, it doesnt matter”.
How do you manage to get both of your feet in your mouth at the same time?
What other source of heat do we have than solar energy that can heat the planet as it does?
bill…”so what is your heat source?”
Don’t feed the trolls, Bill. DA thrives on circular arguments.
Gordon thrives on lying.
Yeah I noticed Gordon. I dropped participation so as to not play his game. . . .even held off telling him the sun evaporates ice also. . . .without melting it. Figured that would prolong it.
DA…”From Pierrehumberts textbook:”
Enough said…pseudo-science.
Gordon, the idea that you think you can judge Pierrehumbert is so ridiculous that it doesn’t even bring up laughter, just an eye roll.
“There goes Gordon again….”
Jelly, 800,000 K.
Well beyond an “eye roll”.
What does your calculation give?
The correct calculation “gives” (clown terminology) about 390 K, max.
You’re only off by a factor of 2000.
That’s why you’re a clown, with no job, and no future.
But, it’s fun to watch.
Let’s see the details of that calculation, the one you claim gives 390 K max.
S/B equation, Jelly.
Bill, clearly we have had ice ages, as a result of not very much change in total solar input.
The climate is very nonlinear. Much of the Earth and atmosphere hovers around the freezing temperature, and thus precisely in the range of strong nonlinearity of water vapor with temperature.
It is plausible that removing the noncondensing GHG, the WV and ice-albedo feedbacks will drive the Earth to a very icy state, and is confirmed in simulations.
Roy, drought is back in California, “severe” in about 1/5th of the state. Almost the entire state is at least “abnormally dry:”
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx
Very good, appelly. The La Niña definitely affects California.
If only there was some way to heat the ocean, huh?
Just another bust for the GHE pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
The ocean has been heating rapidly for decades.
And all that “rapid heating” is cooling the ENSO waters?
Hilarious.
appelly gets tangled in his pseudoscience, AGAIN.
It’s fun to watch.
ENSO only takes place in the tropical Pacific.
The long-term trend is that ocean heat content is increasing steadily and strongly.
appelly, don’t you find it hilarious how all that “ocean heat content” avoids the ENSO waters?
Oh I forgot. You can’t think logically.
Never mind.
What evidence says it avoids them?
jelly, you may not have understood the link you provided:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx
That link is about drought, and says nothing ocean heat content.
You clearly can’t answer the question — as is always the case. You never have any data or evidence or science to offer and have to resort to being a pest. I can see why Roy once banned you. He should again — you offer nothing here. Your comments are usually irrelevant, like this one, and always juvenile.
jelly, now you are starting to sound like a yelping, whining chihuahua.
You are the one that provided that link. You are the one in denial about the impending drought, due to the La Niña. You are the one avoiding reality.
But, you’re hilarious.
More hilarity, please.
You don’t understand the difference between drought and ocean heat context.
As Bart wrote earlier, “Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.”
Sorry jelly, I’m not talking about a “difference”. I’m talking about a “link”.
A La Niña tends to cause less than average rainfall in southwest US.
Science: Learn it, love it, live it.
You claimed that “all that ocean heat content avoids the ENSO waters”
Prove it.
With data. With evidence. With science.
No clown, I didn’t “claim” that.
You just can’t get anything right.
It’s fun to watch.
You still haven’t offered any data or evidence that the increasing ocean heat content has avoided ENSO waters.
You don’t have any.
Jelly, the clown, is the “missing” ocean heat content avoiding ENSO, or are you avoiding science”?
Of course, that is a rhetorical question.
For climate-clowns, “rhetorical” means everyone already knows the answer.
As always, glad to help.
Still again, no data or evidence. No science.
Yes, again, jelly has no science.
LOL
The 255 K value is a mathematical mistake and is too warm. According to Dr. Spencer, a value of 250K is a more correct theoretical, global average temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gases. Others find an even cooler mean temperature for an Earth with no oceans, no life, and no atmosphere….
What calculation are you referring to, that gives 250 K? Genuinely interested to know….
David…so glad you asked… (so few do)
To see what Roy says…. go here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/
To see a detailed explanation… see Ned Nikolov’s calculations here… https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574
Many..BELIEVE that without an atmosphere, the infrared radiation would be radiated back into space from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19C (some say -18C). Both these values are mathematically wrong! The avg. temp of the Earth without an atmosphere would be about -75C (assuming spin has no effect on mean temperature).
In response to Mr South, Merlis+ 2010 considered tidally-locked Earthlike planets with albedo 0.38 and concluded that such a planet with a rate of rotation similar to the Earth would have a dayside temperature of 280 K (derivable by spherical geometry) and a nightside temperature of not less than 250 K: global mean temperature thus 265 K. At today’s lower albedo 0.293, the equivalent temperatures would be 289 and 259 K respectively: mean 274 K, including the feedback response to emission temperature.
Thanks for the Merlis reference…. do we agree that the moon with a rate of rotation similar to the moon would have a mean temperature of 197 K? (-76 C).
Lord Monckton: I have a question about the effect of spin on a planet with NO atmosphere… NO oceans… NO life… and an albedo of zero… 1 and then 0.5
I assume we agree that spin rate has no effect on temperature when there is no atmosphere and the albedo is 1. Also it has no effect when the albedo is zero.
Now let me state a null hypothesis: spin does not affect the mean temperature of a planet with no atmosphere and an albedo of 0.5
Can this hypothesis be rejected? If so, why?
The low surface temperature of the oceans in the tropics will cause cooling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
At 288 K, the Earths surface emits an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 is observed entering and leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
David, really?
Yes, really. Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
DA,
Out of Trenberth’s store of missing heat?
Or maybe from Schmidt’s juggling with figures?
Or you could try cleaning your spectacles – you seem to be seeing lots of things that don’t exist!
Cheers.
Poor appelly. He’s so confused about science.
Hint #1, for poor jelly: “Fluxes” are NOT conserved.
Hint #2, for poor jelly: There is NO actual surface spectral data.
Hint #3, for poor jelly: Even if there were actual surface spectral data, there is NO TOA spectral data that correlates exactly.
And, there are more “hints” to follow.
The “missing” 150 Watts/m^2 is a bogus smoke screen.
Poor jelly, his pseudoscience gets busted, AGAIN.
“The missing 150 Watts/m^2 is a bogus smoke screen.”
Would that be the smoke from burning coal ?
Fluxes are NOT conserved.
Energy is conserved. Hence, so is average global flux.
There is NO actual surface spectral data.
Wrong.
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
Even if there were actual surface spectral data, there is NO TOA spectral data that correlates exactly.
My statement was about global averages, not “spectral data.” Energy is conserved.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
It’s a great day in climate-comedy!
Jelly the clown states: “Energy is conserved. Hence, so is average global flux.”
The hilarious clown has never heard of the “inverse-square law”.
No wonder he can’t understand “spectral” data.
Jelly just continues to amaze and amuse.
The inverse square law does not violate energy conservation, numbskull. Neither do the fluxes I’ve cited.
Your understanding of basic physics is very very poor.
Clown jelly, the flux leaving the sun is estimated to be about 63 million Watts/m^2.
Earth, at TOA, receives about 1360 Watts/m^2, average.
Since you don’t believe in applying the inverse-square law, what happened to the other 62,998,640 Watts/m^2?
Hilarious.
Jelly the clown never ceases to amuse.
Shows nightly.
Free admission.
Hilarious comedy.
g*e*r*a*n says:
Earth, at TOA, receives about 1360 Watts/m^2, average.
Since you dont believe in applying the inverse-square law, what happened to the other 62,998,640 Watts/m^2?
Are you really f-ing serious?
This is just a very dumb^5 question. SMH.
Exactly.
It’s meant to be dumb to show you how dumb your constant mention of the 150 W/m^2 is.
Maybe you’ve learned something.
But, we’ll have to wait to see.
That’s what it was meant for???
One has nothing to do with the other.
The fact that you don’t see this shows you’re a physics imbecile.
And it’s not fun to watch. It’s kind of sad to see you kick randomly around, like a fish that’s landed in a boat but is going nowhere.
Jelly, you being incoherent is about as funny as you acting like you understand physics.
Both are fun to watch.
You are confusing the Earth’s average incoming/outgoing flux with the least squares law.
Do you really have no clue that one doesn’t say anything about the other??
Jelly, you are so unaware of the laws of physics, you should apply to be associated with the IPCC.
You have no clue about the incoming/outgoing fluxes. In your clown routine, you believe the 150 W/m^2 is meaningful.
That’s hilarious.
You have no knowledge of radiative heat transfer. One square meter of ice emits about 300 Watts. Do you believe that is the same as the emission from 3-100 Watt incandescent light bulbs?
Try holding one of the 3 bulbs with your bare hand for as long a hockey player might be on the ice. Which would have the most 3rd degree burns?
You’re such a clown!
150 Watts on a square meter isn’t meaningful?
And here I thought energy was something that could be measured…. But you’re saying no, it can’t be measured, right?
Where do your ice and light bulb numbers come from? Neither is a blackbody….
Finally, after his pseudoscience is debunked, Jelly wants to know the science.
Hilarious.
Jelly, ice is a nearly perfect emitter. Emissivity about 0.97.
An incandescent light bulb is a “heat source”. Filament temperatures are typically well over 2500 F.
Science–learn it, love it, live it.
Or, in climate-comedy, avoid it.
ice is a nearly perfect emitter.
Evidence?
An incandescent light bulb is a heat source. Filament temperatures are typically well over 2500 F.
A blackbody is defined as one that ABSORBS all radiation incident upon it.
A light bulb is made of glass. How much does it reflect?
Jelly, after you’ve studied physics, and light bulbs, then you can report back.
Not knowing what you are talking about just re-affirms your status as a clown, AGAIN.
Hilarious.
Let’s see the integrated emission curve number for
a) ice
b) light bulbs
Now apply that same interest to your pseudoscience.
That’ll be the day.
A blanket separates your body from the ambient air. Both convection and conduction are reduced. Your body is the heat source.
And the atmosphere separates Earth from space. Outgoing infrared radiation is reduced (by 150 W/m2) by GHG ab.sorp.tion. The Earth is the heat source.
Look at everyone doing everything but providing a scientific response. Very very typical for these deniers….
Yes. I believe we are seeing the very last writhings of the “in complete denial” species. It is very reminiscent of watching cockroaches after they have been sprayed. Their numbers are miniscule and must know they are about to become extinct.
jelly and pp, where have you been able to deal with the actual science?
You clowns can’t handle it.
It’s fun to watch.
We’re still waiting for you to provide “actual science.” And not the last few dumb things you’ve tried to pass off, which anyone who knows basic physics can see right through.
Jelly, does that mean you don’t have any “actual science”?
Who knew?
Hilarious!
Do you have any “actual science?”
None that I’ve ever seen — you skip out and resort to insults the moment any scientific response is called for.
Based on the things you’ve written, your understanding of basic physics is clearly very poor. You know this too.
Jelly the clown, when you can admit a toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”, as it laps a circular track, get back to me.
You don’t understand the simplest physics. You believe Earth is warming the Sun! Yet you believe the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000 K!
I’ve even had to explain your own false religion to you. You weren’t even aware that the Arrhenius CO2 equation created energy out of thin air.
You’re a clown.
But, everyone loves a clown.
You are asking where the extra 150w/m2 is coming from. I doubt anyone here, including Monckton or Spencer is denying there is some kind of greenhouse effect. This discussion is not about that. This discussion is about sensitivity that gives rise to a greenhouse effect and by extrapolation what its possible sources are.
Monckton is advancing a terribly simple argument that based on AGW claims the climate if very sensitive because water vapor and other factors reacts to the heat that CO2 causes the surface to warm by melting ice, evaporating water, and whatever else they claim.
Monckton is simply arguing that if heat generates feedbacks then the energy from the sun when converted to heat must also generate feedbacks.
The concept of equilibrium of the planet at 255k is from primary solar forcing only without any consideration of the feedbacks that heat would generate. Its an equilibrium that can only exist on a planet without an atmosphere and water. Add water without CO2 and a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere and you are going to generate some feedbacks.
Monckton is being very conventional here. He is attacking the lack of schematics and physics being laid out about atmospheres with no CO2. The assumption is that all the water would be frozen, not sublimating, and you need some CO2 to add to recipe to make it cook.
In essence Monckton is calling the KISS principle, best science publicly available card on that recipe. Namely if heat generates feedbacks where are the feedbacks from the solar sourced heat?
The world is not exposed to a heat source of 240w/m2 its exposed to a heat source that reaches the ground at all rates between zero and over 1,100 watts/m2. Shine 1100 watts on your ice experiment for a few hours, check if you have any evaporation, and check back here on the results.
Bill: SEVERAL people here are denying there is a greenhouse effect.
And not one of them can explain where this extra 150 W/m2 comes from.
Bill, you have to remember that the IPCC claims that CO2 can “heat the planet”. That makes CO2, in their heads, a thermodynamic heat source. None of the Alarmists, Warmers, or Lukers, will admit that simple fact. They all try various means to justify the nonexistent “heating”.
They try everything from invalid experiments to re-defining 2LoT. Some even claim that because an IR thermometer can “read” the temperature of the sky, that proves the GHE!
It’s fun to watch.
You appear somewhat dubious of AGW. Ask for the physics for how CO2 can warm the planet. CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT “trap heat”. It can NOT heat the planet.
They can never supply, in 100 words or less, without violating the laws of physics, how CO2 can “heat the planet”.
That’s why it’s fun to watch.
Bill, your observation that ” I doubt anyone here, including Monckton or Spencer is denying there is some kind of greenhouse effect. This discussion is not about that.” is correct in the main, but overlooks the existence of some old, lonely, ignorant, uneducated souls who seem to make the most noise here. They get in the way of any decent discussion.
Bill wrote:
The world is not exposed to a heat source of 240w/m2
That is the average sunlight over the Earth’s entire surface.
The average outgoing energy flux must match that, or else there’s global warming.
….the IPCC claims that CO2 can heat the planet. That makes CO2, in their heads, a thermodynamic heat source.
False.
It’s no more a heat source than is the blanket you sleep under at night.
So why do you sleep under a blanket if it’s not a heat source?
Clown jelly, my blanket is not a heat source. It can NOT heat my house. Just as CO2 can NOT heat the planet.
Your pseudoscience smacks you in the face again.
That makes for great hilarity.
Please continue.
I said your blanket wasn’t a heat source.
So why do you sleep under a blanket if its not a heat source?
Jelly, your blanket is NOT a heat source. It can NOT heat your basement apartment. CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT heat anything.
More of your ineffective, but humorous, pseudoscience, please.
Again, I already said your blanket isnt a heat source.
So why do you sleep under a blanket if it’s not a heat source?
profp…”Their numbers are miniscule and must know they are about to become extinct”.
The amazing thing to me is that Australia has survived despite people who think like you.
Jelly, what is your fascination with blankets? You agree they are not a heat source. And obviously they have no relevance to the atmosphere.
Did you lose your favorite “blankie”?
Poor clown.
bill…”Monckton is simply arguing that if heat generates feedbacks then the energy from the sun when converted to heat must also generate feedbacks”.
I read recently an estimation by Boltzmann that the atmosphere absorbs 1/3rd of the solar energy at TOA. I read the same in an engineering textbook recently that supports the AGW theory.
Why are we missing that? If the atmosphere absorbs 1/3rd of TOA energy then it has to be converted to heat on the way in.
Talk about an inconvenient truth. If N2/O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere are not absorbing energy from somewhere in the very broad solar spectrum, why are they not? How can those gases be immune to SW solar energy?
We know O2 in the stratosphere absorbs UV. N2 and O2 have known absorp-tion bands between the IR region and the UV region.
I don’t think water vapour and CO2 at an overall concentration of 0.31% of atmospheric gases can explain that. Clouds modeled as pure water absorbers might help explain it but clouds seems to be generally regarded as reflectors of solar energy.
A blanket isn’t a heat source.
So how does one keep you warm?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why are we missing that?”
Who is saying we miss that?
Time and time again, Gordon, you assume your ignorance means the world’s scientific community is ignorant.
This is often what ignorant people think.
simple…”Bill, your observation that I doubt anyone here, including Monckton or Spencer is denying there is some kind of greenhouse effect. This discussion is not about that. is correct in the main, but overlooks the existence of some old, lonely, ignorant, uneducated souls who seem to make the most noise here. They get in the way of any decent discussion”.
***********
By ‘decent discussion’, I presume your are referring to consensus between alarmists. I have provided plenty of basic physics and chemistry to rebut the GHE and AGW, information that can be verified, and I have yet to receive anywhere near a decent discussion on the facts. All I get are ad homs and appeals to authority.
If you have some good science to discuss, let’s hear it. Your ad homs are not a good form of discussion.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Why are we missing that? If the atmosphere absorbs 1/3rd of TOA energy then it has to be converted to heat on the way in
In all your studies, have you ever seen anyone write that the Earth’s albedo is 0.7??
What do you think that means?
See:
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
Why are we missing that?
Who is saying we miss that?”
*********
You are such a butt-kisser to authority you could not conceive of the notion that the atmosphere might warm from the outside in. You believe that energy from the Earth is warming the Sun.
Gordon Robertson says:
I have provided plenty of basic physics and chemistry to rebut the GHE and AGW
Wrong. You ignore radiative transfer in the atmosphere.
By now you know that. Now you are just lying.
Gordon Robertson says:
…you could not conceive of the notion that the atmosphere might warm from the outside in.
What is the evidence of that?
Jelly, how many times has this been discussed?
A blanket separates your body from the ambient air. Both convection and conduction are reduced. Your body is the heat source.
This real situation is perverted in GHE pseudoscience. The attempt is to use real-world situations to justify imaginary concepts. The result is ongoing silliness where clowns perform nightly.
It’s fun to watch.
This real situation is perverted in GHE pseudoscience.
How so?
There are some that try to claim the atmosphere is a blanket.
A blanket redirects some heat as it leaves your body.
The atmosphere redirects some heat as it leaves Earth.
So where does the extra 150 watts come from? Well it doesn’t come from CO2. Even the best scientists don’t claim it as coming from the CO2. Slowing cooling doesn’t mean its coming from CO2.
Still looking for an answer:
At 288 K, the Earths surface emits an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 is observed entering and leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
Still hilarious.
You still have no answer.
DA,
And you still have no testable GHE hypothesis, and no clue.
Back to Stupid U for you, David.
Your’e only appearing really, really, stupid and witless at present. With enough effort, you could look really, really, really stupid.
Cheers.
MF, you don’t get any more replies, because you either (a) complain that it’s a “gotcha,” or (b) you claim not to care about my opinion, or anyone else’s opinion.
You made your smelly bed. Lie in it.
Jelly, I don’t care about your immature, uneducated opinions either.
Could you not reply to me also?
You made your pathetic life, Live it.
Sure you do, because you respond to everything I write.
DA,
Promises, promises. Who asked you for a reply? Do you believe you are so important that I would actually give a toss about what you claimed to think?
Show a testable GHE hypothesis, and many people might start to believe you have more substance than the usual Warmist windbag.
Of course you cannot, so you have not.
Feel free to not reply as much or as often as you like. I look forward it, stupid one.
Cheers.
MF: See what I mean?
No discussions with you. Piss off.
DA,
In response to your bizarre and uncouth demand – no. Why should I?
In what strange fantasy world do you imagine I might feel compelled to dance to your tune?
Carry on, David.
Cheers.
A surface which absorbs 1/2 as much sunlight as blackbody surface and then emits 1/2 as much IR as blackbody surface at given temperature, would be same temperature as a blackbody surface.
The amount of energy absorbed is not related to it’s temperature.
What absorbing 240 watts and emitting 240 watts tells you is that earth isn’t generating much heat. Or if planet is emitting more watts per square meter, than it’s absorbing from sunlight, that could mean the planet is cooling or it has significant amount of internal heat being generated.
Or it’s normal for most non gas giants to have it absords the same as they emit.
So a blackbody surface emitting 240 watts is about -18 C, but anything not blackbody is warmer than this.
And also anything under an atmosphere is not is not a blackbody in a vacuum.
If Earth was ideal thermally conductive blackbody in vacuum, it would have a uniform temperature of about 5 C.
The Moon is roughly a blackbody but isn’t vaguely a ideal thermally conductive body and so moon indicates what blackbody in vacuum looks like, such as hot in sunlight’s and cold in night (not an uniform temperature).
And if moon had metallic reflective surface it could absorb less energy and have higher surface temperature.
And if add atmosphere to this metallic moon, the convective loss to atmosphere could lower the metallic surface temperature in daylight by considerable amount and since reflective surface absorbs little sunlight the atmosphere would not warm up much.
gbaikie says:
A surface which absorbs 1/2 as much sunlight as blackbody surface and then emits 1/2 as much IR as blackbody surface at given temperature, would be same temperature as a blackbody surface.
It’s unclear what this means. What is the “same temperature” as “a blackbody surface?” Which BB surface?
But I don’t think so.
For a BB, T = (f/sigma)^0.25, where f is the absorbed/emitted flux.
If f is 1/2 the original flux, the temperature is 0.841 of the original temperature, in Kelvin.
DA,
Are you really thick, or just pretending?
Do you really not know how a “black body” is defined in physics?
How many kinds of “black body” do you think there are? Which type of BB do you refer to in your formula?
Learn to read. Then learn physics – the real sort, not the bizarre pseudo-science variety spouted by the likes of Hansen, Schmidt and Mann, and slavishly regurgitated by such as yourself.
Cheers.
No discussions with you.
You know why.
DA,
Obviously, you are incapable of practising what you preach.
I wasn’t expecting any cogent response from you, of course. My question was of a rhetorical nature, intended to show your vacuity.
Others may form their own opinion of your pseudo-scientific ratbaggery.
Have you figured out how to boil water by wrapping ice in many, many, overcoats, yet? If one overcoat is supposed to heat the Earth, surely many overcoats would work even better for something as small as a cup full of ice, wouldn’t they?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Instead of being the irrational and illogical poster why not change and actually start thinking instead of mindlessly chanting your mantras.
You come up with one of the stupidest comments I think I have read. You usually come up with these stupid illogical points. I like to ignore them. I believe I am making a critical error in judgment to hope you might have a little sane and rational thought in your wasted brain. I doubt it but I am hoping.
If you have a heat source adding energy to the water constantly. The water that is surrounded with many overcoats will get much hotter than the same heated water with no overcoats if the surroundings are colder than the water temperature. There are pipes that have 900 F steam in power plants. They can reach this temperature because of good insulation that only allows a small amount of heat transfer.
Your points are very bad, not logical, and if you comment to this, rather than think and admit your posts are foolish and poor quality, you will probably come up with a zombie brain dead response. If you could think even a little (which evidence suggest your are not able) you might understand your comments are really dumb!!
Con-man, as usual, you’re confused.
Mike Flynn’s point was that insulation, by itself, can not make something warmer. Of course, you fell flat on your face: “The water that is surrounded with many overcoats will get much hotter than the same heated water with no overcoats if the surroundings are colder than the water temperature.”
The water will NEVER get hotter, just be adding insulation. Insulation does NOT add energy to the system. If water, at a temperature of 200F is added to a tank, the temperature will not exceed 200F, even if you insulate the tank. You just don’t have the physics background to understand.
But, keep whining. It’s fun to watch.
.
g*e*r*a*n
Roy Spencer already explained to you that you are obfuscating and I was not directing anything for you to fill with your bumbling mindless idiocy. I come here to learn and you hog the blog with your complete juvenile stupidity. Hundreds of comments proving you are a persistent dunce.
Reread what Roy Spencer told you.
Roy Spencer: “This is the problem I run into with people like g*e*r*a*n if you dont explicitly list every assumption (things which most of us pick up on as being necessary inferences) in making a simple point, they jump all over you.
Ugh. Here we go again
We are talking about HEATED systems that are warmer than their surroundings. Like a car engine. A pot on the stove. The Sun. The human body. Your house in the winter
the CLIMATE SYSTEM.
This is why g*e*r*a*n has asterisks in his namehes been banned before, and continues to obfuscate.
Cmon dude. You are only fooling the ignorant.”
I am looking for valuable science, not your stupid posts. If nothing else let Mike Flynn answer. I have zero interest in your endless stupid comments. I can read one and the next hundred are duplicates (copy and paste).
You are a idiot and please do not post your idiocy anywhere near my name. Smart people will start thinking I might be as stupid as you. You are very stupid and a bother. You are like the stupid kid that needs constant attention so you jump right in when no one is even the least bit interested in what you have to say. Get lost creep! You are an insult to all people on this blog and a complete idiot. Go away. Leave me be, dunce!
That’s a great whine, whiny.
It must be so frustrating not to be able to spew your pseudoscience, without getting caught. Maybe if you learned to appreciate truth, rather than run from it?
Nah, we’d miss your comedy.
More, please.
Norman,
The Earth has definitely cooled since its surface was molten.
It has cooled since the first liquid water appeared.
It still cools at night, and after the Sun reaches its zenith.
Facts.
So where is this wondrous and magical heat source you claim increases surface temperatures?
It isn’t the Sun, that’s assuredly external!
You are just being silly, repeating the nonsense uttered by such as Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth – all clueless second taters with delusions of grandeur. Not a testable GHE hypothesis between the lot of them, eh?
Bad luck for you!
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n
No you have not exposed anything about my science at all. I know mine is based upon established physics (including the Moon’s rotation). You expose you are an imbecile who needs constant attention and is highly repetitive. If you think I am whiny don’t respond to my posts. I ask you not to. I do not like you at all nor your stupid childish behavior. I think most have had enough of your idiocy and hope you quit posting. You really need to suck your thumb. You act like it. Now please go away. Even zombie Mike Flynn is much more interesting than you. You are the most unpleasant and stupid poster on this blog. Roy Spencer kindly is asking you to quit being an idiot but you are such a foolish person you think you are cute with your lame behavior. You waste a lot of space when you puke your vomitous garbage. Read you posts again and you maybe will see why you are a complete idiot on this blog. Now can you go away and not jump into conversations where you are not welcome. Tell someone who cares about your idiotic and unscientific ideas. I am not interested in them at all.
Mike Flynn
Yes the Earth’s surface cools at night but then the following day it warms back up doesn’t it. It cools so much then stops and warms and it cycles around some average value.
As for the molten state, we have been here before but you do not have a good enough memory to remember the conversation.
You do not have to go back in time to find parts of the Earth that are even now molten lava. The molten rock cools rapidly and once it reaches a equilibrium temperature with the surroundings it no longer cools but cycles between warming at day and cooling at night. I really do not know what point you are trying to make. They do seem like a waste of time. They are not brilliant revelations and I have no idea how they apply to the fact that if you wrap water that is heating in insulation it will reach higher temperatures than uninsulated water that is heated by the same amount provided the surrounding in both cases are cooler than the water itself.
You just post stuff that has no bearing on a logical conversation.
There is not a magical heat source, you have a warmer surface is less energy gets out really similar to heated water that is insulated vs heated water that is not. Are you dense purposefully or have you always had a hard time with logic and reason?
Another long, whiny, ramble from Norm. No science, no facts, and no logic, just endless pounding on his keyboard, clogging up the blog.
It’s fun to watch.
“The water that is surrounded with many overcoats will get much hotter than the same heated water with no overcoats if the surroundings are colder than the water temperature.
The water will NEVER get hotter, just be adding insulation. ”
Of course it will, G*. As usual you ignore inconvenient facts to serve your beliefs.
Notice the word ‘heated’ and the phrase you left out “If you have a heat source adding energy to the water constantly.”
MF “Not a testable GHE hypothesis?’
Asked and answered many dozens of times by myself and others.
Why does he keep asking the same question over and over and over as if its never been asked and answered?
He’s obviously insane.
Different materials in space and same distance from the sun, in sunlight have different temperatures.
And hottest material is not blackbody surface which would absorb all the energy from the sun- because in a blackbody surface, also, emits the most energy.
Earth does absorb a lot of the sunlight energy but it does not have a blackbody surface.
So,anyhow an ideal thermally conductive blackbody absorbs all sunlight of disk area of sphere and radiates this energy uniformly over area 4 times the area of this disk area.
So, 1360 / 4 is 340 watts which if blackbody surface equals about 5 C.
What happens if add atmosphere which reflects 30% of sunlight.
What happens if change blackbody into something which absorbs 70% and reflects 30% of sunlight and like ideal thermally conductive blackbody absorbs 70% and reflect 30% of all wavelength, and that means it emits 70% of what a blackbody emits at given temperature.
30% of 1360 is 408 and leaves 958 watts and divide 4 is 239 watts.a
And 70% of 340 is 238, so if emitting 239 watts it’s about 5 C.
Of course no material absorbs and emits the same on all wavelengths, and this is merely a model.
But it seems to me that ideal thermally conductive blackbody gives a rough idea that planet at earth distance from the sun should be about 5 C.
And it seems to me, that Earth is about 5 C (roughly speaking). And idea that it should be -18 C (and needs warming of 33 K) is incorrect.
Let look at other examples or models.
Suppose one had planet with surface of concrete which had surface like a blackbody. And earth distance from sun with earth’s tilt and rotation. And without an atmosphere.
It shouldn’t reflect much sunlight and appear like the Moon which is dim compared to shining Earth.
Now, if you add earth like atmosphere to it, it reflects more sunlight. But without considering it having greenhouse gases, would the addition of atmosphere increase or decrease the average temperature?
It seems that without an atmosphere, about 1/4 of planet would be warm and 3/4 of planet would be quite cold.
And when an atmosphere is added, the 3/4 of planet is warmer and warm 1/4 is cooler.
Or the addition of atmosphere and its increased reflection is not something which makes any planet colder but rather a significant aspect is atmosphere will cause a more uniform temperature.
David Appell loves posing gotchas implying clothing is worn purely to maintain body temperature in cold conditions. Of course, the man’s a fool, and totally ignores physics.
“Why do Bedouins wear black robes in hot deserts?” from Nature, indicates the nature (pardon the pun) of David’s attempt to bend nature (another pun) to his will.
Nope. Insulators work equally well in both directions. No Hansenesque retention of energy on one side of a magical greenhouse insulator.
Still no GHE. Still no evidence that David Appell is other than delusional.
So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
If the air circulation is latitudinal in the tropics (La Nina), then the temperature in winter in medium latitudes can not rise above the norm.
“Where The Warmth Is”?
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ceres-decadal-temperature-trends-20171.png?w=635&h=613
ren…”Where The Warmth Is?”
Interesting. Kind of what I figured, the extreme northern and southern hemispheres are offsetting each other while the trend over the mid latitudes is flat.
I figured that from the UAH global maps. Interesting to see it plotted.
CO2 could not do that but I’m sure some alarmist will be by to claim it was predicted by models. Actually, Roy pointed it out recently, that circulation patterns related to the Atlantic may be causing warming in the Arctic regions. Maybe the same applies in the southern hemispheres, which are mostly ocean.
Look at Antarctica.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_s_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png
“That collage revealed thousands of nests where 751,527 pairs of Adelie penguins were living more than the rest of the entire Antarctic Peninsula region combined.
Adelie penguins are the smallest species of penguin in the Antarctic, weighing just 3 to 6 kg. They live all over the continent, but in recent years, their populations have been dwindling due to climate change.
Between 2010 and 2017, for example, 18,000 Adelie chicks on the other side of Antarctica died of mass starvation after thick ice made feeding too difficult.
But the WHOI says the super-colony discovered on the Danger Islands seems to be doing rather well, with a population that has likely been stable for decades.
Not only do the Danger Islands hold the largest population of Adelie penguins on the Antarctic peninsula, they also appear to have not suffered the population declines found along the western side of Antarctic peninsula, study co-author Michael Polito, from Louisiana State Universitys department of oceanography, said in a statement.
Study co-author Stephanie Jenouvrier, a seabird ecologist at WHOI, says its important to now understand why the population of Adlies on the islands is so different from the west side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
We want to understand why. Is it linked to the extended sea ice condition over there? Food availability? That’s something we don’t know,” she said.”
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/drones-help-reveal-undiscovered-mega-colonies-of-penguins-on-antarctic-islands-1.3829003
Interesting ren. Penguins are dying because it’s too cold!
ren…”Adelie penguins are the smallest species of penguin in the Antarctic….”
I feel badly for the penguins in Antarctica. I have seen movies of them in mid-winter huddled together against the cold, hundreds of them. We should be down there building shelters and wind breaks for them rather than wasting time discussing AGW pseudo-science.
Eco-alarmists would have no interest in that, they are not even interested in human survival. They are opposed to us exterminating mosquitoes that spread malaria, which kills millions globally, and have no interest in penguins who harm no one.
Gordon Robertson says:
We should be down there building shelters and wind breaks for them rather than wasting time discussing AGW pseudo-science.
Oh Jeez….
Penguin species are 10-15 million years old. They are well adapted o their environment. They don’t need or want human intervention. Humans are the biggest threat to the species.
smh
Cockroach. Get me the spray.
Typical pointless, irrelevant and stupid comment from a typical factless fool.
Probably stupid enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a world class scientist, or that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize!
What a loser!
Cheers,
simple…”Get me the spray”.
You picked a good new nym, simple. Or is that a typo, maybe it is pimple?
Old man – tell me once more how the thermometer is not affected by greenhouse gases.
Myki,
You can see why President Trump has cancelled funding to people believe as you do, can’t you?
So sad. Too bad.
Cheers.
Strong frost returns to Hudson Bay.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00962/o7sn5x2wm5ow.png
ren ….”Strong frost returns to Hudson Bay”.
Not a good place to hang out…polar bears in winter and clouds of mosquitoes and flies that tear chunks of skin off you in summer.
We had malaria at one time in Canada.
https://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/canada/malaria-canada/
The voyageurs, who traveled by canoe south of Hudson Bay and sometimes up around it to the north, complained about areas being infested with mosquitoes and black flies, which are much larger than a house fly and bite small strips of skin off you.
Here in the Vancouver area on the Pacific Coast, we seldom see mosquitoes. We started spraying swamps and breeding grounds back in the 1960s and they all but disappeared. Along the rivers you get a few but nothing like it was years ago.
I have lived on the prairies for short periods and the mosquitoes there can get out of control, even in major cities. If you walk through a grass field, great swarms of them arise. When we played the occasional soccer game, we had to cover exposed skin with Deep Woods Off, an insect repellent.
Old man – tell us some more stories about last century.
Myki,
Last century, some people thought that Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth, should be believed.
Now they know better.
Oh, how we laughed!
How many more fairy tales do you want?
How about the one where Gavin Schmidt dreamed he was a world famous climate scientist?
Cheers.
Heavy snowfall is approaching eastern Germany and Poland.
The CERES data have an average of about 0.5 C/decade cooling for the period nominated: Mar 2000 to Feb 2017, for the Antarctic region.
Gordon Robertson took this at face value, as did ren and others. No questions.
So I checked the UAH data: 0.06 C/decade cooling. Virtually flat for the same period. Over a century that’s a difference of half a degree or 5 degrees. CERES is the larger.
According to the favoured data set here, CERES is way out. Gordon prefers UAH over everything else, is on record numerous times saying so.
So then I wondered why that particular time frame had been chosen. The post was written last month, so there is a whole year of data that could be added. And why start in March 2000? Was there a reason given, or did that selection produce a preferred result?
Anyway, I added the latest data from UAH to bring it up to Feb 2018 (making full twelve-month series, rather than finishing on 13 months, or just one – we stick to the convention in the graph).
-0.05 C/decade
Not much different.
So I checked from the canonical 1998 (Mar) to present.
+0.02 C/decade
Even flatter. But definitely not -0.5 C/decade.
Robertson doesn’t seem to notice that even with this very short time frame selection and the dubious CERES data (in that it is not as good as UAH!) that trends are positive for most latitude bands over the Earth. With the UAH data, even more of the latitude bands are positive, and the Antarctic region is flat at best.
But what made me notice was the blind acceptance of the data. Even though it is markedly different from UAH, ‘skeptics’ didn’t think to question it. Because it told them the story they wanted to hear.
Mr. Monckton,
It seems to me (nobody special) that there is a logical problem with the idea that only changes which significantly effect the previous supposed state of “energy equilibrium” of the climate system, are treated as forcings, whence feedbacks somehow commence occurring . .
I believe that what you proposing can be (crudely) likened to the hypothetical construct of a car system being spoken of as at energy equilibrium, because it is moving at a certain speed down a (level, windless) road, shedding heat at about the same rate that it enters the car system . .
If the car encounters a slight incline, downward for instance, and the relative air speed is hence increased, which in turn causes more system output (and hence decreased total system heat), then one can (in climate-change lingo) refer to that change in relative air speed as a forcing . . but what of the relative air speed up till that point? Clearly it was having an effect on the cooling of the system . . just less . .
The speed of the car was already resulting in a form of “feedback”, and while the change in speed generates what in climate system lingo qualifies it as a “forcing”, the physical effect that classification is justified by (in climate system logic-land ; ) did not commence at that moment.
If we calculated the total cooling “feedback” relative airspeed was generating, right after the “forcing” occurred, and attributed it all to that increase which we are calling a “forcing”, we would be making a logical blunder, it seems rather obvious to me.
(I can’t be sure, but I suspect this is on purpose blunder, so to speak. A word game is being played, and it’s a bit more sophisticated than I can comfortably accept occurred by accident)
Norman,
You claim that insulation in the form of an atmosphere raises the Earth’s temperature.
It hasn’t for four and a half billion years! The surface temperature has dropped from molten, to what it is now.
Antarctica used to be free of ice, not so long ago, geologically speaking. Now, temperatures there drop to -90 C.
You must believe this is due to global warming. I believe you would have to be stupid and ignorant to claim so.
Cheers,
Old man – tell us what is was like when Antarctica was ice free.
Myki,
There was plentiful flora and fauna.
I know you are too lazy or stupid (or both) to find this out for yourself, so I will let others know.
Anybody with the brains of a pangolin, even a mentally defective pangolin, would be aware of such basic facts. With much effort and time, you might be able to rise to such a level of knowledge.
I understand why you respect my superiority, young Myki. You will never attain my level, but you may aspire to same, if it makes you happy.
Cheers.
M,
I know I shouldn’t go out of my way to help those too lazy or stupid to help themselves, but –
“During the Oligocene Epoch, which extended from 23 million to 34 million years ago, vegetation primarily consisted of southern beech and conifer-dominated woodlands and tundra.”
It has certainly cooled a lot since then!
Believe or don’t believe, oh young and foolish Myki. It matters not.
Cheers.
Old man – gee are you that old? Your brain must have fossilised by now.
Young Myki,
That’s for me to know, and for you never to find out, because you are too stupid and ignorant.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Old man – how come you call everybody stupid?
Young Myki,
Why do you ask? Are you too stupid and ignorant to be able to narrow the scope of your question to something that could be construed as other than a stupid and ignorant attempt at a “gotcha”?
Press on.
Cheers.
Mikie, Where was Antarctica located when it had the vegetation you describe? Specifically, at what latitude was it located in the known history of continental drift?
https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap1-Pioneers-of-Plate-Tectonics/Alfred-Wegener/Fossil-Evidence-from-the-Southern-Hemisphere
E,
Why do you ask?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The atmosphere GHE raises the temperature to a higher equilibrium level than it would be without such an effect.
The Earth, after cooling from a molten state, would be cooler today without a GHE. The raise in temperature is a relative state and exists in terms of different conditions.
Without a GHE Antarctica would get much colder during its six months without any incoming solar energy.
Norman,
So you say Norman. When the average surface temperature was above the boiling point of water, what do you figure it should have been?
And now, when temperatures on the Moon reach above 100C without an atmosphere, why are temperatures on Earth (which you say should be hotter) less than 100 C? Magic, perhaps?
You don’t need to answer, if you think answering would make you look stupid and ignorant.
Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Tell me again that climatology doesn’t need to follow normal scientific methods, because its based on magic, why don’t you?
Cheers.
Sorry Norm, but you’re still getting it wrong.
Your wording “The atmosphere GHE raises the temperature” indicates you don’t understand the physics involved. The atmosphere does NOT heat the planet. The planet heats the atmosphere.
You’re still trying to treat the atmosphere as a “heat source”. You’ve got to get those mis-conceptions (worms) out of your head. They are causing you to be very frustrated.
Hope that helps.
But what cools the atmosphere? It cannot just be heated.
The atmosphere emits heat energy to space, continuously. If the atmosphere temperatures increase, the rate of emission increases.
What cools atmosphere?
Mostly the land surface.
Wind can cause evaporational cooling and conventional cooling.
With evaporational cooling it will make a surface cooler and it is “difficult” to cool a ocean because the ocean surface- meters deep – has a high energy content. Or wind over ocean surface which remains fairly warm (such as with hurricanes) can cause warming effect because evaporation cooling is not cooling the surface to low enough temperature.
gbaikie, I’m sure you could properly express yourself in your native language, but you don’t always do so well in English. That still makes you far ahead of me. I have studied French, Spanish, and lived in Germany. I can properly order wine and beer in all three countries. But, that’s it! I could never carry on a technical discussion in a foreign language.
The “land surface” does not cool the atmosphere, at the “macro” level. You may be referring to certain localized events. I was referring to the planet, in toto.
(If you don’t mind me asking, what is your native language?)
Canadian.
Which is British and Canucks doing their own thing.
So you think atmosphere cools by radiating it’s kinetic energy into space.
You realize that the energy gas is only kinetic energy, as in, only the average mass and its average velocity of gas.
So how does radiant loss slow down gas molecules?
I believe the pseudo science mentions that in higher portion of troposphere that this is where atmospheric heat is lost and
this is related to CO2.
Where in atmosphere do you think most of heat is lost?
Do we agree that land surface radiating energy into space?
Do we agree land surfaces are always radiating energy into space. And during the day when land are warmer, land surface radiates more energy into space as compared to when land surfaces are cooler.
And that when land is warmer than the air above it, it also transfer it warmth to atmosphere via convection. And surface land surface conduct heat to cooler ground below a warmed surface via conduction.
And a wet land surface can be cooled by evaporation.
Land surface can have a ground temperature of 70 C, and land surface of 70 C radiates more energy to space than a ground which is -20 C.
And 5 km up is colder by about 6.5 C, or 5 times 6.5 C is 32.5 K. And about 5.5 km elevation is at level of about 1/2 the atmosphere?
Canadian. Which is British and Canucks doing their own thing.
That must translate to French-Canadian. Which is somewhat close to the Cajuns, in south Louisiana. It’s a small world, n’est pas?
So you think atmosphere cools by radiating its kinetic energy into space.
Oui.
You realize that the energy gas is only kinetic energy, as in, only the average mass and its average velocity of gas.
Oui.
So how does radiant loss slow down gas molecules?
It doesn’t necessarily slow down their motion, it just slows down their internal vibrations.
I believe the pseudo science mentions that in higher portion of troposphere that this is where atmospheric heat is lost and this is related to CO2. Where in atmosphere do you think most of heat is lost?
Actually, studies indicate most of the heat energy is radiated from the poles. That’s easily believable, based on the enormous energy of the polar vortices.
Do we agree that land surface radiating energy into space?
Oui.
Do we agree land surfaces are always radiating energy into space. And during the day when land are warmer, land surface radiates more energy into space as compared to when land surfaces are cooler.
Oui.
And that when land is warmer than the air above it, it also transfer it warmth to atmosphere via convection. And surface land surface conduct heat to cooler ground below a warmed surface via conduction. And a wet land surface can be cooled by evaporation.
Oui.
Land surface can have a ground temperature of 70 C, and land surface of 70 C radiates more energy to space than a ground which is -20 C. And 5 km up is colder by about 6.5 C, or 5 times 6.5 C is 32.5 K. And about 5.5 km elevation is at level of about 1/2 the atmosphere?
Oui. Oui. Oui. Mais cela ne signifie pas que la surface refroidit l’atmosphere.
(Pardon, my long-forgotten French.)
gbaikie,
Everything above absolute zero radiates continuously. Without an external energy source, cooling results.
As to gases, photons have momentum. When an electron emits a photon, Its energy level drops, and as a result the “recoil” from the emitted photons results in slower moving gas particles in the aggregate – or, a fall in temperature.
The gas particles become less and less mobile, and the gas eventually solidifies – except for helium, of course.
Even talking about temperature in terms of molecular kinetic energy is fraught with danger.
Consider a kg of oxygen at almost 0 K in the far reaches of space, but travelling at 450 m/s. Nominally, oxygen molecules at 273 K have an RMS speed over 400 m/s from memory.
The RMS average of our sample is obviously not an indication of temperature.
Even concepts of kinetic energy fail without a reference frame. Say it is me approaching the kg of oxygen at 450 m/s, instead. The kinetic energy of the oxygen has magically vanished!
In the absence of an external energy source, the whole lot – Earth, atmosphere, aquasphere, and all, will proceed to cool to the temperature of the environment – around 4 K.
Climatological fools will calculate the Earth’s surface temperature using SB, say, but will come up with the same figure whether the surface is molten, or when the average temperature was demonstrably above 373 K before the first liquid water formed.
Complete nonsense – talk about denial! No GHE, just a bumbling pack of second rate amateurs pretending to be professionals.
Cheers.
Well during night all gas molecules of atmosphere should glow less – but I don’t think the glowing of gas molecules has much effect.
Just as I don’t think glowing CO2 molecules have much effect, as in, I am a lukewarmer.
If want mad glowing molecules the thermosphere have billions of tonnes of them.
Gbaikie,
Indeed all objects above 0 K glow. Just not visibly, of course. Anything below a just visible dull read heat is not emitting visible light, so it is not perceived by your eyes as being in the visible spectrum.
Use a receptor designed for the IR spectrum, and the glow can be converted to something you can see, again.
Or, for even longer wavelengths of light, a tuned ELF receiver will “see” wavelengths down to 10 000 kms or so. Emitted by objects of very low temperature indeed, but still light, glowing.
Everything glows – all the time. Just because you can’t see it with your eyes doesn’t mean it ain’t there!
Cheers.
Oh, checked mass of thermosphere, it is apparently:
0.002 % of total atmosphere and total atmospheric
mass is 5.148 x 10 ^ 18 kg.
So it is about 10 billion tonnes.
Or there is about 10,000 kg of atmosphere per square meter and
it would be .002% of 10,000 kg per square meter.
In terms of the French language, the Canadian government required I take French and I actually chose to take Spanish from US educational system, but unfortunately, both had a very little educational effect.
I know more about French and Spanish than Gaelic or Klingon -but that’s not much.
g*e*r*a*n
Sorry you are just clearly wrong. You have no understanding of heat transfer. I have referred you to textbooks on the topic more than once.
The DWIR is absorbed by the surface. The NET effect is less heat loss. The source of heat is the Sun. That amount on incoming insolation is fairly stable over long periods of times and seems to fluctuate only a few Watts/m^2.
Do the simple math yourself. You have the same incoming energy. With a GHG atmosphere you have less HEAT loss (NET energy between what is emitted and absorbed) than in a non-GHG atmosphere. This will cause the surface to reach a higher temperature until the outgoing energy reaches a new equilibrium with the incoming energy.
So where in my posts and comments have I stated that the atmosphere acts as a “heat source”??
Rather than accept the real physics and established and proven reality (which you call pseudoscience to manipulate people who lack physics knowledge) you make up your own version (mind you not based upon any experiment or empirical data, just a stupid declaration you make) that claims a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. This is in complete violation of all accepted physics and goes against reality (they use the accepting version in all heat transfer applications and not your pseudoscience version of made up physics).
So people can learn the real physics and see you are a dork. Or they can believe you based just on your warm and charming personality. I am hoping they see you as the dork you are.
Sorry Norm, but you’re STILL wrong.
You still have the same worms in your head.
Worm #1: “The DWIR is absorbed by the surface.”
Sorry Norm, but that comes from your false belief that ALL IR is ALWAYS absorbed. ALL IR is NOT always absorbed.
Worm #2: “This will cause the surface to reach a higher temperature until the outgoing energy reaches a new equilibrium with the incoming energy.”
The atmosphere is NOT heating the planet. You just don’t understand the relevant physics.
Worm #3: “you make up your own version that claims a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one.”
No Norm, you are trying to avoid 2LoT. You want heat energy to ALWAYS be absorbed so you can then claim there is “heating”. But, you avoid the phrase “raise the temperature”. A cold object can NOT “raise the temperature” of a hotter object. You can’t con your way around that basic FACT.
You got a lot of things wrong, as usual, but you got the immature insults in.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
YOUR Worm #1 is not my worm. It is some made up worm you attribute to me even though I have never stated this. The reality is a good emitter is also a good absorber. The fact is that most molecules are in the ground molecular energy levels and able to absorb nearly all the energy that they are able. It depends upon the material. Earth’s surface averages to be a very good absorber of IR overall.
https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/iremis/includes/docs/ASTER_GEDv4_UserGuide.pdf
From the looks of it the Earth would absorb maybe 95% of the DWIR that reaches its surface. Not all IR but most will be absorbed.
So I am not sure what the worm is you are pretending to point out. No not all IR will be absorbed by the surface but around 95% of all the DWIR will be.
g*e*r*a*n
YOUR Worm #2
Again, when did I claim the atmosphere was heating the surface? Causing a surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature is not the same thing as saying the atmosphere is heating the surface. You are confused by simple concepts and attribute your confusion to what you imagine to be a worm. If you could understand what is being said correctly you could remove the worm you have fabricated and come to understand what is actually being stated.
Please try it some time.
g*e*r*a*n
YOUR Worm #3
No, I am not getting anything wrong at all. You are the one who has made up a version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that does not exist. I have asked you many times to support your claims and to date you have not done even once.
YOU MAKE UP THIS FALSE CLAIM: “A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object. You cant con your way around that basic FACT.”
This is not true at all and I have given you empirical examples showing it is false. A cold object can raise the temperature of a hotter powered object. Roy Spencer has shown this to you, E. Swanson has shown this to you (with actual experiments, I can’t help it if you are so deluded and dorky that real evidence does not matter to you).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
I have shown you this one more than once. It shows that if you warm a cold room, powered objects reach higher temperatures. Reality does not phase your dorky delusions. You will peddle them on and on and never realize you are a deluded dork. Reality shows you are wrong, empirical evidence shows you are wrong. You have zero support for your twisted deluded idea of how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics works. This is why I don’t like to interact with you at all. You are not just a stupid person that pretends to be this person filled with knowledge (you have none) but you are so vain and arrogant that when someone presents factual evidence to you, you reject is and tell them they don’t understand physics.
Your tactic suck, your debates are silly and I was looking at your interaction with David Appell and I think you used this silly, childish term for him “jelly” over and over.
If you have any maturity or intelligence I would openly welcome your counter thoughts. You have neither adult manners or intelligence and that is why I ask you to quit responding to my posts (especially when you are not wanted).
People like Bart I find very welcome and enjoy their counter points. Bart has intelligence and scientific background. You have none. Pretending does not make one capable.
Con-man, if you want to deny your Worm #1, then don’t defend it. It’s hard to go in different directions at the same time, huh?
And, the same for Worm #2. If you want to deny it, don’t defend it.
You can’t get rid of the worms if you keep feeding them.
Glad to help.
Con-man, when you start your endless rambling, i know you are deep in pseudoscience.
Simply stated, your Worm #3 is telling you that you can justify “cold” warming “hot”.
So, you choose to believe the worm. You will do anything to believe your worm. That’s what a fervent cult follower does. You’re doing a good job.
If you ever choose reality, I’m here to help.
Now, rant and rave like a rabid, castrated chihuahua.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
You are dumber than one can imagine. Wow you are a dork. I know why I don’t like you and do not like to interact with you. I think your absolute stupidity is also contagious. You have convinced Gordon Robertson the Moon does not rotate.
There is no point debating anything at all with you. You are a blithering moron, unacceptable stupid.
If you make your T-shirt be sure to put the words in big letters for you. “DORK!”
You can’t read, you can’t think, you can’t learn and yet you post over and over. It is a torture when you post your complete nonsense that only fellow dorks think is good science. It is the worst ever!
Well, “the temperature” is generally the surface air temperature (5′ above ground in a white box).
The warmed ocean surface by sunlight largely affect the global surface air temperature. And the ground is warmed by sunlight and it is warmed ground which causes the high land air temperatures.
But if air is warmed, then it effects the surface air temperature. And warmer surface air temperature has less conventional heat loss from a warming ground which being warmest sunlight.
So due to less conventional heat loss warmer air can cause warmer surface air which results in less conventional heat loss allowing ground to become warmer.
Though if having less conventional heat loss from ground, that means the atmosphere (all or global atmosphere) is not warming as much from surface heating.
Mike Flynn
It is like going around in circles with you. You do not seem to be able to remember what we have already talked about in past encounters.
You would be correct that the peak temperature on the Moon is much greater than Earth’s peak temperature. One factor could be rotation rate. I am not sure how hot a tropical desert would get if it received strong solar input for 2 weeks. The atmosphere works to remove energy from the surface via mainly convection. Water surface removes massive amounts of energy via evaporation. There are a complex mix of things going on with surface temperature.
But you have zero understanding of what average temperature is or why scientists find if necessary to figure out averages.
If you are a teacher and have 100 students. You could evaluate your teaching method based upon one test score (seems that is how you process information). Or you could be intelligent and get an average test score of all your students. You then can see if the average goes up or down based upon how you teach.
With the Earth and Moon you need to take an average temperature of the entire surface (difficult to do but not impossible) to see what the average temperature is. While you measure you very hot lunar temperature on the Sun side you are totally neglecting the super cold temperature on the dark side. This leads you into irrational and unscientific thought processes that come up with illogical and misleading conclusions (like that there is no GHE keeping the average temperature of the Earth much warmer than it would be without a GHE). You will continue to delude yourself and mislead the gullible as long as you reject logical thought process. The time is left up to you to change. You can post here for the rest of your life but you will not change science or reality. Or you can accept you are wrong and change how you think. Reality will not bend to your will. You can bend to reality. The choice is yours. I think you will choose delusional illogical thought process. It is who you are. Reality and facts do not make a difference. I linked you to facts that debunked your false thinking but you would not look at it. So there you are. Have a good life in delusional land of make believe and fantasy. It takes far less effort in your world. The real world requires work and effort to learn what is correct. In your delusional state, anything you think is true and real. It is so much easier to live in this reality than the one that requires work, effort and study.
“You would be correct that the peak temperature on the Moon is much greater than Earths peak temperature. One factor could be rotation rate. I am not sure how hot a tropical desert would get if it received strong solar input for 2 weeks. ”
The heating occurs during “peak hours” which is roughly 6 hours or 1/4 of 24 hours or with Moon 1/4 of its day. So about 1 week.
On earth if had longer day, that would mean longer night times and longer non peak hours of daylight. Which roughly means at start of peak hours of the longer day, it would be cooler.
And there could be number of other factors making unclear whether one would have hotter days in a desert or elsewhere and it seems to me, longer days does not improve the chance of breaking Earth current record of highest ever hottest daytime air temperature.
With moon at noon, the surface should remain a constant temperature for many hours and only occurring is that about 1 foot below the surface it is increasing in temperature and it doing so is having no real effect upon the surface temperature.
gbaikie
I liked reading your post. Interesting and brings up some good discussion material.
For the Moon the rise in temperature is rapid when the Solar energy first heats the surface. So starting cold will not matter much as the cold ground absorbs the same amount of energy as warmer ground but radiates away considerably less energy. For the Moon’s surface the temperature rises around 200 K in two lunar hours (little longer than 2 Earth days) but then only rises another 89 K in 4 lunar hours or more than 8 Earth days. The rate of temperature rise drops as the surface radiates away much more energy.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/diviner_moon_temperatures.png
The highest temperature recorded of the actual Earth surface was close to 94 C. If the Sun was on this plot of ground for another week I am thinking it would go up a little more, the solar energy that is hitting the ground in Nevada desert in summer is around 1100 Watts/m^2. That could get the ground close to 100 C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth
DA,
Indeed. The lack of atmosphere on the Moon results in higher temperatures than achievable on Earth.
It also results in lower temperatures – down to -240 C or so.
Averages are completely nonsensical. Radiation increases as the fourth power of the absolute temperature, so an average tells you precisely nothing of use.
At least you agree that a body lacking an atmosphere has higher surface temperatures than one with an atmosphere. No GHE to be seen – rather the complete opposite.
Cheers.
The surface temperature of the Moon is only greater than the average surface temperature of the Earth is a relatively small region directly beneath the sun. Most of the Moon is colder than the Earth; at least half of it far colder (95 K = -178 C).
The Moon’s average equatorial temperature is -58 C. The Earth’s is ~80 F = 27 C.
DA,
Yes. The more sunlight hitting the surface, the greater the temperature.
Atmosphere reduces this amount, as you have pointed out.
You are getting there. Keep at it.
Cheers.
The maximum temperature ever measured on Earth was 56.7 C:
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature/
This is 330 K. Using the equations I gave above, the Moon will be hotter than this along the equator out to 58 degrees from the point directly under the Sun. (By symmetry it will also be up to +/- 58 degrees latitude.) The arc from the underneath point out to 58 deg is theta*radius = 1,744 km, so the area of the moon that is hotter than the hottest place on Earth = 9.6 Mkm2 = 25% of moon’s surface area = 50% of the moon’s dayside area.
Bigger than I would have guessed.
No, that’s not quite the area, because it’s a circle projected onto a sphere….
DA,
Compare apples with apples.
Highest recorded ground temperature was over 90 C in 1972 – at Furnace Ranch, of course!
Still less than the Moon. Atmosphere keeps temperature low! Well, maximum temperature – it also keeps minima higher than the Moon.
Actually, with a terrestrial maximum of 90 C, and a minimum of -90 C, the average is obviously 0 C! Quite pointless, the average.
Not a lot of GHE in evidence, is there? Trying to confuse the issue by talking about stupid averages is just – stupid.
Cheers.
Correcting for the spherical surface, the area of the Moon hotter than the Earth’s highest temperature = 23% of the Moon’s total surface area = 46% of its sunnyside surface area.
MF, you just couldn’t refrain from an insult, could you?
I’m done.
Norman,
You have fallen into the usual trap for the feeble minded.
Objects heated by radiation from a hotter body do not “accumulate” heat indefinitely.
The halogen lighting in a room will not raise the temperature of the carpet above its ignition point, even if left on 24 hours per day. A halogen lamp reaches internal temperatures in excess of 4000 K, but even the luminaire itself does not get anywhere near this temperature – otherwise it would melt.
You are just talking nonsense about the reason that temperatures on the Moon’s surface exceed those on the Earth’s surface after the same exposure time.
The Moon’s surface receives the full radiation of the Sun. The Earth’s surface does not.
You should be aware that “the land of the midnight sun” is also the land of continuous daylight – for 6 months of the year. It still remains quite chilly, even after 6 months of continuous sunlight. No accumulation there – same Sun involved.
Average temperatures, as well as being impossible to establish, are as meaningless as pointing out that the average of a 415 VAC is zero over an integral number of cycles. It is not the average voltage that kills (nor the peak voltage itself, but that’s another story).
Averages are merely the refuge of the incompetent climatological scoundrel, trying to obscure the fact that they don’t even have a testable GHE hypothesis to hang their nonsense on.
Temperature is not necessarily a good indicator of energy contained in a body. A white hot spark from a grinder is a piece of metal heated to incandescence – over 4000 C. It will do little to no damage to your skin, containing little energy.
A tub of boiling water at only 100 C can kill you quite quickly.
Off you go Norman – learn physics.
Find a testable GHE hypothesis, test it, and get back to me. It’s called following the scientific method – a foreign concept to climatologists. That is why the US Government is no longer funding research into something as unscientific as “climate change”!
Cheers.
Since the Moon has no significant atmosphere, it’s temperature on the sunlight side is simply that given by local equilibrium between sunlight, albedo and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
(1-albedo)S = emissivity*sigma*T^4
where, for the Moon, average Bond albedo = 0.11, average emissitivity = 0.97, and S = solar irradiance, a function of latitude and longitude. The factor of 4 that appears in the same calculation for Earth is not present because the Moon is tidally locked.
At the point on the Moon that directly faces the Sun.
T will be a function of latitude and longitude to the extent that S is. At its peak latitude=0, S=S0 = 1360 W/m2, the same as for Earth. So a calculation gives
T(peak) = 385 K = 112 C
which is indeed hotter than anywhere on Earth, and which is very close to the lunar Diviner mission’s 389 K:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/diviner_moon_temperatures.png?w=614
One can also easily calculate the average T across the sunnyside of the Moon’s equator, because S(latitude=0,longitude)=S0*cosine(longitude). [Note this gives the exact same shape of the curve, as a function of lontitude, as the Diviner graph.] So you get a factor of cosine to the 1/4th power, integrated from a longitude of -90 deg to +90 deg, which requires a numberical integral (use Wolfram Alpha!). I did this calculation, and got
average T(equator,sunnyside)= 331 K; See
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
but note that here I redid this calculation with an emissivity of 0.97 instead of 1.
On the Moon’s dark side you have to model heat conduction through the lunar regolith. Based on the Diviner equatorial temperature results given above I’ll just take this as a constant 100 K. The equatorial average is then
=average(331 K,100 K) = 216 K
which is very close to Diviner’s 213 K.
PS: This result gives much better agreement than anything Nikolov and Zeller ever did, and moreover it predicts the shape of the curve all along the sunnyside longitude, which they never could.
PPS: You can also (fairly) easily do the average temperature across the lunar surface, by using spherical coordinates and S(latitude,longitude). This involves an extra numerical integration, but I’m not going include this here.
Should note that these averages are over one lunar cycle. As were the Diviner’s numbers.
Should note that all of your wandering calculations are drivel, jelly.
But, humorous nevertheless.
More, please.
DA,
It seems I posted this in the wrong place. Here it goes again –
Indeed. The lack of atmosphere on the Moon results in higher temperatures than achievable on Earth.
It also results in lower temperatures down to -240 C or so.
Averages are completely nonsensical. Radiation increases as the fourth power of the absolute temperature, so an average tells you precisely nothing of use.
At least you agree that a body lacking an atmosphere has higher surface temperatures than one with an atmosphere. No GHE to be seen rather the complete opposite.
Cheers.
Nice calculation.
As you can see, it goes straight over the heads of the three dunces sitting in the corner.
Thanks.
So moon average temp 213 to 216 K.
This could be seen to indicate that Moon absorbs not much energy which is something already known.
And if moon had faster rotation- if it spinned at fast rate or if at GEO orbit distance-giving 24 hour day, it seems the Moon would absorb more energy from the sun.
No, the Moon receives a lot of energy in some places (even after its albedo (0.11)_ is considered), but less and less as you go around. And nothing on the dark side. So it has a relatively low average temperature. But some of it is very hot.
Without an atmosphere, the variation of its surface temperature is much greater than on a planet with an atmosphere. Because the sun is all it has — it doesn’t have an atmosphere to warm it.
The Earth’s surface receives twice as much energy from the atmosphere’s radiating than it does from the Sun.
–March 29, 2018 at 9:12 PM
No, the Moon receives a lot of energy in some places (even after its albedo (0.11)_ is considered), but less and less as you go around. And nothing on the dark side. So it has a relatively low average temperature. But some of it is very hot.–
The Moon receives of a lot, but so does Earth.
Earth absorbs and emits on average 240 watts per square meter per second plus reflects 100 watts on average per square meter per second.
The moon gets hot, but does not absorb much energy.
Or cardboard with blackbody surface doesn’t absorb much energy, though its blackbody surface warms up quickly and gets hot. The moon absorbs more energy than cardboard, but not a large amount more- or moon is like the cardboard lying on some sand and sand under the cardboard is also being warmed by the sun heated cardboard above it.
Earth is like large pot of water on the stove, require a long time to heat up and is absorbing a lot energy, and will stay warm for a long time when no longer heated, because it takes a long time cool down, due to the pot of water having absorbed a lot of energy.
gbalkie: by definition a blackbody absorbs all heat incident upon it.
Certainly the Earth *stores* more heat than the Moon, because of its atmosphere, ocean and water.
gbaikie…”And if moon had faster rotation- if it spinned at fast rate or if at GEO orbit distance-giving 24 hour day…”
It’s not rotating at all on a local axis, as you no doubt are aware. The means of receiving solar radiation is it’s position in its Earth orbit.
Since that’s about 27.3 days, and one rotation relative to the Sun in 29.5 days, the math is going to be far more difficult for determining its average temperature. You can pretty well throw out David Appell’s calculations.
https://www.space.com/14725-moon-temperature-lunar-days-night.html
What do they mean by a lunar day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_day
“As a result, daylight at a given point on the Moon would last approximately two weeks from beginning to end, followed by approximately two weeks of night”.
That’s wrt the Sun only.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its not rotating at all on a local axis, as you no doubt are aware.
It is, as anyone can see from the left-hand side of this animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
See the black patch on the Moon, rotating around the central white dot on the Moon?
That’s called R-O-T-A-T-I-O-N.
norman…”The atmosphere GHE raises the temperature to a higher equilibrium level than it would be without such an effect”.
Not possible. GHEs get their heat from the surface, according to AGW theory, and each CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2500 non-GHE molecules. Can’t heat the 2500 and it cannot radiate back to a source that heated it and heat that surface.
CO2 warming is about 0.04C per degree warming. WV warming is not much better.
GR,
Norman is the sort of silly fellow who thinks that concentrating 300 W/m2 from ice with a magnifying lens will result in higher temperatures than similarly concentrating 100 W/m2 from the Sun.
His brain is obviously infested with climatological brain worms, as g* would put it.
Norman and his ilk have no clue. Their clues have been lost, along with Trenberth’s missing heat, and Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize.
Cheers.
Flynn
Are you compulsive obsessive that you must always play idiot on this blog. Can you ever show any signs of intelligent life? I have seen none from you so far.
You come up with some stupid idea. Having nothing at all to do with what I posted.
Flynn’s moronic point: “Norman is the sort of silly fellow who thinks that concentrating 300 W/m2 from ice with a magnifying lens will result in higher temperatures than similarly concentrating 100 W/m2 from the Sun.”
What does this point have to do with anything I am saying and why do you post this?
You can do real science yourself and see what a blithering idiot you are and change your unscientific personality, or you can remain a clueless idiot. The choice is yours. I hope you make the wise decision. Take an object that is heated by a constant power source (like a light bulb). Put a thermometer on the bulb to get a temperature reading. Now let it sit and reach a constant temperature. Record this number. Now take the same light bulb and put it in the refrigerator and see what the temperature reaches. Does the temperature go down? Now take it out again, does the temperature go up? I wish you stupid unscientific people would stop wasting time posting and showing everyone how truly dumb you are and go learn some real valid physics. The lot of you might finally wake up and see you are bumbling, stumbling jackass morons! You may see the light. But as totally lazy as you are, it is highly unlikely you could possibly spend some time reading textbook material on heat transfer and working out some of the problems they give you.
Gordon Robertson says:
normanThe atmosphere GHE raises the temperature to a higher equilibrium level than it would be without such an effect.
“Not possible. GHEs get their heat from the surface, according to AGW theory…”
It does take place. The surface is warmed by two sources, the sun and the atmosphere.
The Sun contributes an average of 240 W/m2, yet the surface radiates an average of, at 288 K, 390 W/m2.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
DA…”The Sun contributes an average of 240 W/m2, yet the surface radiates an average of, at 288 K, 390 W/m2.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?”
*********
Bad math and physics.
Explain. (This response is vapid.)
It doesnt seem that you have an answer.
Gordon Robertson
Don’t be unscientific. Reality easily demonstrates your ideas are complete flawed. Have zero bases in the real empirical world and are very unscientific and unsound. In Science, even if you do not like an idea or are biased against it, the reality of the evidence is what you go by, not your opinions.
Here is the amount of energy (real values) that GHG (water vapor, carbon dioxide and others) return to the surface directly.
https://tinyurl.com/y7bwsxw9
Hundreds of watts/m^2 of energy of which most will be abso*rbed by the surface.
You are correct to say that “Cant heat the 2500 and it cannot radiate back to a source that heated it and heat that surface.”
GHG will NOT HEAT the surface. That does not mean that they will not cause the surface to reach higher temperatures.
The amount of heat the surface loses is reduced with GHG present.
https://tinyurl.com/ybjcct6u
Please just look at reality and try to understand the graph!!
Gordon Robertson
Now if you use simple physics you know the temperature is based upon the type of material , its mass and how much energy it has stored. If it is losing 600 Watts/m^2 it will cool much faster than if it losing 200 watts/m^2.
norman…”Hundreds of watts/m^2 of energy of which most will be abso*rbed by the surface”.
Not much good for warming the surface if it’s from a cooler source and not absorbed.
Next you’ll be telling me the ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, and the Himalaya is warming the planet.
Gordon Robertson says:
Not much good for warming the surface if its from a cooler source and not absorbed.
How does an ab.sorp.er know the temperature of a source?
Gordon Robertson
I know you really hate science in all forms. You like to make up ideas and believe you are the greatest genius who walked the Earth and all modern scientists are fools and shysters.
Anyway the point of this post is for you to prove your assertions. Little hope you will. I think I have asked you several times and you have not provided even a slight amount of evidence.
What valid source of physics makes the claim that IR from a colder source will not be absorbed by a warmer body? You claim it as fact and yet you have provided zero evidence to support it. I know we are all just supposed to accept what you say as perfect truth. You don’t need to prove anything. It becomes reality and true as soon as you say it is so. So unscientific. Will you once provide some support for you declarations? Please? If I ask nice will you?
Frost returned to the north-central US states.
For the first time in more than 20 years, the family had to cancel the trip to the cabin this easter at Sarnes in Nordkapp, Northern-Norway after receiving this photo from the neighbor.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00962/786hh7xya3r2.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/weatherscandinavia/
At the beginning of April the temperature in Canada will remain extremely low.
Settled science? Some day — maybe.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-reveals-potential-stability-ocean-climate.html
jimc…”Settled science? Some day maybe”.
two points to be taken from article:
1)…the ocean is complex….
2)The complexity of these biochemical processes makes it difficult to accurately simulate how the ocean absorbs CO2….
I wonder if they got to the point where the oceans just absorb CO2 period, biological processes or not?
Why does anyone pay any attention to this inbred with no science qualifications.
D,
Your comment seems to be pointless, irrelevant, and stupid.
It’s a little hard to be definite, because it is also comprehensible.
Cheers.
MF, you dumb simpleton. Try and keep up. You have become so distracted you have forgotten the topic of this thread (Monckton’s reply). Therefore your comment is, in your own words, “pointless, irrelevant, and stupid”.
S,
What part of my response to Des do you disagree with?
None?
I thought so.
Off you go laddie – your mind reading abilities, like the average stupid and ignorant GHE supporter, need more work.
Cheers.
Dumb simpleton, what part of “inbred with no science qualifications” do you dispute?
Maybe you object because you are related? It would’nt surprise us.
I tend to agree. In-breeding amongst the aristocracy is rife. As it is in remote backwoods communities such as Canada.
S,
With what part of my statement do you disageee?
None?
I would agree. Wouldn’t you?
Are you seriously claiming that Des is not stupid and ignorant? Have you read his mind, perhaps?
Carry on – I’m sure you can.
Cheers.
“Why does anyone pay any attention to this inbred with no science qualifications.”
Exactly, he should have stuck to selling shirts.
D,
Another stupid, irrelevant, pointless and strangely incomprehensible comment.
Keep it up. I’m sure you believe you have a reason.
Cheers.
Gee you are dumb. The point is that Monckton is not qualified as a mathematician. Just as you obviously failed at physics.
S,
With which part of my statement do you disagree?
Next you’ll be telling us that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate!
Facts are facts. You have none, apparently.
Unsuccessful attempts at gratuitous insults are the trademark of the stupid and ignorant.
Carry on. There don’t seem to be any significant adverse side effects from laughter, so I appreciate your efforts to maintain my amusement level.
Cheers.
Old man -maybe you bought a shirt off Chris at one stage?
What colour and pattern was it back then?
“Next youll be telling us that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate!”
Of course they are.
Next youll be telling us that Chris Monckton is a Lord and Donald Trump knows what he is doing!
Young Myki,
I haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about.
You are obviously too ignorant and stupid to use English to communicate effectively.
Were you referring to David Appell’s clothing obsession?
Or are you just practising random acts of stupidity and ignorance?
Cheers.
S,
Why would I tell you anything at your request? I don’t live in your fantasy. You no doubt occupy it completely.
Carry on – I’m sure you can do that, at least.
Cheers.
Try and keep up old man. Somebody noted above that:
“Chris Monckton is not a mathematician.
He has a MA in classics, 1974 and diploma in journalism studies.
His occupations are listed as politician, journalist.
In 1995, Monckton and his wife opened Moncktons, a shirt shop in Kings Road, Chelsea”
I am sure you would have been a customer.
Not that anyone would care, but I need to disagree with both of you.
“From what I can tell, Christopher claims that climatologists have assumed the theoretical 255K average global surface temperature in the absence of the greenhouse effect would actually induce a feedback response; I disagree 255K is the theoretical, global average temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gases but assuming the same solar insolation and albedo”
Actually you get to 255K by stating a cooling effect of clouds, while denying (at least in the first place) they also have a heating effect. The latter part is sorted out and only later on allowed for by giving it a supporting role among other GHGs.
So it is a theoretical temperature under the assumption of existing clouds, without the existence of clouds!? The absurdity in this should be obvious. This is not just a stupid mistake, it is in fact the foundation of the GHE itself. There is not much remaining of the GHE, once you correct that mistake.
Let us consider those common figures for net cloud forcing, which may range between -13 to -20W/m2, according to my knowledge. These figures would be derived from 44 – 50W/m2 negative forcing (the albedo effect) and ~30W/m2 positive forcing (emission of LWIR, GHE of clouds).
Now one might wonder, why the albedo effect should be so small all of a sudden (rather than 70-80W/m2 ?), and why LWIR would only be directed downward, not upward?
The NOAA chart teaches something very different:
https://www.weather.gov/images/jetstream/atmos/energy_balance.jpg
Now the albedo effect would stand at 23% (79W/m2 of 342W/m2) and upward LWIR at 9% (31W/m2). Accordingly negative CF would amount to 79+31 = 110W/m2. Holding on to a negative net CF of -20W/m2, positive CF would need to be 90W/m2.
Now these 90W/m2 will be part of the GHE, which amounts to only 155W/m2, at best, leaving only 65W/m2 for explicit GHGs, badly shrinking the GHE a such.
It gets even worse, once we consider surface emissivity != 1, but rather 0.92, which “costs” another 30W/m2 of the GHE, leaving just 35W/m2. And finally the net negative CF of -20W/m2 is very dubious. In fact real life data show that temperatures are higher when there are clouds, rather than lower, suggesting of positive net CF (see link). And there goes the tiny rest of the GHE.
So, I am afraid, there is no rational foundation for a terrestrial GHE at all.
https://de.scribd.com/document/370673949/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-3
leitwolf…”The NOAA chart teaches something very different:”
The only thing NOAA can teach is how to fudge temperature data to show warming that is not there.
In their graphic, where is the heat transferred to the atmosphere by direct conduction? I’m not talking about evapouration, I’m talking about the atmosphere in direct contact with the ground.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The only thing NOAA can teach is how to fudge temperature data to show warming that is not there.”
If there’s no warming, why
* are glaciers melting?
* sea ice melting?
* the sea rising?
* the stratosphere cooling?
* plants blossoming earlier?
* animals moving poleward and upward?
DA,
You appear confused. When you are talking about warming, you are presumably referring to increases in thermometer temperatures, as a result of being exposed to sufficient additional radiation from sources at a higher temperature than the thermometer.
Are you endeavouring to imply that surrounding a thermometer with CO2 somehow makes it hotter?
I don’t believe this to be true, as it would involve the application of magic at some stage.
Would you mind specifying how CO2 introduces additional energy into the thermometer’s body, thus raising its temperature? Some reproducible scientific experimental results would be helpful.
If the effect cannot be reproduced, whatever you may think, it is not science.
Cheers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-294770
“When you are talking about warming, you are presumably referring to increases in thermometer temperatures, as a result of being exposed to sufficient additional radiation from sources at a higher temperature than the thermometer.”
No dunderhead. Go and stand in the corner. It has been explained to you a million times. Are your ears blocked?
Dr N,
It seems that that the US Government does not believe your “million times”, either.
So sad. Too bad.
Your chances of getting me to do anything I do not wish to do are remote – somewhere between zero and nothing at all.
Keep trying – you never know, I might stop laughing long enough to dance to your tune! You might even be able to find Trenberth’s missing heat, or Gavin Schmidt’s science qualifications at about the same time!
Go for it. The sound you hear is more likely to be laughter than applause.
Cheers.
“Your chances of getting me to do anything I do not wish to do are remote”
On the contrary. I get you to respond all the time so that I can practice my wit and entertain the others here. Believe it or not, you are my unwitting accomplice !
D,
You are wrong again. Learn to read.
It might alleviate some of your ignorance – but have no effect on your stupidity quotient.
Cheers.
Allow me to pre-empt the 3 dunces. “why
* are glaciers melting? -no they are not. They are melting due to ENSO. It is due to the Little Ice Age
* sea ice melting? – no it isn’t. Antarctic sea ice is increasing. It will be beneficial in any case.
* the sea rising?- no it isn’t. The land is sinking.
* the stratosphere cooling? – no it isn’t. NASA has fudged the data. UAH data is also fudged.
* plants blossoming earlier?- no they aren’t. It is due to increased CO2.
* animals moving poleward and upward? – no they aren’t. Humans are chasing them.
Ending with: “Stop it with all these fake facts! I chose not to believe any of them! Go away and leave me alone! God will punish you and elevate me ! The end is nigh! The floods will come again! Build another ark! etc. etc. etc.”
+1
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why was the planet 1C to 2C cooler for 400 years during the Little ice Age?”
It wasn’t. As I’ve showed you many times.
Do I have to repeat it again for you?
DA…”If theres no warming, why
* are glaciers melting?
* sea ice melting?
* the sea rising?
* the stratosphere cooling?
* plants blossoming earlier?
* animals moving poleward and upward?
**********
Why was the planet 1C to 2C cooler for 400 years during the Little ice Age? No one knows.
No one knows what caused it and why it ended. All we know is it did end and the planet started re-warming, explaining all of above.
Gordon Robertson says:
“No one knows what caused it and why it ended.”
Wrong, Gordon, as I’ve shown you many times.
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
Why was the planet 1C to 2C cooler for 400 years during the Little ice Age?
It wasn’t.
There is no evidence the LIA was global (PAGES 2k). In the northern hemisphere, temperatures then were at most 0.4 cooler:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mbh98_plot_black-white.png?w=720
“However it makes a huge difference, whether radiation is (re-)emitted, or simply reflected. Also clouds in this image truly behave
schizophrenic, as they are reflecting solar radiation as clouds do, but then turn into a GHG which emit back radiation, along with
other GHGs. That schizophrenia however is not originating in the clouds.”
https://de.scribd.com/document/370673949/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-3
An unpublished document by “Anonymous SGuNmWYx?” Yeah, that’s convincing {eye roll}.
The science is looking more and more like the cloud feedback is positive:
Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.
Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342.
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.
Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.
Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815.
doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.
Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earths energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701.
doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.
I did not talk about cloud feedback, but forcing. Read my posting. And the linked article is mine, so I it does not serve as a proxy to what I would not know or understand, like your references.
Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing. They are part of the atmosphere’s response to surface warming from the sun, so they aren’t part of the 255 K calculation.
Stupid statement! You know you never get to 255K without cloud albedo.
Again, this is a simple — the simplest — heuristic model that only looks at radiation received at the surface. Just the sunlight received at the surface, and the surface’s simple response to it. That’s it. It doesn’t include an atmosphere or its response. There is not an ocean or cloud feedback or atmospheric GHGs. Just energy balance at the surface.
Leitwolf says:
I am afraid, there is no rational foundation for a terrestrial GHE at all.
The Earth’s surface receives an average of 240 W/m2 from the Sun.
But, at an average temperature of 288 K, it radiates 390 W/m2.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
DA,
Ice can radiate 300 W/m2.
I thought the Sun would be hotter than ice, but you claim not, apparently.
Or is the radiation from the Sun only below freezing on average?
Or maybe you don’t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about?
You’re sounding more out of touch with reality as time goes by. Your “gotchas” become more preposterous by the hour.
Cheers.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
D,
Ice, obviously – if you reduce its emissions by 50%.
Maybe it’s very cold ice?
Cheers.
I think you have consumed too much ice. I hear it reduces brain function by 50%.
D,
Awwww. Is that really the best you can do? Even a really, really, stupid and ignorant person should be able to cast a better aspersions than that!
Are you in the grip of some emotiona disturbance? If you are, I’ll do my best to stop laughing for a bit.
Only joking. Of course I’ll keep laughing! Your emotional stability, (or lack thereof), is of no concern to me whatever.
Off you go, then, and try to come up with a better attempt at an insult, if that was your intention.
Cheerd.
Let me correct your post:
should be able to cast a better aspersions than that!
should be able to cast better aspersions than that!
Are you in the grip of some emotiona disturbance?
Are you in the grip of some emotional disturbance?
Cheerd.
Cheers.
(Who is stupid and ignorant?)
N,
Is that really the best you can come up with?
Cheers.
PS I’m glad you noticed my intentional errors. You can read, at least, even if you don’t comprehend. Keep trying.
“Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?”
Read my posting.
Frankly I don’t find your post very clear — you throw a lot of numbers quickly around but do a poor job of explaining why.
You seem to think the only atmospheric radiation comes from clouds.
No, not quite. But possibly the only relevant atmospheric REFLECTION comes from clouds.
There is no atmosphere in the 255 K model. It doesn’t include an atmosphere — there is only energy balance at the surface. That’s it.
DA…”The Earths surface receives an average of 240 W/m2 from the Sun.
But, at an average temperature of 288 K, it radiates 390 W/m2″.
*****
Uncorroborated theory, and bad theory at that. That’s the problem with badly applied math, when the fundamentals are missing the math is garbage.
Why is it “badly applied math,” Gordon?
Show us the correct math, please.
LW says:
Actually you get to 255K by stating a cooling effect of clouds, while denying (at least in the first place) they also have a heating effect.
The warming effect of clouds is part of the atmosphere’s radiation, not part of the energy input. Viz., it’s part of the 33 K created above the 255 K.
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
Clouds are not surface, and they interfere with radiation both ways. You can not divide the two sides of one coin.
Clouds reflect some incoming sunlight. That’s part of the albedo.
The surface IR that reaches clouds is not part of the energy input, it’s a response to solar warming of the surface. So this isn’t part of the albedo. Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing.
“Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing” .. Call up the IPCC and tell them about your “innovation”
The simple model that give 255 K is a ZERO-DIMENSIONAL model where energy balance is examined only at the surface. At the surface.
There’s not much that is real about this model or number. It’s a simple model done to show basic energy balance. That’s all.
Nothing said by the IPCC depends on this little 255 K model. Nothing. It’s a model done in Chapter 1 or 2 of every climate science textbook. The more serious models — but still not of the complexity of the models the IPCC cites — are in chapters 4 and 5 and 12.
leitwolf…”Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing .. Call up the IPCC and tell them about your innovation”
That’s what I have been urging the alarmists here to do. They are still arguing over the IPCC admission in 2013 that no warming occurred over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus. It’s now closer to 20 years with no significant warming, even after a record El Nino warming.
They even support the corrupt NOAA going back retroactively and fudging the temperatures to show a warming trend. Or using a 48% confidence level to claim recent years as all-time records.
Alarmists cannot grasp that the IPCC has never claimed GHGs are warming the planet, they only claim it is likely. All those reviewed papers and they still cannot claim for sure that anthropogenic gases are warming the planet.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its now closer to 20 years with no significant warming, even after a record El Nino warming.
Again Gordon lies.
GISS surface warming over 20 years = +0.38 C
UAH LT v6.0 warming over 20 years = +0.16 C
“Climate updates: What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?” The Royal Society, 11/27/17.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf
“Summary:
In the 2000s the rate of surface warming was slower than in some previous decades, but the ocean continued to accumulate heat. Globally, 2015 and 2016 were the warmest years on record and seen in this context the multi-decadal warming trend overwhelms shorter term variability.”
Also, new and better data came in (Karl et al, Science 2015).
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf
Well there is actually another funny twist to it all. High altitude clouds are claimed to have a positive net forcing, for reasons I will not agree on. But it is part of the consensus position.
The thing is, that by air travel we put huge amounts of chomtrails into high altitudes. And air travel has massively increased (from almost zero) within the last decades and thus coincides perfectly with the part of global warming that could not be explained by solar activity. So there would be a simple and obvious explanation at hand.
Yet we are being told, that were was no other possible explanation than the increase of CO2..
Anyhow, I need to repeat myself. I am discussing the GHE, not global warming. So it is all about cloud forcing, not feedback.
L,
Climatologists have many one sided coins. Magical one way filters, none-surface surfaces, feedbacks and forcings that exist only in the pseudo-science of climatology.
Even their graphic Earth depiction is a one sided circular surface. All continents lit at once, no night – very realistic – not!
And so it goes.
Cheers.
Skeptics take this 255 K way too seriously.
It’s only the result of a heuristic calculation. It’s not a number that applies to anything real — it comes from a very simple zero-dimensional model of the Earth’s energy balance AT THE SURFACE. There isn’t any atmosphere in it — it’s all about the surface. It’s just to show students a little about planetary energy balance.
You CAN do slightly more complicated models, with a 1-layer atmosphere, or a 2-layer atmosphere, etc. In those the atmosphere does radiate. The math gets increasingly complicated, but if you look around you’ll see these slightly more complex models being taught. But they’re not reality either!
DA,
I don’t take the 255 K seriously at all. It is complete nonsense. The surface has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature.
No 255 K average to be seen, ever. All the 255 K does is to demonstrate the complete detachment from reality of the pseudo-scientists. Just about as stupid as Pierrehumbert and his 760 000 K.
One is equally as stupid as the other. Unconnected with reality, and pointless into the bargain.
Stupid and ignorant. No wonder the funding is drying up.
Cheers.
If all the Earth does is cool from some molten state, how do you explain the big (and little) ice ages of the past?
See how illogical you are? Really, a child could do better.
p,
You are unable to define”ice age” in any useful way.
This makes you both stupid and ignorant for asking such a pointless and irrelevant question.
You will find that when you have managed to define “ice age”, you will have pointed yourself in the right direction, at least. If you still cannot find the answer after making a little effort yourself, get back to me.
Trying to blame me for your stupidity and ignorance is not going to lessen either for you, is it?
In the meantime, carry on with some childish psychobabble if it makes you feel better.
Cheers.
profp…”If all the Earth does is cool from some molten state, how do you explain the big (and little) ice ages of the past?”
You are claiming those ice ages actually happened, and, if they did, the extreme extent to which they happened.
All we have as evidence is proxy data and we saw how badly that was applied in Mann’s hockey stick.
I am not claiming there were no ice ages, we have decent evidence from different sets of data that the Little Ice Age occurred. I am simply skeptical regarding the extreme extent of them, with ice piling up over the prairie regions of Canada.
I have become seriously skeptical about many claims in science. Big Bangs make no sense nor do black holes. Before space-time nonsense, black holes were considered to be the end product of collapsing stars after they reached the neutron density stage. There is no scientific explanation for why they would collapse further into a black hole.
Within 40 years, the hypothesis has changed. Now black holes are considered to be the product of space-time anomalies, a complete load of garbage. I read a good scientific article the other day which claimed errors in relativity theory by considering time part of the motion of physical bodies rather than a property of the observer’s mind. If the author is right, that throws relativity based on the speed of light right out the window, where it belongs.
http://www.focusing.org/critique_of_relativity.html
Here’s the original article on relativity by Einstein. According to alarmists here we should ignore it since the source has the word Marxist in the URL.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf
Note that the entire theory is based on an observer’s experience with light with the presumption that the time measured by the observer by the hands on a clock have anything to do with the motion of bodies.
It frightens me that someone like Einstein could have missed something so obvious. The speed of light does not belong in measurements using relativity, and Newtonian mechanics without it will suffice to describe bodies moving relative to each other.
If nonsense like time dilation and space-time can come from the human mind, what can we expect from theories of ice ages and evolution?
The human mind can be as dangerous with its observations as it can be brilliant.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If nonsense like time dilation and space-time can come from the human mind….”
Still pigheaded; time dilation has been confirmed experimentally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing
Do you understand what that means? Then why ignore it?
Gordon Robertson says:
“It frightens me that someone like Einstein could have missed something so obvious.”
Now Gordon is smarter than Albert Einstein!!
Dunning-Kruger in spades.
“…the DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The cloudiness is essentially described by only five parameters, which are CLR, FEW, SCT, BKN and OVC (which translate into
clear (sky), few clouds, scattered clouds, broken sky and overcast).
…one only including stations within 25 latitude south and north. This is really a tiny sample, including just 26 stations
(there was a total of 67 stations, but only those 26 were also reporting cloud conditions). These would be located in Key West and
Hawaii, next to some military bases like Guam, Diego Garcia and so on..
In this last sample, which is to be taken with some caution, OVC is finally warmer than CLR. Indeed it is a trend we can see, as we
restrict the sample ever more to tropic and warmer regions. The curve rather tilts to the left, than the right, which comes as a surprise.
Even though the quantity and thus the quality of the data base is diminishing, there is one definite conclusion. There is not the
slightest indication, that clouds would have more of a cooling effect close to the equator. Rather the data suggest the opposite.
Condition Temp. C
CLR 24.79
FEW 25.51
SCT 25.93
BKN 25.97
OVC 24.96
https://pl.scribd.com/document/370673949/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-3
“Another interesting detail is that the intersection of the CLR and OVC lines happens at much lower temperatures in spring (or later
winter) as in autumn. This makes perfect sense, since temperatures will be lagging behind solar intensity by about one month. In
spring we have relatively strong solar radiation, but low surface temperatures. Clouds will accordingly reflect relatively more sun
light than terrestrial infrared. Accordingly OVC will underperform CLR. In autumn it is exactly the opposite way. It is a phenomenon
that should exist in theory, but it is nice to see it confirmed empirically. Also this may be a modest indication, that this analysis is not totally unreasonable.”
https://pl.scribd.com/document/370673949/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-3
I know what I have written. Is there a question to it?
I think that is very important information. Hard work. Thanks.
Unfortunately he’s wrong; there is very clearly a greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus,” 10/9/11.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/
–So it is a theoretical temperature under the assumption of existing clouds, without the existence of clouds!? The absurdity in this should be obvious. This is not just a stupid mistake, it is in fact the foundation of the GHE itself. There is not much remaining of the GHE, once you correct that mistake.
Let us consider those common figures for net cloud forcing, which may range between -13 to -20W/m2, according to my knowledge. These figures would be derived from 44 50W/m2 negative forcing (the albedo effect) and ~30W/m2 positive forcing (emission of LWIR, GHE of clouds).
Now one might wonder, why the albedo effect should be so small all of a sudden (rather than 70-80W/m2 ?), and why LWIR would only be directed downward, not upward?
The NOAA chart teaches something very different:
https://www.weather.gov/images/jetstream/atmos/energy_balance.jpg —
Re: the absurdity in this should be on obvious.
Yeah. Well, bureaucracies tend behave in an odd fashion, and the absurd behavior, convinces many that they are hopeless evil.
Though that would be ignoring that humans will do very evil stuff (genocides, Nazis, and the common petty wickness of people).
That the GHE lacks an author, to blame it on, should enough of a warning considering how people tend to be egoistical.
As far as the graphic goes, it’s interesting. That clouds are suppose to absords 4%, was noteworthy. And that the atmosphere emits but doesn’t reflect is point of interest for me.
To me, it seems they mostly talking about the tropics. And to me, there is no doubt that tropics is the key to Earth’s energy budget (and no doubt, many agree). Perhaps it says it is of tropics (somewhere) or that since it labeled Earth’s energy budget most assume it is of the tropics.
Now it is averaged- so includes nights which no cloud can absorb sunlight, and in sunlight not all sunlit area has clouds, so one might wonder what percentage of clouds is used, and if twice as much clouds then the 4% would double.
They say a clear sky does not reflect sunlight, which is wrong
Drats, posted in middle (again).
So to speed it up, question:
How much would an atmosphere without any clouds, reflect?
And where does atmosphere without clouds reflect the most.
Which is tricky question. Or of the percentage amount sunlight reaching the surface, the tropics has least amount sunlight reflect by cloudless skies. And with clouds, or our current Earth, the tropics reflects the least percentage of sunlight of total amount striking at top of atmosphere: all sunlight coming in and all reflected by anything and going back to space. So tropics receives the most energy of sunlight so even if smaller percentage, one could have large amount reflected sunlight from tropical region.
So graph say atmosphere emits but not reflects to space, and graph says atmosphere emits towards Earth surface. H20 and other gases absords and emit sunlight – shortwave light is that included in the amount the atmosphere emits (to surface or space)? Or is it only IR light?
Water vapor absorbs very little sunlight. But it absorbs a lot of IR.
“How much would an atmosphere without any clouds, reflect?”
Very little. Sure, that may only be true for visible light, but the DSCOVR satellite has made some great pictures of Earth AND moon in the same frame. With the moon it gives us a natural measuring stick to compare it to Earth. The moon has a pretty low albedo of only 0.12-0.13. Clear sky albedo of Earth is much lower than that, and this already includes the (cloudless) athmosphere itself of course. Surface AND atmospheric albedo <0.1!
Most of these <0.1 will come from the surface, not the atmosphere however.
Not to nit pick but how is 1850 the ideal when tens of millions of buffalo were wiped out around then? I bet industrialization didn’t make that up until 1950.
1850 isn’t “ideal” — it’s when the recorded data starts.
What is the climatic effect of the disappearance of 10s M buffalo? Less methane production…. But more grass to take up CO2.
DA,
On the other hand, there were about 6 000 000 sheep at the time, and I’ll let you look up the increase in cattle numbers after rangeland was made available by exterminating most of the bison.
This leads to your “gotcha”, the answer to which is that nobody has the faintest idea.
Asking “gotchas” to which there is no useful answer, is often practised by the stupid and ignorant, in a misguided attempt to appear smart.
Please continue to ignore me. I enjoy it.
Cheers.
Why would anyone reply to you when all you do is call them “stupid” and other insults?
DA,
You just did, oh stupid one!
David, you are truly a wonder. Time for another pointless, irrelevant and eminently stupid “gotcha”, do you think?
Or maybe you could threaten me with not responding, yet again, and again, and again . . .
Just can’t help yourself, can you?
Cheers.
I’m sure you don’t talk to people like this in real life.
You’re nothing but a wannabe cyberbully. One begging for attention and replies. No one takes you seriously because you don’t take yourself seriously. No one wants to be insulted time and time again. It’s sad I have to even tell you this.
Beg elsewhere.
DA,
All of your opinions, plus a few dollars, might buy you a cup of coffee.
If you choose to feel insulted, go ahead. Your choice, of course. I suppose it must gratify you. Otherwise you wouldn’t do it, would you?
Have a good cry, or throw a tantrum and complain loudly to somebody who gives a toss. I certainly don’t – why should I?
A cup of tea and a good lie down might help.
Cheers.
David, it is obvious that the patient cannot see the similarities between his comments and behaviour and that of a naughty, spoilt child. My diagnosis is that he never had children. Possibly never married, most likely because he never matured. I have seen such behaviour in several other cases.
p,
Maybe you could descend into the depths of psychobabble for me.
It would allow you to not having to face inconvenient fact for a while, at least.
Give it a try.
Cheers.
Old man – tell us how you hunted bison and tended sheep on the plains.
BTW – do you play the banjo?
Young myki,
What are you babbling about? Do you aspire to yet new heights of ignorance, stupidity, and absurdity?
I wish you every success. Scale the heights.
Cheers.
Have you heard the expression “duelling banjos”?
Ha ha
+1
N,
What is the point of your stupid, irrelevant and pointless response?
None at all? I thought so.
Cheers.
You dumb simpleton.
Think banjo, duelling banjos, “Deliverance”, inbreeding, inbred aristocracy
Old man – Deliverance was a movie made in 1972. Maybe that is too modern for you.
DA…”1850 isnt ideal its when the recorded data starts”.
1850 also marks the end of the Little Ice Age where global temps had been 1C to 2C below normal. When modern researchers use that starting point they fail to acknowledge the cooling and proceed as if 1850 temps were the norm. They need to explain the warming when there is no need since re-warming from a mini ice age should be obvious.
Some try to dismiss the LIA as being due to volcanic activity. Hardly a likely cause over 400 years of cooling.
Gordon Robertson says:
“1850 also marks the end of the Little Ice Age where global temps had been 1C to 2C below normal.”
False. They were, in the Northern Hemisphere, at most 0.4 C lower:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mbh98_plot_black-white.png?w=720
Gordon Robertson says:
Some try to dismiss the LIA as being due to volcanic activity. Hardly a likely cause over 400 years of cooling.
They aren’t dismissing it, they’re explaining it.
And it was simply volcanic activity, it was that plus the resulting negative ice-albedo feedback:
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
Gordon Robertson
Now if you use simple physics you know the temperature is based upon the type of material , its mass and how much energy it has stored. If it is losing 600 Watts/m^2 it will cool much faster than if it losing 200 watts/m^2.
This posted at the wrong place, should have been above
norman…”Now if you use simple physics you know the temperature is based upon the type of material , its mass and how much energy it has stored. If it is losing 600 Watts/m^2 it will cool much faster than if it losing 200 watts/m^2″.
It’s a far more complex problem than simple physics.
Since it’s a problem involving temperature, the energy stored is heat so why not call it that?
Heat loss, or dissipation, depends on temperature differentials. If a solid body at 20C is suspended by a non-conductive string in room air at 20C it won’t lose any heat to radiation. If the room air warms, it will warm and vice versa of the room air cools.
In a vacuum you have to distinguish between a reality and a thought experiment. A real evacuated container in contact with room air will be affected by the air temperature in the room. Therefore radiation from an object suspended in the vacuum has to radiate to the walls of the container and their temperature should affect the rate of heat dissipation in the object.
I have no idea whether a body radiating in a vacuum can sense surrounding temperatures somehow or whether the theory of radiation applies as presumed. I’d like to see specific evidence.
In space, although it is claimed a vacuum has no temperature, there is a modicum of matter in space, enough to mark it as having a temperature close to absolute zero. Any heated body immersed in space would lose heat very fast due to the vast difference in temperature between it and space.
The temperature of space comes from photons from the cosmic microwave background, not from any matter there (which, anyway, averages only about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter).
It comes to 2.73 K.
Gordon Robertson says:
I have no idea whether a body radiating in a vacuum can sense surrounding temperatures somehow or whether the theory of radiation applies as presumed. Id like to see specific evidence.
What does physics say?
Is there any such evidence?
Are there any theoretical reasons to expect such sensing?
Gordon Robertson says:
In space, although it is claimed a vacuum has no temperature…
Wrong.
No one claims that.
See: cosmic microwave background.
Gordon Robertson
I have given you specific evidence. Why reject it?
You have a IR detecting device pointed down toward the Earth’s surface. It has been lab calibrated to give a value to the IR coming up from the Earth’s surface. It is not pointing toward space so it will only allow Earth’s surface IR to reach the sensing elements.
You have another pointed skyward that gives a value for Downwelling IR.
This confirms the established science that you do not accept for unknown reasons.
The object in a vacuum does not “sense” any temperatures and change how it radiates based upon that sensing value.
Molecules in an object are raised to higher vibrational states by kinetic energy of collisions (higher than ground states which do not emit IR). The surface molecules emit IR based upon this kinetic energy away from the object surface. This rate of energy loss DOES NOT depend upon any surrounding temperatures. It is only based upon the temperature of the object and molecular nature of the material that determines how it can radiate IR (emissivity). A blackbody radiates 100% of the IR at a given temperature, most objects radiate lesser amounts.
The object will be able to absorb energy from the surroundings by different process than emission. When IR is absorbed, the molecule doing the absorbing is at a lower vibrational state and will be able to absorb the IR and move to a higher vibrational state. It is separate than emission. The rate of emission is not affected by the rate IR is absorbed, they are separate processes involving different molecules.
The physics is well established and not in doubt. It works and is used on daily basis in many heat transfer applications. Radiant energy is NOT ignored in heat transfer calculations. In the real world applications all energy is accounted for. They all contribute to the outcome of a particular heat exchange design.
Kristian, can you do your IR argument viewed from space?
As a preliminary, we have a lapse rate, no GHE without it.
With no IR active gases the surface is visible from space, so IR radiation is emitted from the warmest layer you have.
With more IR active gases, the surface is no longer visible in IR, and cooler layers are presented to space.
With less radiation to space, the inside must warm. The surface must shift the lapse rate goal post until radiation balance is restored at the top.
S,
The core is say 5500 K.
The environment surrounding the Earth is around 4 K.
Why do you believe that that the thermal gradient from the surface to the edge of the atmosphere should not be what it is?
There is no GHE. Energy naturally moves from hotter to colder. Entropy increases over all. Redefine the laws of physics all you like. It won’t help, will it?
Calling the atmospheric thermal gradient the lapse rate doesn’t change its nature.
Cheers.
Now, lets see how this proposition holds up.
Let the core temperature = 5500K
Distance from the core to the top of the troposphere ~ 6400km.
Calculated average thermal gradient is therefore ~0.9 K per km.
Observed atmospheric adiabatic lapse rate is about 6.5 K per km
Therefore you are out by a factor of about 7.
I believe we can call “bs” on this one!
p,
You are stupid and ignorant, if you don’t know the difference between solids, liquids and gases, in general, and the specific heats and thermal resistance of substances under differing conditions,
You are stupid and ignorant – even more so, because you do not seem to appreciate that you are, indeed, stupid and ignorant.
Over to you.
Cheers.
You are still out by a factor of 7!
p,
How so, oh stupid and ignorant one?
Cheers.
It is your proposition. I have debunked it. It is now up to you to respond.
p,
All can see the idiocy of using an average inappropriately.
As you demonstrate so adroitly, the average is often the first refuge of the stupid and ignorant attempting to appear clever. Hence they are widely employed by pseudo-scientists masquerading as climatologists.
Try to comprehend what I wrote, if you can.
Cheers.
professorP, please take up the free consultations again.
We have been trying to cure symptoms with facts, it just doesn’t work.
Your approach was much more appropriate.
S,
I suppose if you are so ignorant and stupid that you cannot marshal any facts to support your strange notions, resorting to irrelevant psychobabble is as good as anything.
Are you actually trying to achieve anything, other than demonstrating that you are stupid and ignorant?
I didn’t think so.
Cheers.
Did I say you were out by a factor of 7?
p,
Did I mention you are still stupid and ignorant (not to say pointless and irrelevant)?
Cheers.
The ball is in your court now.
profp…”I believe we can call bs on this one!”
The bs is due to the so-called facts you have provided. How do you get a thermal gradient extending through the Earth’s inner material then out into space?
Do you have any idea what heat is?
A “thermal gradient” can be defined between any two points. Obviously.
At any local point:
local thermal gradient = grad(T)
where grad is defined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient#Definition
This exists at all points of space.
shady, what you are describing is warming the atmosphere. That does NOT translate to the atmosphere warms the planet.
But, there are some that don’t want the facts, huh?
Does the atmosphere radiate?
Does radiation carry energy?
Does some of this energy go downward?
Can you bake a turkey with 10 square meters of ice?
Again you avoid legitimate scientific questions. You always do, because you can’t answer them.
Can you bake a turkey with 10 square meters of ice?
No.
Does the atmosphere radiate?
Does radiation carry energy?
Does some of this energy go downward?
DA,
Does a testable GHE hypothesis exist? No.
End of science.
Are GHE believers therefore deluded, ignorant and stupid for believing that pseaudo-science is reality? Yes.
Cheers.
svante…”With more IR active gases, the surface is no longer visible in IR, and cooler layers are presented to space”.
I beg to differ. The graphs you see of IR absorp-tion have their vertical axes measured in milliwatts whereas surface tempers are normally marked in W/m^2.
I think the graphs are fictitious, based on thought experiments.
Gordon Robertson says:
The graphs you see of IR absorp-tion have their vertical axes measured in milliwatts whereas surface tempers are normally marked in W/m^2.
Wrong all around.
Temperatures are measured in Kelvin or Celsius.
Ab.sorp.tion is typically measured in m^2/kg.
Gordon,
You do not get a clear view of the surface from space through the CO2 a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n lines.
You see higher/cooler levels of the atmosphere.
The level is pushed up by our emissions.
From NASA –
“Model development is an ongoing task. As new physics is introduced, old bugs found and new applications developed, the code is almost continually undergoing minor, and sometimes major, reworking. Thus any fixed description of the model is liable to be out of date the day it is printed. ”
The models are pointless, as Gavin Schmidt keeps discovering new physics. Not being a physicist, or any other kind of scientist, I’m not surprised. He’s supposed to be a mathematician.
That presumably makes his utterance that 2014 was “The hottest year EVAH!”, based on his probability calculation of of 0.38 (38%), authoritative, as long as no one points out that a coin toss has a probability of 0.5 (50%). His knowledge of mathematics seems to be at the same level as his knowledge of physics.
Any first class physicist or mathematician might well assess Gavin as stupid and ignorant. I certainly haven’t seen anything that would convince me otherwise.
GHE true believers will no doubt disagree, and good for them! People are free to be as ignorant and stupid as they wish.
Cheers.
Still out by a factor of 7!
(Note the pathetic attempt at diversion)
Still completely irrelevant and pointless – but good for a laugh, nonetheless.
Keep it up!
Cheers.
No response? Do you want to forfeit?
p,
What are you babbling about? Have you added irrelevant incoherence to your repertoire of stupidity and ignorance?
Cheers.
Just as I thought. You cannot defend your bs proposition so you pretend ignorance.
How childish.
profP, maybe he cannot keep track of more than one post at a time. You appear to have bamboozled him (a symptom of old age).
We have heard all this crap before. Try coming up with something original.
D,
I’m not sure what mental perturbations might possibly lead you to believe that I would accede to your bizarre demand. Have you any idea?
I’m pleased that you agree that Gavin Schmidt’s pretentious cavorting is “crap”.
You have no doubt heard it all before, but many others may not. I trust you will thank me for my efforts to disseminate that which you already know, but decline to publicise widely.
Have you found a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis yet? Only joking – the concept of the scientific method is obviously foreign to GHE supporters!
Cheers.
Boring.
Same old.
Old man – why do you keep harping on about Gavin Schmidt ? What has he got to do with Monckton’s reply?
Young Myki,
I do as I wish. I appreciate your interest and support.
I have no intention of providing you with an answer. Why should I?
Cheers.
Myki, his behaviour mimics that of a sprayed cockroach. When discovered they scuttle off in various directions. In his case he has been caught pedalling some rubbish about the core temperature controlling the lapse rate. I have challenged him to respond but he scuttles.
It must be sad getting old.
Sorry, that’s me.
p,
Luckily, not everyone is as stupid and ignorant as yourself. Learn physics – all will be revealed.
Cheers.
Scuttle scuttle.
Mike Flynn
Your post is almost correct. If you add these changes you have your first valid post. You can thank me for helping you.
What your comment should have said: “Luckily, not everyone is as stupid and ignorant as I am. I need to learn physics – all will be revealed.”
If you would apply your personal attacks to your own thought process you might actually benefit. I think you read a couple pop physics books (never ever an actual textbook) and now you know more about all physics than people who have done actual experiments, studied the material their entire careers, collaborated with other informed and knowledgeable peers. Your total arrogance is amazing. You know that you have very little actual knowledge of physics but you pretend to be the expert. Sometimes you want to place your pathetic physics knowledge in there with Richard Feynman. Just using his name in your mindless, irrelevant posts does not equate you to this genius. Pretend you know physics, pretend you have good thinking ability. You obviously need to feel like you are valid and people should respect your empty opinions.
I think there are at least three posters who pretend to know physics. Two of the posters will add brilliant scientists in their garbage posts hoping to pretend to know what they are talking about. Another adds nothing just pretends for the sake of pretending.
Norman: and isn’t it telling that the people here who know the least science are the ones spewing the most insults?
norman…”I think there are at least three posters who pretend to know physics. Two of the posters will add brilliant scientists in their garbage posts hoping to pretend to know what they are talking about. Another adds nothing just pretends for the sake of pretending”.
Not like you, eh normie? You read one book on engineering thermodynamics and get it wrong. You miss the most crucial part that infrared radiation does not apply to terrestrial temperatures, it’s only valid at very high temperatures.
As Wood claimed circa 1909, surface radiation would be ineffective more than a few feet above the ground.
ProfessorP, having seen his behavior for awhile — virulent, vile, hateful, rabid — it’s clear there is something seriously wrong with this person, that’s not going to change. This kind of behavior is far from normal. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not fair to engage someone like this in replies or conversation. We wouldn’t if this were happening to us in real life. Reactions are exactly what he’s looking for. We can all guess as to why, but ultimately this is a sad situation and he shouldn’t be encouraged.
Yes appelly, not only does Norman behave like you describe, but he has no background in physics. He’s just a clown.
Enjoy his comedy routines. They’re fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
I have only had one college course in physics, I did take it in High School as well. The funny thing is that I have more physics background then your zero level.
Since you have no science background at all you would not know this but Physics is a very extensive branch of science that covers many different areas.
One can be an expert say in the field of electromagnetism but know only some material on thermodynamics.
I have chosen to learn the physics of thermodynamics from textbook material to learn to understand the subject. Since I have done this work I have considerable knowledge over you. I have considerable less knowledge than a expert in this field.
Compared with your horrible science, your pretend expertise concerning ideas you can’t understand at all, I am quite the expert. You are not intelligent enough to learn what I have, nor logical enough to offer valid opinions.
As I stated before, your skepticism of AGW is not what I don’t like about you. It is your phony personality, your lack of physics knowledge and your pretending to be this expert when you are quite the dork.
g*: Norman is thoughtful and decent. He clearly works hard to understand the physics and science of climate. He provides data and rationales for his claims. He’s more genuinely interested in learning than anyone else on this forum. For that, for not being able to provide scientific responses to him, you abuse him all the time. You’re another one who wouldn’t do this in real life, who insults people only when hiding behind a keyboard, who is continually indecent. Character is what you do in the dark.
Jelly, you and the con-man are both clowns. Almost everything either of you writes is inaccurate. For example, here’s Norman being “thoughtful and decent”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293405
g*e*r*a*n
Posting a link to a comment without context does not support your claim. My response to you was because you jumped into a conversation I was having with another poster (I had asked you specifically NOT to send any comments to me or jump into any of my comments not directed to you).
Since you do not respect anyone, I am just being highly descriptive of they person you are. Read the post again and you will understand.
So if you respect my wishes and do not respond to my posts I will respect you. Just do it and we will both be good. Like I stated, I am NOT in the least bit interested in your opinions, ideas or comments. I am happy Roy Spencer allows people like you to post, that does not mean I want anything to do with you. So if you quit jumping in a comment I am making to someone else, I will not post anything negative about you (like calling you a dork or a baby with poopy diaper).
Leave it at that. If you show me zero respect then you get all you deserve and so quit being a baby and crying about it.
That was Norman only after many taunts and insults from you. Very understandable. You had it coming.
I could link to many more uncalled-for rants from the con-man. I could link to almost as many of appelly, that are just plain stupid.
But, neither of you wants reality. You only want to spread your pseudoscience, seemingly willing to use whatever tactics are necessary.
It’s fun to watch.
Nobody is a saint. But when I’ve insulted someone, I’ve done it using my real name. Everyone knows who I am. You do your far more copious insults while hiding.
David Appell
One problem with g*e*r*a*n is that he is just a waste of blog space. You interacted with him for several posts (he called you “jelly” many times”) and nothing of value in any of his posts.
If he were a rational skeptic that pointed out valid and real physics I would value his contributions. After many interactions with this poster, I find he brings nothing of value to the table and actually is highly detrimental. He makes up false points and declarations. When I point out his flaws with established physics, he just responds that I don’t understand it. So I ask him to explain what I don’t understand. He doesn’t, he offers nothing of value.
I like to read posts with some real and valuable physics or ideas. I have to scroll through many posts by g*e*r*a*n and Mike Flynn.
Neither has the slightest knowledge of actual physics but both think they are some brilliant PhD scientists and the whole scientific community are complete idiots. When you have people of this nature you just want to ignore them. You post a link that shows the Moon is clearly rotating and orbiting, but he just makes some stupid claims about toy trains or that people (including all scientists that study orbital mechanics and launch probes to other worlds successfully based upon what they know) don’t understand orbital mechanics.
He used to have his favorite word “hilarious” now it is “its fun to watch”.
I totally agree with you, Norman.
One of the funny things about you two clowns is you both believe you have done nothing wrong. The con-man hasn’t ever falsely accused me, in his mind. Jelly hasn’t ever tried to slime over the truth, in his mind.
You two are hilarious, as you try to peddle your pseudoscience, and rant at the ones that catch you.
It’s fun to watch.
I don’t believe that. I’m doing the best I can. Which you rarely respond to, except with insults. (Like the 150 W/m2.) You have no interest in discussing the science, and you show this time & time again. Which is why no one here takes you seriously. I certainly don’t — you haven’t earned it; just the opposite.
Jelly the Clown, how many hints have I given you about your silly 150 W/m^2. You don’t want to learn. How many times have I explained the toy train is NOT rotating on its axis, and that is the same motion as the Moon. You don’t want to learn. How many times have I told you it is impossible for a 5800 K source to heat something to 800,000 K? You don’t want to learn.
You want to be a clown.
I have no problem with you being a clown. I enjoy humor.
More, please.
You’re wrong about all three of those.
Why, specifically, is the 150 W/m2 wrong?
Try to reply without insults.
Jelly, how am I insulting you? I’m just encouraging you to continue insulting yourself, with you ignorant questions and arrogant attitude.
It’s fun to watch.
Being a jerk is one way you hide and avoid science.
—
Why, specifically, is the 150 W/m2 wrong?
You can’t add different fluxes, clown.
Of course you can add fluxes, you dumb idiot.
You’re ignorance is showing.
Latest tally of Jelly the Clown pseudoscience:
1) He’s still hilariously confused about the toy train.
2) He claims a 5800 K source can radiatively heat Earth to 800,000 K.
3) He claims Earth is heating the Sun.
4) Now, he claims you can add/subtract different fluxes.
He is so serious about being a clown.
It’s fun to watch.
You’re still scrambling around, throwing up flack, doing anything to avoid answering the 150 W/m2 question.
(You deniers don’t seen to understand how easy it is for us to see completely through your responses!)
No clown, I’m scrambling around trying not to miss any of your hilarious pseudoscience. You’re on a roll tonight.
(You clowns dont seen to understand how easy it is for us to see completely through your pseudoscience! We like to say “it’s fun to watch”.)
Just explain where the additional 150 W/m2 comes from.
That’s all it takes. But yet you’re doing anything but….
Clown, I’ve given you enough hints and clues about the 150. If you were truly interested in science, you would have responded accordingly. But, as always, you ran from the truth.
That’s the role of a clown.
You’re doing a great job.
Where does the additional 150 W/m2 come from?
norman…”I have chosen to learn the physics of thermodynamics from textbook material to learn to understand the subject”.
Did it ever occur to you that you got it wrong?
mike…”The models are pointless, as Gavin Schmidt keeps discovering new physics. Not being a physicist, or any other kind of scientist, Im not surprised. Hes supposed to be a mathematician”.
I wonder if he’s discovered what positive feedback means yet? He seems to have no problem using a 38% confidence level to claim recent years as the warmest EVAH.
Dr. Schmidt is well aware of positive feedbacks.
“38%” wasn’t a “confidence interval.”
How would you prefer to compare two numbers, each of which has error bars?
DA,
Why should he answer your “gotcha”? I assume you think you know the answer, so why ask a pointless question?
Are you stupid and ignorant? Trolling, even?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
DA…”Dr. Schmidt is well aware of positive feedbacks”.
Are they handing out doctorates for mathematics these days?
I can just see Schmiddy watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon in a movie theatre:
Bugs [on screen]….Is there a doctor in the house.
Scmiddy [arising}…I’m a doctor.
Bugs…Eh, what’s up doc?
Schmiddy…Up??? Do you mean relative to down? I don’t understand.
Member of audience…Sit down for cripe’s sake, you’re talking to a cartoon character.
Schmiddy to his friend David Appell…the answer was relevant, don’t you think?
DA…kiss, kiss…uh…. oh sure Schmiddy.
For the benefit of the stupid and ignorant with poorly developed comprehension skills, I ask again –
“Why do you believe that that the thermal gradient from the surface to the edge of the atmosphere should not be what it is?”
I don’t expect a cogent answer, of course. Oh well, that’s the triumph of GHE faith over fact.
Cheers.
You have been given the answer – you are out by a factor of 7.
Again –
“Why do you believe that that the thermal gradient from the surface to the edge of the atmosphere should not be what it is?”
What has a factor of 7 to do with my question? Are you seeing invisible numbers?
Cheers.
Stop scuttling – I showed you are out by a factor of 7. Read it again, slowly.
p,
You showed you were ignorant and stupid by attempting to refute a straw man of your own creation- nothing else. Read that as slowly as you like.
Others will no doubt form their own opinion.
Cheers.
I have just learnt that Gavin Schmidt is involved with a court case. This is very informative:
“A federal judge has climate science questions. Here are the answers.”
1. What caused the various ice ages (including the little ice age and prolonged cool periods) and what caused the ice to melt? When they melted, by how much did sea level rise? (Natural changes in the Earths orbit and the amount of greenhouse gases. Sea level rose a lot more than 400 feet.)
2. What is the molecular difference by which CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but oxygen and nitrogen do not? (Three-atom molecules vibrate more easily than two-atom molecules.)
3. What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level? (Greenhouse gases like CO2 emit extra trapped energy from the sun, warming the surface.)
4. Does CO2 in the atmosphere reflect any sunlight back into space such that the reflected sunlight never penetrates the atmosphere in the first place? (Yes, but not enough to matter.)
5. Apart from CO2, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels? How, if at all, does this collective heat contribute to warming of the atmosphere? (The amount of heat from the sun thats trapped by greenhouse gases is 100 times more than direct heat from fossil fuel burning.)
6. In grade school, many of us were taught that humans exhale CO2 but plants absorb CO2 and return oxygen to the air (keeping the carbon for fiber). Is this still valid? If so, why hasnt plant life turned the higher levels of CO2 back into oxygen? Given the increase in human population on Earth (four billion), is human respiration a contributing factor to the buildup of CO2? (Yes, this is still valid but this process is roughly carbon neutral, so there is no major impact on the climate. And human respiration of CO2 is 10,000 times too small to matter to the climate.)
7. What are the main sources of CO2 that account for the incremental buildup of CO2in the atmosphere? (Fossil fuel burning and deforestation)
8. What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? (Human activities are likely responsible for 93 to 123 percent of recent global warming. It can go over 100 percent because were canceling out what would be natural cooling.)
Dr Schmidt notes:
Despite the attempted interventions from the fringe, I doubt that the defendants or plaintiffs will be making much hay with the science.
M,
Read the transcript. Schmidt was not asked to participate, possibly because he is not a scientist. Or maybe because the plaintiffs thought he was not terribly competent. I don’t know. Do you?
Cheers.
myki…”I have just learnt that Gavin Schmidt is involved with a court case. This is very informative:”
What’s your point? Schmidt could not explain positive feedback, without which his models will fail. He believes CO2 can warm the atmosphere from 9% to 25% even though given it’s mass, the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s law of partial pressures limits it’s warming to a few hundredths of a degree C.
He avoided a debate with a real atmospheric physicist, Richard Lindzen, because he’d have gotten his butt kicked.
Your appeal to authority falls short. Try butt-kissing with people who don’t understand the serious limitations of Schmidt and his ilk.
Gordon Robertson says:
Schmidt could not explain positive feedback, without which his models will fail.
Gordon, why do you do this?
Positive feedbacks are easily understood. They’re reality. No one but you tries to deny that.
He believes CO2 can warm the atmosphere from 9% to 25% even though given its mass, the Ideal Gas Law and Daltons law of partial pressures limits its warming to a few hundredths of a degree C.
You ignore radiative transfer. You know you ignore it and yet you lie anyway.
Don’t you have any self-respect?
Just to clarify:
This is about the lawsuit by a number of municipalities (including San Francisco and Oakland) against the major oil companies for damages (related primarily to sea level rise) caused by anthropogenic climate change.
Rofl,
Of course its about money… Just another attempt to squeeze more gold out of the goose…
Im quite sure that the vast majority of climate alarmists have never heard the tale of the goose that laid golden eggs,
And probably also have no idea that cheap energy is what has given us such a high standard of living…
Stop trying to steal the wealth created by others…. Oh wait … Thats the underlying reason for the climate change scare… To put wealth and power in the hands of unelected UN officials so they can control us…
So who should pay for the costs of sea level rise? Or air pollution?
The same sources that fund you. They obviously have funding to waste.
DA,
Not me. You can pay my share if it doubles your happiness. Maybe you could sue Nature if you want your money back?
Cheers.
What costs would those be?
Co2 is not a pollutant.
PhilJ says:
Co2 is not a pollutant.
Define “pollutant.”
Then explain why manmade CO2 isn’t one.
—
In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the Supreme Court held that manmade GHGs are air pollutants for regulatory purposes, under the Clean Air Act and its amendments, passed by Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
There you go with a new clown routine, Jelly.
“CO2 is different from CO2”!
Hilarious pseudoscience.
Explain why the Supreme Court was wrong in declaring manmade CO2 a pollutant.
DA,
Demands, demands. Have you tried demanding that the US Government bow to your demands?
How did that work out? Why should anybody take any more notice of you?
Maybe you are keeping your awesome secret powers to influence, too well hidden?
Just a thought.
Cheers.
The costs of sea level rise include the cost of the land being inundated.
The cost of fossil fuel pollution includes the medical costs, and lost productivity, to treat the millions of people who suffer from traditional air pollution, including the 7 M people globally who die from it every year.
Who should pay those costs?
—
The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel for more than just electricity use causes damages of _at least_ $120 B/yr to health and the environment:
Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
(Dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.)
DA,
“Exterminate all fossil fuel users” seems to be your call. Producing goods like fuel seems to be perfectly legal. Are you complaining that people actually dare to use fuel to improve their perceived lifestyle?
Who should pay the costs for people who die in car crashes? The road builders? Without roads, their would be no “road accidents” would there?
You could demand that all CO2 be removed from the atmosphere. That will exterminate all humans on the planet in short order. End of problem!
Next!
Cheers.
(1) “Who should pay the costs for people who die in car crashes? ”
What costs? – other than the funeral.
(2) Some dumb simpletons don’t understand that all the costs are currently met – mainly by the poor tax-payers – while big businesses and their wealthy shareholders and executives contribute zilch. Times are about to change.
‘The costs of sea level rise include the cost of the land being inundated’
And this is happening where exactly?
If i build right beside the ocean , then it only makes sense that I bear the cost of any damage to my property from the ocean…
Also, i dont care a whit what the us supreme court says about co2 as a pollutant… That doesnt make it one
D,
You might have overlooked the minor fact that Obama is no longer the US President, and Hillary Clinton did not succeed him.
Your calls for revolution might be a bit premature, don’t you think?
I’ll support you (from a distance, of course) if I agree with your manifesto. Where might I obtain a copy, or is it still imaginary, so far?
When might this change occur? What form will it take? Have you thought the details thorough yet, or are you just behaving in an erratic, stupid, and ignorant fashion because things aren’t going according to your wishes?
It all sounds a little bit childish and petulant, you know. I’ll await your response.
Cheers.
PhilJ: Many people have lived along the coast for decades.
Who pays when property is inundated?
Who pays for the respiratory damages of air pollution from fossil fuels?
The Supreme Court sets the law or the land. So, yes, it matters to you, unless you don’t care what taxes you pay.
David,
Many people have lived beside the coast for thousands of years… What of it?
As for who pays when land is inundated… Well the land owner surely unless they have paid someone else to assume that risk…
Probably why one shouldnt build in a flood plain ..
As for the supreme court .. I am not American .. But it is my understanding that the legislative branch sets the law of the land and the judiciary interprets and adjudicates it.. Has this changed in America?
Why do you get to destroy the property of others — through the sea level rise due to the warming caused by your burning of fossil fuels?
When else do you have a free hand to destroy the property of others?
Lol…
My use of fossil fuels is in no way responsible for a rising sea level.
Anyone building at sea level beside the ocean that doesnt recognize the inherent risk in doing so is entirely responsible for their own foolishness if a storm inundates their property and causes damage..
Wht should i compensate them for their poor planning?
PhilJ says:
As for the supreme court .. I am not American .. But it is my understanding that the legislative branch sets the law of the land and the judiciary interprets and adjudicates it.
Yes, you’re wrong. The legislative branch writes the laws, the President signs off on them (or not), and the judicial branch interprets their implementation.
In this case the Supreme Court decided the Clean Air Act and its amendments, as written and passed, meant that CO2 was a “pollutant” under the Act’s statutes, and hence could be regulated.
DA…”The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel for more than just electricity use causes damages of _at least_ $120….”
NAS, the once proud institution, had a very strict entry code. You had to be voted in by members.
They made the mistake of allowing entry to climate alarmists and they started voting in more alarmists and now NAS is an empty-shell institution. Anything they say these days is not worth the paper it is written on.
PhilJ…”My use of fossil fuels is in no way responsible for a rising sea level”.
The sea level near me drops several feet every day. The tidal marks have been in the same location for decades, maybe centuries.
myki…”Just to clarify:
This is about the lawsuit by a number of municipalities (including San Francisco and Oakland) against the major oil companies…”
********
Say no more… a load of eco-alarmist whiners trying to cash in on pseudo-science.
Why did they not call John Christy of UAH to give evidence of real temperature data? Why did they call someone who claims record temperatures based on fudged confidence levels. GISS dropped the CL from an appropriate 90% level down to 38% in order to move a recent year into first place.
And you applaud such chicanery.
Gordon Robertson says:
Why did they not call John Christy of UAH to give evidence of real temperature data?
Because John Christy’s specialization is in satellite measurements of the troposphere and lower stratosphere, not surface temperatures or sea level rise.
DA,
Have you bothered to read the transcript? No?
Cheers.
DA…”Because John Christys specialization is in satellite measurements of the troposphere and lower stratosphere, not surface temperatures or sea level rise”.
Still spreading that horse manure about UAH surface data are you?
***********
The various satellite telemetry weightings, as Roy calls them, overlap each other right INTO the surface. UAH data covers the surface more accurately and mote comprehensively than the seriously spread out surface stations, none of which measure surface temperatures anyway. They are located at least 5 feet above the surface.
Furthermore, the UAH data covers the entire ocean surface while the surface data omits moist of the oceans, which cover 70% of the planet.
Moreover, UAH does not fudge their data in a climate model, using very low confidence levels to make temperatures appear hotter. Neither do they discard 75% of their real data and recreate it in a climate model using less than 25% of the data.
Wake up!!!
UAH do not provide a surface temperature product and never have. The satellites they use are only able to give a weighted average of the lower troposphere between the surface and about 13 kms altitude, centred on 4km.
To repeat – and this should not be a point of contention for anyone who is familiar with UAH – this product does not and cannot supply values for surface temperature.
Gordon agreed with this a few threads ago when shown the evidence and direct quotes from Spencer and Christy, but appears to have forgotten. Yes, the satellites used for UAH can see all the way to the surface, but are unable to isolate radiance measurements near the surface from radiance measurements throughout the troposphere.
“Why did they not call John Christy of UAH to give evidence of real temperature data?”
EASY: Because, as we all know, the UAH data has been corrupted by NASA!
“Why did they call someone who claims record temperatures based on fudged confidence levels.”
EASY: They didn’t call any such person.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why did they not call John Christy of UAH to give evidence of real temperature data?”
In an argument before the court, each side gets to call whomever they want.
On the con.sen.sus side, there were thousands of scientists available. The plaintiffs chose Myles_Allen, a superb and highly respected scientist with a wide knowledge of climate science.
That’s all they thought they needed.
Beyond that, any parties could file “friendly” documents to the court. Monckton did. Lindzen_et al did. I suspect Dr. Schmidt didn’t see any need to file to the court, since the tu_tor_ial asked by Judge Alsup was easy to answer from many other parties. That’s not what N_A_S_A pays Dr. Schmidt to do.
Frost from Canada will move to the Great Lakes.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/7tsmw6f25sns.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/ezmz5v9vlj93.png
The Earth’s surface receives an average of 240 W/m2 from the Sun.
But, at an average temperature of 288 K, it radiates 390 W/m2.
Where does the other 150 W/m2 come from?
DA,
Your gotcha generator is stuck in an endless loop.
Why should anybody bother answering a machine run by a stupid and ignorant operator?
Either the machine or the operator needs attention and debugging.
Cheers.
A blackbody surface at 288 K in vacuum radiates 390 watts and the assumption is that surface has no other heat loss other than radiant heat loss.
Earth surface is not a blackbody surface and is not in a vacuum, nor is Earth’s surface air a blackbody surface or is it in vacuum.
The surface air does not radiate much heat and transfers by convectional process involving transfer of kinetic energy.
The surface of Earth is mostly water with about 30% land surfaces.
The main way the Earth ocean surface transfers heat is via evaporation am heat loss. The land surfaces have convectional heat loss which warms the air above the land surface, and land surface also has evaporational losses which cool the land surfaces. And also ocean and land surface have radiant heat lose to space. So as for missing 150 watt, the evaporation and convectional heat loss could be your answer.
Earth’s surface is a very good blackbody in the infrared.
DA,
Who cares what it’s “like”?
Scientists are more interested in what it “is”.
You obviously aren’t – being more interested in pseudo-science, which is based on imaginary physics, where the Earth is either 760 000 K, or 0 K, or somewhere in between, depending on your “feelings”.
Maybe if you actually specified the precise wavelengths involved, measured emissivities at those wavelengths, the actual absolute temperatures involved, with no stupid and imaginary averages or assumptions, you wouldn’t need to pose such a stupid and ignorant “gotcha”.
The answer would be a simple calculation – which is obviously beyond you, because you have to ask someone else for an answer! Posing a “gotcha” which is impossible to answer unambiguously just shows the stupidity and ignorance of the poser. Did you enjoy that particular play on words?
Cheers.
Even if it was, Earth surface is not in a vacuum, and 390 watts from blackbody surface is 288 K only in vacuum of space.
But a transparent surface is not blackbody, nor does most of land surface resemble a blackbody surface.
gbaikie says:
Even if it was, Earth surface is not in a vacuum, and 390 watts from blackbody surface is 288 K only in vacuum of space.
Not it isn’t.
288 K radiates 390 W/m2 for any blackbody. Whereever it is.
You clearly don’t have an explanation for how 240 W/m2 turns into 390 W/m2.
gbaikie says:
So as for missing 150 watt, the evaporation and convectional heat loss could be your answer.
No — those are already accounted for:
https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere
DA,
That would no doubt be the ridiculous Trenberth cartoon, I suppose? The one that shows the Earth as a flat disk, with all the continents bathed in sunlight simultaneously, no night, and the ususal imaginary physics involved?
Maybe it’s “like” the contents of the brain that devised it. It certainly has no relationship to reality. Tha’s why you link to it no doubt – hoping somebody will think you are clever.
So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Dumb simpleton cannot even interpret a cartoon correctly.
Yes. They have no answer for this 150 W/m2. None.
Jelly the Clown, how many kangaroos do you get when you add 150 oranges to 150 bricks?
Since you like adding/subtracting different things.
Hilarious.
You clearly have no answer for this 150 W/m2.
As Jelly the Clown smugly walks away, not realizing he has proven once again that he has no understanding of physics.
It’s fun to watch.
Still no explanation for the 150 W/m2.
By now it’s clear you don’t have one.
As usual clown, you haven’t learned any physics tonight.
Even with all the clues I gave you, you still believe you can add different fluxes.
Hilarious.
Still no explanation for the 150 W/m2.
ibid
Yes, fluxes add. (Obviously.)
Still can’t explain the 150 W/m2.
No reason to take deniers like you seriously.
Hilarious. Now drano has joined in the performance.
More, please.
I should charge appearance fees.
g*,
Drano would find himself supping rather thin gruel if he tried to live off his appearance fees, I warrant.
His opinions are worth at least as much.
Cheers.
“Drano would find himself supping rather thin gruel if he tried to live off his appearance fees, I warrant.”
Come on. You know you would miss me!
gbaikie says:
“Since I believe CO2 and water vapor does have warming effect,
the missing 50 watts which of course mostly water vapor (and clouds) is somewhere close being correct.”
What’s missing is 150 W/m2, not 50 W/m2.
Where is it?
According to your cited reference, it 70+ for evaporation and 20+ for convection or about 100 of the 150.
Other diagram show different values, but that one seems closer to being correct in sense that it seems closer regarding evaporation losses.
Since I believe CO2 and water vapor does have warming effect,
the missing 50 watts which of course mostly water vapor (and clouds) is somewhere close being correct.
Or it suppose idea that doubling of C02 less than 1 C of warming. Perhaps more accurate measurements will indicate less than 1/2 C .
gbaikie says:
“According to your cited reference, it 70+ for evaporation and 20+ for convection or about 100 of the 150. Other diagram show different values”
Do they? Which ones?
Links please.
Arrg
It supports idea that doubling CO2 causes less than 1 C of warming.
Anyhow, the major factor of what is the causing Earth to be warmer is the ocean.
And other important aspect is that 15 C is fairly cool and most of land area has average temperature cooler than 15 C,
Canada and Russian is about -4 C. China is colder than US which is about 12 C, and average of all land is about 10 C.
India is quite warm and as nation has a high population density. And India has always been warm and always had high population compared rest of world. And it seems to me, that India should be governed so as to deal with urban heat island effects. Which is an important issue for some countries.
gb: You wrote, “Other diagram show different values.”
What diagrams are those?
Please provide links to them. Thanks.
I have seen quite a few of them. But here:
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2014/03/agw-theory-back-radiation-insignificant.html
It’s discussing a couple.
Which diagram there am I supposed to be looking at?
And where was it published?
–We will compare these more recent energy budgets from NASA with the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget of 1997 which was featured in the UN IPCC 4th assessment report of 2007. That budget is shown below with my conversions to percentage of the solar insolation power density at the top of the atmosphere.–
In diagram:
Thermals: 24 (7%)
Evapo-transpiration: 78 (22.8%)
And link you first cited:
Thermals: 17
Evapo transpiration: 80
And I said what you cited is close enough and gives higher evaporation number and I think a higher evaporation number seems more likely to me.
Or can’t say like the whole diagram, but it did pick fairly high quantity which is evaporated.
Poor Jelly the Clown. He asks the same question over and over, with an arrogant air, adding to the hilarity. He doesn’t know enough physics to figure out he is trying to add two different spectra.
What a clown!
It’s fun to watch.
You can’t answer the question (which is about energy, not “spectra” (whatever that means)).
Where does the additional 150 W/m2 come from?
No clown, it is NOT about energy. It is about fluxes. You don’t have enough physics background to understand the difference.
It’s hilarious.
More, please.
Fluxes ARE energy. Just per unit time and per unit area.
So where does the additional 150 W/m2 comes from?
DA,
From Trenberth’s “missing heat’ obviously! Where is it?
I don’t know – it’s “missing”! Ask a climatologist?
Cheers.
See Jelly, you don’t want to learn.
If you understood the physics, you would know that different fluxes to NOT add. I’m not sure which is funnier, you or the rabid chihuahua.
g*,
It seems that David is a bit disappointed that you are unwilling to follow him down the rabbit hole of his choosing.
I suppose that he objects to being characterised as stupid and ignorant by me as well. Oh well, I can probably cope with David refusing to provide me with stupid and ignorant answers if I ever demand any from him.
He must have a magical CO2 source detector to detect CO2 from natural fires as opposed to that emanating from fires created by humans. I’m surprised he hasn’t made it available to arson investigators trying to figure out the origins of a forest fire.
At least he can’t do much harm with his imaginary pseudo-science.
Cheers.
Poor Jelly. Someone told him that CO2 had “name tags” that told where it came from, like “Made in China”.
Poor jelly, he believes anything the alarmists tell him.
g:
“If you understood the physics, you would know that different fluxes do NOT add.”
Is that right?
How do you distinguish one flux from another?
If I sit in the sun I warm.
If I sit next to a radiator I warm.
Are you saying that if I sat in the sun next to a radiator that I would not get hot? – because the different fluxes do not add? If so, which flux doesn’t get added? Where does it go?
All very mysterious!
Hilarious
g*, you can’t explain where the 150 W/m2 comes from.
Myki, do you believe the flux from 3-100 Watt incandescent light bulbs is the same as the flux from a square meter of ice (300 Watts/m^2)?
If your answer is “yes”, then you are qualified to be a “pseudoscience clown”!
g*e*r*a*n says:
Someone told him that CO2 had name tags that told where it came from, like Made in China.
Actually it’s very easy to tell where CO2 came from — fossil fuels or the natural cycle — via ratios of carbon isotopes.
Read and learn:
http://www.realclimate[DOT]org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
It seems that links to “realclimate.org” are not allowed to — you have to substitute for the dot.
How lame — A science blog that blocks scientific evidence.
Jelly, you tried isotopes before. It’s funny the first time, but try something different.
How about tea leaves, or reading your navel? How about snorting tea leaves, while being dropped from an airplane. Now, that would be hilarious.
Glad to help.
Why do you think the isotope argument is wrong?
Young Myki,
You are both stupid and ignorant.
Bathe in the 300 W/m2 radiation emitted by a block of ice. Not hot enough? Surround yourself with ice! Even more ice! Add the fluxes! Thousands of Watts of pure heat energy!
How can you still be cold? Add the back radiation and Davids missing 150 W/m2. You are feeling quite toasty now aren’t you? Only joking – you might well be too stupid and ignorant to accept reality.
Cheers.
Jelly the Clown now tries to act like he understands radiometric dating!
Hilarious.
More please.
Again, why do you think the isotope argument is wrong?
g
“Myki, do you believe the flux from 3-100 Watt incandescent light bulbs is the same as the flux from a square meter of ice (300 Watts/m^2)?”
Even I can spot your mistake. You have mixed Watts with Watts per meter squared.
And I am only a humble student!
Clown, if you had ever studied radiometric dating, you would know that a number of assumptions must be made. Because the solution is based on an exponential, large errors are likely. IOW, you can’t tell where a molecule of CO2 came from.
Unless you thrive on pseudoscience. ..
Myki boasts: “Even I can spot your mistake. You have mixed Watts with Watts per meter squared. And I am only a humble student!”
Well Myki, you need to be a lot more humbler. I indicated “flux”, when referring to the 3-100 Watt bulbs.
do you believe the flux from 3-100 Watt incandescent light bulbs
Be a good student and avoid pseudoscience. You don’t want to grow up to be a clown.
Fossil carbon has been underground for 10s of millions of years — it is entirely bereft of radioactivity.
There is no exponential dependence to evaluate. The radioactivity is nil.
Try to actually understand the science.
http://www.realclimate[DOT]org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Roy’s site doesn’t allow links to realclimate[DOT]org.
Roy is censoring science. Wow.
Myki,
Tell me, young man, does 3 m^2 of ice emit 3 times the radiation of 1 m^2 of ice?
If it does, should you be 3 times as warm from 3 times as much radiation? Surely you could add the radiation? Climatologists do it all the time – add a bit here, subtract a bit there, have bit left over for afters.
Maybe you have had the brilliant idea that concentrating the radiation from 1 m^2 of ice into 1 cm^2 would multiply the intensity by 10 000. You could use a large magnifying lens or parabolic mirror.
What would the resultant temperature be from 300 W/m2 concentrated to 3 000 000 W/m2?
I don’t think it works that way, but stupid and ignorant climatologists might! What do you think?
Can you add things like back radiation to other things and make something hotter? Would it work in the tropical arid deserts at night, or could temperatures still drop below freezing?
Would more CO2 help? These questions should be a snap to you, using “new physics”, I suppose. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. I’m not David Appell.
Thank goodness.
Cheers.
Jelly the Clown continues with his new comedy routine: “There is no exponential dependence to evaluate. The radioactivity is nil.”
Obviously the poor clown does not realize that almost every time crude oil is tested, it is found with Carbon-14. The answer is that it was “contaminated”.
Hilarious.
Clowns and their pseudoscience, a perfect match.
Is it? Prove it.
Clown, you won’t accept truth. You know that. You won’t even admit the truth about the simple toy train. And you don’t have a clue about physics.
That’s why you’re a clown.
You still haven’t explained a single thing.
Just a nothing clueless denier.
Clown, I can explain. But you can’t understand.
You’re a clown, with no intention of ever accepting truth. And I think it’s hilarious.
More, please.
Laugh all you want — you still haven’t explained where the additional 150 W/m2 comes from….
Flynn
Will you ever attempt to read a physics book? I guess you won’t. Fantastic, I read your mind.
You have little knowledge of heat transfer. If you read even a little on the topic your knowledge would expand enormously. Currently you know so little that even a little bit would be a large increase over your current level.
Flynn, you post this nonsense: “You are both stupid and ignorant. (you should state it properly. It would not be “you” it would be “I am” both stupid and ignorant. You are the one who is failing physics. You are definitely lower than an F student. I am thinking you are close to zero level physics).
Bathe in the 300 W/m2 radiation emitted by a block of ice. Not hot enough? Surround yourself with ice! Even more ice! Add the fluxes! Thousands of Watts of pure heat energy!”
If you had even the slightest understanding of heat transfer (which you do not) you would understand the concept of View Factor. It is not about how much energy objects are emitting that would determine how it affects surrounding objects. It is about how much energy the surrounding objects can receive. It is calculable using View Factor math (something much above your level of math ability, sorry only you can help yourself by learning some math).
If you have an object surrounded by 1000 m^2 of ice emitting 300 W/m^2 that would not mean the object is able to absorb 300000 Watts of energy. It would depend on its view factor.
Learn some science and come back to post with some good science. At this point you have none. Go back to school and learn, take a heat transfer course from you Community College. It will really open up our mind.
Norman,
Learn to comprehend – focus all that heat energy into 1 cm^2 on your navel!
Off you go. Tell me all about your view factor. Tell me about the view factor used for calculating the rise in temperature due to back radiation.
Too sciency for you?
Maybe you are just stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
Flynn
I tried with Gordon Robertson above. He has not responded to my post. I will try here. I am reading your mind now, my logical and rational approach to science based upon empirical data will not have any effect upon your continued state of delusion (a lot of times you delusional people do not know that you have this condition).
YOU: “Off you go. Tell me all about your view factor. Tell me about the view factor used for calculating the rise in temperature due to back radiation.”
The view factor for the Earth’s surface with respect to the DWIR is close to 1, that means nearly all the radiant IR from the atmosphere will be able to reach the Earth. Some will be lost because the sphere of the atmosphere is a little larger than the Earth’s sphere.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5abf041234b27.png
This is a graph of empirical measured flux values at the Earth’s surface.
Study the graph and the answer to your question is there. The back radiation (called the Downwelling Infrared) greatly reduces the Heat loss from the surface. If you look at the line for the Upwelling Infrared you see it is almost 600 W/m^2. You can also see the total radiant energy adds to a little more than 600 W/m^2 during the solar noon. If you eliminated the Downwelling IR from the Earth (say remove all water vapor, Carbon dioxide and other GHG) you would greatly increase the amount of Net IR lost by the surface. Your total Net energy would be a little positive in the heat of the day. The Earth’s surface would be much colder.
Notice the Downwelling IR stays fairly constant the entire day/night cycle. If you remove this the Earth would lose around 400 Watts/m^2 at night instead of around 100 W/m^2 with GHG and during the day you would only gain a little energy. It would end much colder. What else do you need?
N,
And yet, the surface still cools at night. It even reaches -80 C in the 6 months of Antarctic summer in places.
The surface has also cooled for four and a half billion years, hasn’t it?
The Moon’s surface gets far hotter than the Earth’s – no atmosphere to prevent radiation reaching the surface! Even the hottest and coldest places on Earth are found where there is the least amount of supposed GHGs in the overlaying atmosphere. More like the Moon, wot?
You claim to have read my mind, so you know I am speaking nothing more or less than the truth!
No GHE. Just a rapidly fading figment of the imagination of the feeble-minded.
Cheers.
Flynn
You just completely ignore the logic an rational logic presented to you and point out the Earth’s surface cools at night (which is shown in the graphs, you have Total net energy loss at night, duh)
Also the Poles cool when no Sun is shining yet warm when the Sun shines. Not sure what your points are at all they seem like you don’t have a clue how to communicate. You put out some obvious random facts that have nothing to do with a discussion ant think that means something.
The graph clearly demonstrates the reality that DWIR will cause warmer surface temperatures (with a input of energy of the Sun), it also clearly shows there will be warmer temperatures at night when no Sun is shining. Note when I use the term “warmer” it means relative to a condition with NO GHG present. With no GHG you would remove all the DWIR from the graph and measure new values.
The actual temperature of the Earth’s surface is not only dependent upon radiant energy but other mechanisms cool the surface. These would be affected by changes in radiant energy and the outcome upon the surface temperature is complex. The one thing that would still take place is cooler temperatures without GHG, how much cooler is more complex.
How does responding with information that is not connected to radiant energy flows mean anything to you.
Here is just a sample of how your posting sounds.
Someone says it is flooding in Texas, you respond the Earth has cooled in 4 and 1/2 billion years. Not really related to the point but you just say it anyway as if it has relevance to the point of discussion.
DA,
That is about as silly as demanding to know where Trenberth’s “missing heat” has gone, surely.
There is no “additional” anything! You are trying to create something which, just like Trenberth’s “missing heat” didn’t exist in the first place.
Try finding a testable GHE hypothesis – that at least could be the start of scientific enquiry.
Oh well, others may not agree. Maybe the only people who agree with me are the people that control the purse strings – who knows? Some of them actually peruse this blog from time to time.
Why not throw out a few insults – that might scare them into restoring funding, and believing the likes of Schmidt and Mann. Or maybe not! What do you think might be a good tactic in such cases?
Cheers.
Dumb simpleton. Cannot interpret a cartoon, cannot explain the missing 150 Wm-2, believes the Earth’s core temperature determines the surface temperature, is desperately jealous of Gavin Schmidt, obviously affected by too many solder fumes, too old, too ignorant….
You can use this as a reference for your next job application.
D,
And all I, and those of similar thinking, control, is the purse strings. Remember the Golden Rule – he who has the Gold, makes the Rules!
Keep the feeble attempts a gratuitous insults coming.
On the other hand, you might choose to provide some scientific basis for your statements. I’m fairly sure you will make the wrong choice, but feel free to surprise me.
Cheers.
“Maybe the only people who agree with me are the people that control the purse strings who knows? Some of them actually peruse this blog from time to time.”
ha ha ha! Now the dumb simpleton imagines that somebody somewhere pays attention to his meanderings! As if! Too many solder fumes I suspect.
I have noticed a recurring theme – an obsession with Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth. They keep getting mentioned time and time again – even though they were involved in events up to twenty years ago!
I am afraid this obsession is untreatable.
ProfP: yes, I’ve noticed that too.
Some deniers here beg for responses. It’s all they want — they think we are obligated to reply. They won’t discuss anything scientific, but will whine about “gotchas,”
and can only reply with insults. They call you names, then seem to wonder why their replies never get recognized. Weird.
That’s a good whine, Jelly. And the false accusations add even more humor.
It’s fun to watch.
Keep proving me right.
Jelly, that’s why you’re a clown. In your head, you’re never wrong!
It’s fun to watch.
You have been reduced to juvenile name calling.
Sad. You clearly aspire to so much more.
Now Jelly, rhymes with appelly. why do you believe I’m name-calling?
Where did you ever get that idea, clown?
All you do is insult and call names. Anything to avoid explaining where the 150 W/m2 is.
Maybe I explained it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295157
No, that link just leads to more of your diversions.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
DA,
It’s been explained to you a million times, surely. It’s not my fault if you are too thick to understand your own pseudoscience, is it?
You could accumulate 10 of the missing 150s, making 1500 W, and boil up some non-existent water to make an invisible cup of tea. Have a good lie down after you drink it (in your imagination).
Have you considered that nobody cares about your “missing heat”, any more than they care about Trenberth’s?
Or is your “missing heat” of the far more powerful kind – climatologically speaking, of course.
Good luck with getting some interest.
Cheers.
g, you do mean spectra and not spectre?
“After infiltrating a secret meeting, 007 uncovers the existence of the sinister organization SPECTRE. “
That’s more “cute” than hilarious. Try to throw in some pseudoscience. For example: 007 needed to steal back the magic green plate that, if in the wrong hands, could overheat the planet.
“pseudoscience” – like mixing up Watts with Watts per meter squared?
check out myki’s post above where he showed you up BIG time.
Go back to school.
drano, check out my response, where I showed him his error.
More humor, please. Big Time!
D,
Learn to read. It’s generally required that real scientists be able to comprehend the written language.
If you don’t understand, there is no shame in asking for clarification. Otherwise, you might appear stupid and ignorant by leaping in where angels fear to tread, so to speak.
I’m here to help, if you need it.
Cheers.
g* says:
“check out my response, where I showed him his error.”
link?
DA,
My goodness! Can’t you do anything for yourself? How hard is it to look for yourself?
Geez. Talk about lazy!
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 30, 2018 at 3:32 PM
Uncorroborated theory, and bad theory at that. Thats the problem with badly applied math, when the fundamentals are missing the math is garbage.
Why is it “badly applied math,” Gordon?
Show us the correct math, please.
DA,
Why should he comply with your demands?
Show us your reasons, David!
Cheers.
Because GR is a Canadian. Possibly a backwoods person. I think they use different maths there.
or maybe different physics?
D,
Gavin Schmidt claims he keeps discovering new physics. Maybe the rest of the world just can’t keep up with his discoveries!
What do you think? Nobel Prize material, just like Michael Mann? For “new physics’, of course.
Cheers.
“What do you think? Nobel Prize material, just like Michael Mann?”
Did I happen to mention I shared that prize as well.
You can call me Sir Dr No if you like. I won’t mind.
D,
Is drano OK? I presume you shared Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize? The non-existent one, or another one?
Cheers.
Old man – tell me about how you do maths with your slide rule.
Myki,
What is a slide rule? Is it posted in childrens’ play areas equipped with a slide?
Please describe this rule. Is it the same in different countries? Would it have prevented the decapitation suffered by a young boy on a slide in the US a couple of years ago?
I believe you are just being stupid and ignorant, not to say foolish and irrelevant.
Keep going.
Cheers.
“Would it have prevented the decapitation suffered by a young boy on a slide in the US a couple of years ago?”
Huh ?
Man, you are seriously deranged.
myki, don’t worry. This is a common symptom when the patient gets agitated and confused.
Myki,
“Designers of water slide that decapitated boy ‘had no technical qualifications’
If we actually knew how to do this, and it could be done that easily, it wouldnt be that spectacular”
Something like climatological models, I guess.
Huh?
Cheers
If Gordon is honest, he’ll explain why the standard physics is wrong, and show (what he claims is) the correct math.
Waiting Gordon…….
DA,
On the other hand, maybe he doesn’t care how long you wait? I certainly wouldn’t, but I can’t speak for others.
I wish you every success in your efforts to make others dance to your tune.
Cheers.
Mike, you care very much what I think. Your car the best reader I have. SpaceBecause you reply to every response of mine, Either asking for a response or to tell me how much you dont care about my response.
You are always there. Like clockwork.
DA,
Glad to be able to help. You obviously need it.
I was taught to always support those less fortunate than myself. You can’t help being what you are. Feel free to blame me for your stupidity and ignorance, if it makes you feel better.
My shoulders are broad.
Cheers.
David Appell poses the “gotcha” –
“Why do you think the isotope argument is wrong?”
David claims that fires started by natural electric sparks (lightning) produce different CO2 from fires which are started by humans using an electric spark (piezo fire lighter).
Apparently, this occurs through the miracle of “isotopes”!
Pseudo-science is your answer, David. Pseudo-science.
Still no testable GHE hypothesis. David thinks such things unnecessary – “isotopes” provide all the “evidence'” a stupid and ignorant person could ever want or need. Go “isotopes”!
Cheers.
See, the agitation and derangement gets worse and worse. Wait until he goes to bed or nurse ratched gives him his medicine. It will soon blow over.
He just can’t understand that he lost respect many posts already.
p,
More psychobabble please. One can never have too much fun!
You obviously have no science to offer. Pity.
Cheers.
.
DA,
I much prefer a healthy does of psychobabble. Much more humorous. Did your response intend to convey the depth of your scientific knowledge?
If so – well done!
Cheers.
Jelly the Clown is having one of his best performances ever. He’s obviously been practicing his pseudoscience all week.
You still can’t explain the 150 W/m2.
That’s all we need to know about your denialism.
You don’t want the truth about your “150 W/m^2”, clown. That’s a major part of your comedy routine. You’re always asking that same question. People that understand radiative physics either feel sorry for you, or laugh at you.
Guess which group I’m in?
Please, I want the truth: where does this additional 150 W/m2 come from?
Well, there is a really simple test, clown, to see if you really want the truth, or not.
Is the toy train “rotating on its axis” as it “orbits” on a circular track?
You keep repeating the same gotcha, so I will repeat the answer –
DA,
Its been explained to you a million times, surely. Its not my fault if you are too thick to understand your own pseudoscience, is it?
You could accumulate 10 of the missing 150s, making 1500 W, and boil up some non-existent water to make an invisible cup of tea. Have a good lie down after you drink it (in your imagination).
Have you considered that nobody cares about your missing heat, any more than they care about Trenberths?
Or is your missing heat of the far more powerful kind climatologically speaking, of course.
Good luck with getting some interest.
Cheers.
g* — where does the additional 150 W/m2 come from?
Thin air?
See clown, you do NOT want the truth. If you did, all you had to do was answer the simple question truthfully. You can’t do it.
That’s why you’re a clown.
You still haven’t explained where the additional 150 W/m2 comes from….
You deny the greenhouse effect, Yet cant explain the basic physics of the situation. In particular, the fact that the surface radiates 150 W per square meter more than it receives from the sun.
This is why dienialism is a joke. Because it cannot explain the observed facts.
DA,
You are a bit slow, but to repeat –
Probably along the lines of NASAs explanation of how 100 turns into 117!
“. . .heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%).”
Hope that sets your mind at rest.
Cheers.
Can you explain the extra 150 W per square meter?
For those that have been following this topic, Jelly (rhymes with appelly) the Clown has been pestering various people for a long time about the “150 Watts/m^2”. During that time, I have been slowly observing how little physics Jelly actually knew. He became a full-fledged clown recently, when he refused to admit the Moon’s motion was the same as that of a little toy train. You don’t even need any physics background to understand that simple fact.
So here, Jelly starts the “150 Watts/m^2” nonsense, again. In his vacant head, he imagined he really “had me”. He could not understand how the Earth’s surface emitted 390 W/m^2, but only received 240 W/m^2 from the Sun. In his physics-deprived conjuring, he believed that meant the bogus GHE was somehow making some extra energy (“heating the planet”).
I waited until Jelly had completely committed himself, before now smashing his pseudoscience.
For clarity, I will omit the units, which are all “Watts/m^2”. The “150” is the difference between “390” and “240”. The 390 is the flux emitted by a black body at a temperature of 288 K. The 240 is the average solar flux arriving the “disk” of Earth, after albedo, and after dividing by 4. (That is, 1366 * 0.7 = 956. 956/4 = 239, which is commonly rounded to 240.)
Folks that understand radiative physics will instantly realize that the 390 and 240 are different fluxes, and cannot be added or subtracted. Although they have the same units, they are NOT the same. The spectrum of each flux is entirely different.
The 390 is from a surface at a temperature of 288 K. That temperature corresponds to about 15 °C, or about 59 °F. The spectrum would be entirely in the infrared. The peak power emitted would be at a wavelength of about 10 µ.
The 240 is from a source at a temperature of 5800 K. That temperature corresponds to about 5527 °C, or about 9981 °F. The spectrum would be about half visible and a higher frequency, with the remaining half both SWIR and LWIR. The peak power emitted would be at a wavelength of about 0.5 µ.
But, the problems get even worse. You can NOT average fluxes. For example, even though Earth’s average temperature is believed to be 288 K, very little of the surface would actually be 288 K, at any one time. The polar regions, for example, would be emitting much longer wavelengths. We don’t have enough data to know what Earth’s average surface flux actually is.
(Another problem occurs with the “divide-by-4” nonsense. But, that is beyond the scope if this discussion.)
So, our hilarious clown is trying to subtract pencils from oranges, and get aardvarks! The 240 consists of much higher energy photons–much more energy to “raise the temperature”. The 390 consists of much lower energy photons. They are entirely different quantities. His “150 W/m^2” means NOTHING.
The hilarious clown will probably still not understand. Likely he will try a number of “red herrings”, or other tricks. But, he will not be able to get away from the fact that he is trying to subtract two different quantities that can NOT be treated arithmetically.
What will he try? It will be fun to watch.
g.,
now I know why you never enter into any meaningful discussions. Your absolute ignorance of basic physics is actually painful to observe.
For anybody who may be led astray by this charlatan, consider the spectra of a black body at 288K (the Earth) and another at 5800K (the Sun).
One emits at long wavelengths (infrared), the other at shorter wavelengths (visible light).
Integrating over all wavelengths (short and long) tells you the total flux of each (Stefan Boltzmann). This is proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power.
i.e. the total energy flux is independent of wavelength. Therefore you can add and subtract the energy fluxes.
(Unless, of course, you are stupid enough to believe that the total energy flux remembers from whence it came and can only be absorbed by something “cooler”. That is why the three absolute deniers here are always confused. They believe photons have “memory’ – HILARIOUS)
g*e*r*a*n proves he can’t integrate and average.
Perfect! The clown tag-team of drano and shady show up to fill in for Jelly.
drano claims: “i.e. the total energy flux is independent of wavelength. Therefore you can add and subtract the energy fluxes.”
FALSE, drano! The energy of a photon is DEPENDENT on its wavelength. That’s why different fluxes can NOT add/subtract. That’s why you can NOT bake a turkey with ice cubes.
drano displays more ignorance: “They [photons] believe photons have memory”
Wrong again, drano. Once a photon is emitted, its wavelength never changes. It always “remembers” its energy.
And, poor shady just chimes in with drano.
What a great year in climate-comedy!
g
“The energy of a photon is DEPENDENT on its wavelength. Thats why different fluxes can NOT add/subtract. ”
Abysmal response. The sun emits radiation over a range of visible wavelengths. By integrating (that is a mathematical process by the way) over all wavelengths we ADD up to get a total energy flux. That is what we feel when we expose ourselves to the sun.
The total flux is independent of wavelength.
Repeat: The total flux is independent of wavelength.
That is what the Stefan Boltzmann Law tells us. It only depends on temperature.
Repeat: That is what the Stefan Boltzmann Law tells us. It only depends on temperature.
You are so stupid it is hilarious.
g
“Once a photon is emitted, its wavelength never changes. It always remembers its energy.”
Of course.
But it has no memory of the temperature of its source. If you believe otherwise you can go straight to the Dug Kotton ward.
The hilarious drano continues his comedy routine: “Repeat: The total flux is independent of wavelength.”
drano first tells us the flux is “independent of wavelength”.
Then, he tells us the flux “depends on temperature”: That is what the Stefan Boltzmann Law tells us. It only depends on temperature.
Poor drano doesn’t understand that the emitting temperature determines the wavelength!
And, he will just keep going, as if he’s winning!
Its fun to watch
Please, can someone help find David’s missing heat?
He’s getting desperate. His pleas for assistance grow ever more plaintive. I have looked under the table, even behind the berry tree (while looking for Henry Lee)! No sign.
I suspect it has run off to join Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat – but maybe there is a global outbreak of missing heat. A fair bit seems to have gone missing in Europe and the US recently.
As for Antarctica at -90 C – who can say? We can only hope it turns up soon!
Cheers.
Like Gordon you also do not understand Trenberths comment about missing heat.
you have huge gaps in yiour understanding, and They are why no one takes you seriously.
You dont take yourself seriously, so there is no reason why anyone else shit.
DA,
You might want to fix the comment – the bit that leads up to “shit”. Your mind reading skills are defective as usual – you have not the faintest idea of how seriously I might take myself – seriously.
Do I care if anyone takes me seriously? Nope. Facts are what they are – not dependent on anyone’s opinion. There is still no testable GHE hypothesis, is there? That’s an example of a fact, whether you like it or not.
Bad luck for you, good luck for me.
Cheers.
Youre just trying to divert from the fact that you dont understand Trenberths comment
DA,
If you say so, David. If you say so.
Cheers.
Did you find that 150 W per square meter yet?
Who do you think youre kidding You care a lot if anyone reads and responses to your comments. Youre human. You arent fooling anyone. When you pretend otherwise, you just look weird and queer. Certainly not genuine.
DA,
Oh dear. Back to mind reading school for you, I fear!
My care factor remains firmly at zero.
All the opinion in the world, plus a few dollars will probably buy a cup of coffee. What do you think your opinion is worth? More than nothing? Why?
Feel free to tell me what you think that I think, and why you think it. You must think it’s important – I can’t understand why, of course.
Carry on, David.
Cheers.
Your best sentence in a long time: “… the bit that leads up to …” : – )
David Appell wrote –
“You clearly dont have an explanation for how 240 W/m2 turns into 390 W/m2.””
Probably along the lines of NASA’s explanati0n of how 100 turns into 117!
“. . .heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%).”
It’s pretty simple – 100% from the Sun turns into 117%! Probably due to the magic of CO2 – something for nothing, and perpetual motion available on all days ending with “y”.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Stop begging for a reply,. You dont deserve one and you wont get one.
DA,
Oh, i’m cut to the quick! No I’m not – i’m only laughing at your silliness.
What gives you the bizarre idea that I ascribe the same importance to yourself as you do?
Maybe you are a legend in your own lunchbox – but certainly not in mine. I just enjoy a good laugh at your expense!
Why do you even bother replying? Can’t you help yourself? Of course you can’t!
Keep convincing yourself that I would beg you for anything if it helps to prevent you dissolving into a blubbering mess. I don’t care one way or the other, of course. Just trying to help, as usual.
Cheers.
You are desperate for a reply, because you reply to every one of my comments. Then, when you actually do get a reply, you pretend like you dont care about it. Do you understand how strange that is?
I feel sorry for you Mike. Your replies are so weird that they cannot possibly come from a normal person. This is why I am trying to take it easy on you because I do not think you are all there.
DA,
First you threaten never to respond, then you go ahead and do it anyway!
I don’t find that strange at all – for someone as stupid and ignorant as you.
Keep your sorrow for yourself – you need it more than I do. Are you sorry you can’t find a testable GHE hypothesis, or are you sorry that the gullible and feeble-minded aren’t paying the same attention to your nonsense as before?
Oh, sorrow, sorrow, thrice sorrow!
If you don’t care for my responses – tough! I could care less whether you read them or not. Why should I?
Off you go now – feel as sorrowful as you wish.
Cheers.
See how desperate you are for attention,? As soon as I reply to you, you reply back within five minutes.
You sit here desperate for someone to reply. Then, when they do, your response is to tell them you dont care what they think.
Mike, that is just very screwed up. I mean, seriously, that isnt normal, and I suspect you know that.
DA,
Do you think you could revert to your previous mode of refusing to respond to me?
That would save you a lot of angst, sorrow and time.
I’m sure I could cope. Worth atry, do you think?
Cheers.
Darn typo – worth a try, of course.
You’re right about one thing David. It matters not to me whether you respond or not, whether you live or die – what difference would it make to me?
Cheers.
DA, yes, a very tragic case. I have tried to help him but he is beyond repair.
If we didn’t keep him amused here on this site I don’t know what he might do.
DA, also, notice how often he has to declare that he doesn’t care what we think. That is a dead give-away. We may be his only two friends!
ProfP. Don’t leave me out. Mike looks forward to my handing out abuse to him as much as anybody else
ProfP: Yes, I noticed that. These guys are so easy to see through, but apparently they have no clue about that. Weird.
D,
Are you handing out abuse to me?
I wasn’t aware of any. How should I recognise it? What is the intended effect?
Your comments only seem to be pointless and irrelevant ramblings fro a stupid and ignorant GHE supporter.
Oh well, if you consider that to be abuse directed towards me, so be it. I wish you luck.
Cheers.
Darn. Yet another typo. Should read “. . . from a stupid and ignorant . . . “, of course.
I should wait until the laughter subsides. Apologies.
Cheers.
Mike, your response is pure deflection.
Mike, not a very funny response.
Where does that additional 150 W per square meter come from?
See how quickly he responds!
The poor man must monitor this site 24/7.
What a miserable existence.
OK. I just find it so hard to take people like MF and g* and Gordon seriously. They have absolutely no science to offer and think they can get by on personal insults. Its pretty ludicrous.
Thats really your best defense? How about answering some science, after all. How about identifying where the missing 150 W per square meter is? Just answering straight up, without your usual attempts to cause chaos and confusion
I bother because you need to be proven wrong. The real question is, why do YOU bother? You have no science on your side…,
DA,
Poor diddums. Finding it sooooo hard, are we?
Why do you bother, then?
Questions, questions – I know.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says “Darn typo”.
It’s a good thing about this site that people don’t get hung up on typos, so I don’t think you need to fix them.
S,
Some of us actually care about details from time time to time.
Just minor details – like the non-existence of a testable GHE hypothesis. Not important to the stupid and ignorant, of course. Only important to people like scientists, and people who share the desire for truth.
Oh well.
Cheers.
You’re welcome.
255K is the theoretical, global average temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gases but assuming the same solar insolation and albedo.
Try 312K. Solar radiation is the primary energy input to our climate system. It is not absorbed at the surface of our planet. On average it is absorbed 10m below the LWIR opaque surface of our planet.
You can’t get the right figure for “Surface Tav without radiative atmosphere” for this ocean planet by treating the oceans as completely opaque to sunlight, constantly illuminated by a quarter power sun, non-convecting, infinitely conductive and having a specific heat capacity of 0.0.
Lets see your calculation that gives 312 K
It’s always hilarious seeing a comment that is clearly stolen from elsewhere, while the person pretends he knows what he is talking about.
The first of April will be very cold in the east of the US.
I have just heard that the Chinese satellite, Tiangong 1, is scheduled to re-enter the atmosphere and directly hit the White House.
Donald Trump is furious about another unwanted Chinese import.
Another thing I have just heard is
“Melania Trump is facing growing divorce rumors after the allegations of Donalds affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels, and now a top divorce law firm in New York is apparently preparing to make her case.”
This will also happen on Sunday.
Would that be first divorced president?
I also would if Donald is first president (without this potential divorce) with so many ex wives.
And there are so many people who have been divorced, and they now have a president representing such a large segment of US population. And wonder if he can also be counted as first Jewish president (though perhaps loosely, like Bill was called first black president).
And another thing, on Sunday the Russians will launch their latest deadly weapon called:
letayushchaya svin’ya
At this point in the thread MF and GR have contributed about 9% of the posts each while the monkey has dropped to about 4%.
i.e. nearly a quarter of all posts.
As Cecelia Bolton wrote:
“those who are the most vocal seem to be incredibly angry, fearful of all sorts of things, and to have a hatred of various groups of people who are not exactly like them. They also seem to be easily led, manipulated, and incited by other angry people to threaten, shout, and spread untruths, based on emotion and on having been fed lies that speak to their already-held prejudices and beliefs.”
Its clear that the deniers here are the most ludicrous. That is not coincidental.
DA,
Prove it, oh stupid and ignorant one!
Cheers.
Oh Mike, You and G star and Gordon come across as so feeble. You clearly dont understand this at all.
DA,
You are right, of course.
The antics of the stupid and ignorant pretending to be scientific are completely beyond understanding.
Keep it going. Have you a point to your capering, or is it just for personal satisfaction?
Press on. toss another gotcha my way, if you wish. I won’t answer – as usual!
The perfect of the zero sum game.
Cheers.
Mike, it’s a bad time to be a clown.
Maybe we should take up a collection for them.
Nah.
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/03/30/its-the-worst-time-in-history-to-be-a-clown-havent-they-suffered-enough/
pp, you forgot to mention your own NEGATIVE contributions. You’re just a squeaky mouse, with its tail caught in a trap.
Both funny and pathetic.
A great snowstorm in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00962/uzrwvjxle39l.png
Re: missing 150
And I was reminded of missing heat.
I think we are recovering from LIA and I think the 3.5 C average temp ocean is still warming.
So I think some more of missing 150 is lost warming the ocean.
But on to more matters. As I have said a lot of times, we could terraform Mars by adding a tropical ocean on Mars.
Such an ocean doesn’t have to be very deep. And one also could call them lakes or you could call them very large solar ponds.
So like the lunar aquarium, the solar ponds would very large compared to any constructed solar ponds we have on Earth. I think India has largest solar pond which has been made – but not sure.
Solar ponds are used to make hot water, and they tend to be quite shallow (few meters deep- deeper is cooler water but deeper has larger thermal mass. With Mars ocean,lakes,solar ponds, you not going to have very warm water and they might even be frozen water at the surface.
And without magnification of sunlight a shallow solar pond might only get to say 40 C, which is very cold solar pond on Earth, and with deeper ponds (without solar magnification and/or without waste heat from power plants) the water temp could be 10 to 20 C (with colder water at the surface).
And if covered say 50% of Mars tropics with lakes, you would increase the average temperature of Mars, but it’s not particularly important to raise the average temperature of Mars.
What is important is the pressure of the water, which allows humans to live “outside” without needing spacesuit. And like lunar aquarium, the water could be like park for homes around it. Or the lakes would be adding “living space” which is lit by sunlight.
I agree with those who think that the temperature of the Earth’s surface without the atmosphere is too high. The greenhouse effect of the dense troposphere is larger than shown by theoretical calculations resulting only from alektromagnetic radiation. The angle of incidence of sunlight (continuous, not average), albedo of rocks and oceans, as well as differences in surface heights, etc. should be taken into account.
Preliminary weather reports from the Curiosity’s Remote Environment Monitoring Station (REMS) are showing some surprisingly mild temperatures during the day. Average daytime air temperatures have reached a peak of 6 degrees Celsius at 2pm local time. A Martian day known as a Sol is slightly longer than Earths at 24 hours and 39 minutes. Temperatures have risen above freezing during the day for more than half of the Martian Sols since REMS started recording data. Because Mars’s atmosphere is much thinner than Earth’s and its surface much drier, the effects of solar heating are much more pronounced. At night the air temperatures sink drastically, reaching a minimum of -70 degrees just before dawn.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-09-temperatures-gale-crater-higher.html#jCp
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory touched down in Gale Crater on 5th August 2012 close to the equator of Mars at a latitude of 4.5 degrees south.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-09-temperatures-gale-crater-higher.html#jCp
I would guess the Martian planet absorb more sunlight energy than the much hotter Earth, moon. But if add some water to Mars, it could double the amount it absorbs.
And I mean per average square meter area. Obviously Mars is much larger body than our Moon and absorbs more simply because it’s bigger, it mean per average square meter of Mars vs the Moon.
With Mars an inch or so of dirt is warmed and with the Moon it’s about 6 inches. With mars a few meters of air is warmed and the moon lacks air. Mars has more bare rocks, the Moon roughly has none. And Mars warms about 28 more times as compared to lunar day, which means one has 28 times more warming of air, sand, and rocks.a
And Mars poles are warmer, and it’s nights are warmer than the Moon.
What we need to do is explore the lunar poles, first. And we have begun to do this, then the plan is to explore Mars with human crew (in order to dramatically increase the amount of Mars exploration- and more significantly, be able to do far more important exploration).
Exploring the lunar poles, one is dealing with fairly small area (and has not had to present date, anything landing in region). So it’s about like exploring something the size of Iceland (for both lunar polar regions). This should only require about 10 years or less. With Mars there is more land area than the entire land area of Earth. And no one has a clue where better places on Mars would be. And all site selections have a focus of safer places to land on. Or for example landing on Mars largest mountain (which high but also the size of a State) isn’t good place to land due to it’ thinner atmosphere (not good place to land and also other reasons not good to land there). Site selection also has “scientific ”
Which tend to gravitate around the quest of looking for life, though this is somewhat important because looking for liquid water (where could been in past, so find signs of dead life).
I would hope Mars exploration would looking places to best have humans settlements.
I was looking for reference about tropics getting more sunlight, and didn’t find it, but this is somewhat related:
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/why-are-tropical-regions-hotter-than-equatorial-regions.html
“Since the Equator receives the most sunlight throughout the year, its fair to presume that equatorial regions should also be the hottest. Interestingly enough, however, thats not the case.”
Noon Equator goes from 23 1/2 S away from 90 to 23 1/2 N away from 90 –
65 1/2 degrees above horizon to 90 then to 65 1/2 degrees above horizon.
At equinox, noon and sun at zenith. And at average distance from Sun, 3 hours before or after noon the sun is at 45 degrees away from zenith or 45 degrees above the horizon.
Whenever sun is above 45 degree above horizon and clear skies,
the sunlight is close to 1000 watts per square meter. Or getting 6 hours at 1000 watts reaching a level surface.
Then 1 hour later (or before) it’s at 30 degrees above horizon and you have about 500 watts per square meter reaching a level surface.
When sun furthest south or north it is at noon 65 degree and drops about 11 degrees per hour. The day is 12 hours, 65 divided by 6 hours is about 11. 3 hours is 65 – 33 = 32 degrees above horizon. So, watts of sunlight reaching a level surface is dropping fast at 3 hours rather 4 hours before or after noon at equinox. And when sun over Tropic of Capricorn, it roughly is when Earth closer to sun and over Cancer it is further from sun having less solar flux.
If not at equator and instead at tropic of Cancer, sun will be at zenith at summer solstice, and at winter, be 43 degrees above horizon at noon. And one has varying amounts daylight hours during summer and winter.
On the equator, the sea current mixes water.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/equirectangular=-134.48,-0.95,190
“The pressure data show a very significant daily variation of pressure, following a fairly consistent cycle from Sol-to-Sol. The minimum is near 685 pascals and the maximum near 780 pascals. The majority of the variation is due to large scale waves in the atmosphere called tides. These tides are different from tides in the Earth’s ocean because they are forced by heating due to the sun rather than the gravitational pull of the Moon. The tides are sensitive to the distribution of cloud and dust in the atmosphere, and also the large scale pattern of winds rather like the jet streams on Earth,” says Javier Gmez-Elvira, the Principal Investigator of the REMS Instrument.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-09-temperatures-gale-crater-higher.html#jCp
Someone said CO2 emission is 100 times more warming then the heat of burning fossil fuels.
It’s pretty silly thing to say, though tempted to ask if people agree (people are so agreeable).
Of course some would think CO2 lasts longer than the heat generated from burning hydrocarbons.
So sort of like asking which is stronger ants or elephants and saying ants are obviously more numerous (and have more total biological mass). But also adding they have existed on Earth for a longer time period than elephants.
The lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere has had a lot of pseudo science connected to it. But even if CO2 only lasted a couple months it has “time” on it’s side and some would argue it lasts for thousands of years.
Anyhow I don’t think fossil fuel burning adds much to the urban heat island effect. And such burning is a lot in small area, and heat from electrical use (rather than burning dinosaurs) could be as much. And you have all the 100 watt humans and their pets wandering around. And you got decomposition, and other biolological activity (including the ants). But anyhow all the chemical and electrical energy involved is still not add much to an urban heat island effect and nor is the elevated levels of CO2 of a city adding much heat.
Rather it’s largely to do with the human made infrastructure and the water used.
gbaikie says:
“Someone said CO2 emission is 100 times more warming then the heat of burning fossil fuels.
Its pretty silly thing to say, though tempted to ask if people agree (people are so agreeable).”
I agree the direct heating is trivial compared to the after effect.
shady, the only “after effect” appears to be how it affects some people. Some poor misguided folks seem to turn into hilarious clowns at even the mere mention of CO2.
It’s fun to watch.
S,
The after effect seems to result in softening of the brain, causing people to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, (hence also between the Sun and a thermometer), actually makes the thermometer hotter!
Ridiculous, I know. Softening of the brain amongst people who support the indescribable and non-existant GHE is one explanation. Stupidity and ignorance is another.
Cheers.
Silly, misguided, and stupid.
That’s high praise coming from the three of you.
shady, chooses to deal in mis-information. That’s all he has–distortion and falsehoods.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295239
shady, come out of the shade. Learn to appreciate reality.
S,
I am pleased that you accept that silly, misguided, and stupid is a step up for you.
With a lot of effort!, you might even aspire to acceptance of reality.
Your choice.
Cheers.
And 100 times trivial is what?
If you burn a lump of coal it takes less than 100 days for the CO2 to give more warming than the burning did.
shady claims CO2 is a “heat source”: “If you burn a lump of coal it takes less than 100 days for the CO2 to give more warming than the burning did.”
But later, he may deny that “give more warming” is the same as being a heat source. Just like he claims being “in the shade” is not the same as being “in the shade”!
Silly Warmists love their pseudoscience!
It’s fun to watch.
So you picked days rather than seconds,hours, years, decades, or centuries.
Remember I didn’t pick 100 times, rather I picked an argument given by some genius making a point (in a court case).
Does lump of coal burn for a day?
Does CO2 last for around 100 days (I thought it was at least 10 times longer).
Wouldn’t it be better to say 1000 times rather at least 100 times, isn’t it important.
Didn’t Al Gore say it was critical important. Have we not spent decades worrying about it, and trillion of dollars of blue collar tax payer’s money “doing something” about it?
Do do think the news media and politians should focus on things which are actually important and could help people?
So if say it’s 100 times and it is actually 1000 or 10,000, or million times isn’t that bad, even criminal or a horrible war crime type thing, deserving time in prison and etc, etc?
Hi gbaikie.
It may take hundreds of thousands of years for our CO2 emissions to wash out completely.
CH4 washes out in about ten years, so it doesn’t accumulate in the same way.
I will put a number on the GHE effect when it’s not the 1st of April.
shady, glad you will avoid April 1st to present you hilarious “science”.
But, it will still be laughable, regardless of the date.
Hint: Seek the light, not the shadows.
svante…”If you burn a lump of coal it takes less than 100 days for the CO2 to give more warming than the burning did”.
You seem like a good guy, why do you buy into that pseudo-science? All the CO2 in the atmosphere could not warm a flea’s bum, if said bum was warmer than the ambient temperature of the CO2.
All the IR from an iceberg could not warm a flea’s bum, provided the flea was alive and at normal body temperature.
gbaikie says:
“So if say its 100 times and it is actually 1000 or 10,000, or million times …”
David Archer says:
– Usable energy from a gallon of gasoline: 2500 kcal.
– Greenhouse energy: 100,000,000,000 kcal.
https://tinyurl.com/y72cy57y
“isnt that bad, even criminal or a horrible war crime type thing, deserving time in prison and etc, etc?”
That’s normative, let’s do the positive first.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You seem like a good guy, why do you buy into that pseudo-science?”
I would really like to know that about you.
Did you work for the oil industry?
Would your career be tainted if oil had a negative side effect?
What’s the problem if it is true?
I think we must understand reality, or it will hurt us.
Physics explains reality, discarding 20th century physics will cause pain.
Say there is 10,000 square km of flat land, and in the middle
of it lava gushes up covering the 10,000 square km of lava with lava 10 meters deep, then lava stops gushing out and lava starts to cool.
In terms of global warming this would cause a trivial amount of global warming.
So weeks or months later, the molten rock has had rock solidify so that a 1 meter of solid rock has formed above the molten lava, leaving 8 to 9 meters liquid rock below it.
Due to insulative properties of rock, the 1 meter solid rock would allow you to walk on it’s surface. And the surface during the day could warm up from sunlight and cool down during the night, though there is significant amount of warming of the surface due to there being 8 to 9 meter of molten rock under the 1 meter of solid rock, or rock surface will be significantly warmer during the night compared to rock without the molten Lava below it and this will diminish over time but even years later, there still could be significant amount of this warming.
You get some concrete and anchor a 6 foot wooden post in middle of the 10,000 square km area of the lava flow
And put white box on post to measure the air temperature and in next year or so, predictively it should have an higher average air temperature.
The entire event of lava gushing out, and then years later of cooling will also not have any significant effect upon global air temperature.
If this occurred over a large enough area, obviously it would effect global air temperature. So if this covered the entire planet, global air temperature would become very warm, but in few weeks or months after it stopped gushing up, the surface would soldify, and you could plant white box and measure the air temperature. And after few years global temperature would cool significantly. A centuries later, the planet could have cool average temperature.
Or the ground nor the atmosphere can store heat over time periods of centuries.
What happens if you have oceans temperature increase to 100 C?
Since water is poor in terms of heat conduction one could do this a few ways, but one thing is certain it would require a lot of energy. Even if sunlight was intense enough to warm land to 120 C, this will not boil oceans, nor a mud puddle.
But you don’t need to increase entire ocean to 100 C, you could just heat the top layer.
So if the entire bottom of ocean had 10 meters of lava gushing out this might cause the surface to be boiling and/or 100 C, due to warm water rising. So hot water could accumulate on top 100 meters of ocean and only have say average ocean temperature of 20 or 30 C. So have the 10 meters of global lava be in one spot (a huge spot) of ocean, if it was uniform one would need something like 100 meter which was constantly gushing out and it would warm the entire ocean.
Another way to cause oceans to boil is hit it with very big space rock- much, much bigger then dino killing space rock which was about 10 km in diameter, so + 100 km diameter space rock and have it hit the deep ocean.
Anyhow if you warm ocean, it stays warmer for much longer time.
“And 100 times trivial is what?”
*******
“Hecta-trivial”?
☺
Norman wrote (amongst other things) –
“The graph clearly demonstrates the reality that DWIR will cause warmer surface temperatures (with a input of energy of the Sun), it also clearly shows there will be warmer temperatures at night when no Sun is shining. Note when I use the term “warmer” it means relative to a condition with NO GHG present.”
Unfortunately, not true.
Higher temperatures in sunlight occur when there is least attenuation of insolation. On Earth, this occurs in arid tropical desert locations where there is minimum H2O “GHG” in the atmosphere. For the extreme case, where there is no attenuation at all, the Moon demonstrates how high temperatures can go in unobstructed sunlight.
At night, without sunlight, the attenuation of radiation occurs in the other direction. As a consequence, the coldest temperatures on Earth are also found where there is least H2O “GHG” in the atmosphere – Antarctica.
No heating due to the non-existent and indescribable GHE. None. The atmosphere mildly integrates the temperature extremes on Earth. Good thing for humans, who evolved to take advantage of just those conditions.
Norman refuses to accept fact, which means he refuses to accept conventional physics, which needs no GHE to explain the thermometric temperature record.
Bad luck for Norman – good luck for me. I’m right – he’s wrong, not that Nature cares what any of us think, regardless of how mighty and powerful we might believe ourselves to be. Very small fish in a very large sea – here today, gone tomorrow, and largely ignored by the other seven billion people who inhabit the Earth!
Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Over to Norman, for all the good it will do him.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I am so sorry that you have never read a textbook on heat transfer. You are not correct at all. You are making points that really do not connect with the point I am making.
You do not understand the GHE and I do not think you ever will. You are debating against a idea that I am not sure anyone else is promoting.
If you knew even a little physics a debate could be useful. You are a science denier like others. Nothing seems to help you along.
I think I explained it clearly but you did not “get it” you are debating your own twisted version of what you falsely think the GHE is.
I could try again. It would not matter. You are not logical enough or intelligent enough to figure out what I am saying. You do not have enough physics background to hope to understand it. If you were not so obsessed with posting on this blog and read some actual heat transfer physics, you might become a valuable contributor to science. As it stands now most of what you say can be tossed in the trash. It is useless and wrong.
Norman,
You’re not sorry at all. You’re just pretending.
You blather on without actually producing a single fact to contradict anything I said.
I’m not debating – ignorant and stupid people might believe physical facts are decided by debate or consensus. They are not. Only deluded fools believe such nonsense.
No GHE, Norman. No testable GHE hypothesis in any scientific textbook you have ever read, is there?
That’s because it doesn’t exist!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I spent some time digging this up for you. I had to find a day when both the Nevada desert (dry air) and the wetter Goodwin Creek Mississippi had clear days. (Most summer days in Goodwin Creek have clouds making data comparing difficult).
First I will give a disclaimer. You may think I am ignorant but I will state that the data I am providing is far from a complete picture of what is going on. There are other heat transfer mechanisms that exist and can alter surface temperature. Wind can bring in colder or warmer air from other locations. I would have to go into intensive study to get a really accurate picture of what is actually going on with all the heat transfers. I am showing you this to conceptually help you understand the GHE.
Goodwin Creek, Mississippi radiant energy.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ac04846bc861.png
Desert Rock, Nevada radiant energy.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ac047f3b12f2.png
You can see that Desert Rock may be getting a little more overall solar energy input (hard to tell on the graph, looks like Goodwin Creek might be around 650 W/m^2 and Desert Rock may reach 700 W/m^2)
One easy to see difference between the two locations is the Net IR. The wetter Goodwin Creek has much less heat loss via IR than Desert Rock (during the day it is 100 W/m^2 difference).
You can see the Total Net radiant energy is greater at Goodwin Creek than at Desert Rock. During the day Desert Rock is about positive 400 W/m^2 (causing surface temperature rise). Goodwin Creek is about 550 W/m^2. It has a greater surface air temperature rise than the desert. You can see GHE at work in this data. If you had ambition you could see it even clearer by determining all the other heat loss mechanisms involved and controlling for them.
If nothing else this evidence should have you question what you think is true. It may not be enough to have you accept GHE but it certainly should put strong doubt into you absolute denial of science reality. Maybe it could create a slight crack in the delusions you hold onto. We can only hope.
— You can see that Desert Rock may be getting a little more overall solar energy input (hard to tell on the graph, looks like Goodwin Creek might be around 650 W/m^2 and Desert Rock may reach 700 W/m^2)–
It looks like desert rock which is 2 degree more north is receiving more than 800 watts of “solar down welling and Goodwin creek further south is getting less than 800 so it seems they aren’t measuring the same way.
So sun at noon at desert rock should have noon sun at about 48 degrees above horizon and Goodwin should be about 46 degrees above the horizon.
norman…”You may think I am ignorant….”
Norman…you are far too sensitive to be involved in debates like this. That kind of sensitivity requires a strong image and images are baggage. Maintaining them gets in the way of insight, awareness, and the special intelligence related to both.
When you try to win or be right, you will ultimately lose, I can almost guarantee that. I reckon I can’t lose because I am not playing a game that has winning or losing as an outcome. Makes my life much simpler.
I am driven by the fact that if these idiots prevails with their imaginary catastrophic global warming/climate change, they will make everyone’s life miserable, especially the poor and under-privileged. Not only that, if they win that one they will go on inventing more pseudo-science to enlarge their pseudo-religious belief systems.
This is not about science, it’s about a group of people who are so bored they cannot get by without telling other people how to live their lives.
You are putting a lot of effort into defending points about science. Lighten up and have some fun rather than dogmatically trying to infer that no one else knows anything about science but you. It’s a hell of a burden to carry.
Thought I had something important to say…I guess not. Oh, well.
Mike Flynn
If you do not have enough courtesy to at least look at the graphs and think about them, don’t post to me any longer. You will show that putting out decent effort for the sake of intelligent debate is pointless with you. If you do look, than that is good. You are being a decent debater who wants to look at all the available evidence.
Norman,
Your graphs show what anybody knows – the surface heats during the day, and cools at night.
Is there anything particularly mysterious about this?
What does seem a bit mysterious is the use of the term “upwelling solar”. Solar comes from Sol – the Sun. More climatological nonsense, do you think? The people who created this chart are either very sloppy with their terms, or completely deluded!
Still no testable GHE hypothesis, is there? I’m not sure which of my statements you disagree with or why. Providing links to apparently meaningless graphs doesn’t seem to be advancing the establishing of agreed facts.
Cheers.
Norm keeps using those links because, in his worm-infested head, they “prove” AGW. Of course, in the world of pseudoscience, everything they see “proves” what they want it to.
The graphs only show what is actually happening: The Sun heats the surface, and the surface heats the atmosphere. (I think they are referring to “reflected solar”, when they use the term “upwelling solar”.) Norm sees “Downwelling infrared” and automatically assumes that implies the IR will be absorbed by the surface. He’s so confused.
Mike Flynn
Don’t be so shallow, they show much more than the Earth surface warms during the day and cools at night. You have to compare the two together to see the reality of GHE which you deny.
If you do as I request, look at them both and compare, I have already explained it. The Goodwin Creek Total radiant energy exceeds Desert Rock even though both are receiving roughly the same solar energy to their surfaces. The reason that Goodwin Creek has a greater positive total energy (which means more energy received by the surface) is because of the Downwelling IR is greater (more water vapor in the air causing higher levels of DWIR). You can see this if you look. It is there to see. I can’t open your eyes. The information is there.
Norman,
Unfortunately, you are talking nonsense.
More H2O results in lower temperatures in arid tropical deserts. The sunlight is constant, and the less that hits the surface, the lower the temperature.
If you believe that less sunlight results in higher temperatures, then good for you.
That’s the GHE in a nutshell. Magic.
Compare all you like. No GHE. The surface heats more with more sunlight, cools with less. Fact.
Maybe you could specify what you disagree with, and say why?
I don’t believe you can, but try your hardest. How hard can it be? Maybe you can convince someone else. I’m unimportant – I don’t determine future funding for the pseudoscience called climatology.
Up to you. I’m an unbeliever – maybe you can convince someone who is on the fence.
They might believe me – convince them otherwise, if you can.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
No I am not talking nonsense at all. It seems you are not able to comprehend the concept.
Your side points (More Sun equal higher temperature) are not significant to the GHE. If you have the same amount of with GHE you have higher temperature, it you have more Sun and GHE you have higher temperature.
Wet areas are cooler because they are usually cloudy and water evaporation removes a lot of surface heat. That would have nothing at all to do with the GHE, it is a different process.
The average Earth temperature would be much colder without the DWIR that you can see in the data I supplied to you. It is really simple physics. Basic energy. With GHG present you have a measurable DWIR without these gasses you would have none.
Your argument amounts to that if you add energy to something it will not increase in temperature. You reply to this by stating less Sunlight decreases temperature. Duh, of course, you are adding less energy.
I gave you an example between a wet and dry place. When sunny the wet place has more Total energy hitting the surface. This is the fact of radiant energy. The wet place can have a lower temperature because a separate heat transfer mechanism is reducing the energy increase from the GHG.
You should learn to think like a scientist and not a layman. The radiant energy is greater with more GHG present both at night and day. It is clear for you to see. Your unbelief is up to you. Reality does not care. I was just hoping factual evidence might have an impact on your false belief. It seems your faith in your false world is stronger than your love of Truth. I gave you clear evidence. You have clearly rejected it.
Mike Flynn
I am thinking the graphs have too much information. You are not seeing what I am stating. Evidence of GHE.
Goodwin Creek just total radiant energy and temperature
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ac1359ecb002.png
Desert Rock
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ac135d584b8b.png
Now do you see it?
You can see the Total loss of energy at night is considerably less at Goodwin Creek because of much higher DWIR at that location. Look at the temperature drop, much less than at Nevada.
Also look at the daytime energy. There is more positive energy reaching the ground at Goodwin Creek than at Nevada because of DWIR. The incoming solar is very close to the same for both locations on this date.
Mike Flynn
Certainly if you look at these you will understand.
Goodwin Creek just solar net
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ac1377aeb425.png
Nevada just solar net
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ac137a31f082.png
Both are about 650 W/m^2 peak value with similar curved graph.
Yet the Net energy is about 100 W/m^2 at Goodwin creek. This is real measured energy. It is the GHE. It is the result of GHG in the atmosphere.
Mike Flynn
This one will hopefully convince the GHE effect is working in both locations. Just considerably more in the wetter area with more water vapor.
Goodwin Creek DWIR
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ac1389262903.png
Nevada
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ac138bbace25.png
The dry desert still has WV and the CO2 levels are equivalent. So the dry desert still has considerable GHE. It would cool much more at night without it! You would end with considerably colder temperatures in the desert without a GHE. The factual graphs should push you to reality at some point. One can deny reality when they don’t know. When you have evidence, denying reality means their is an error in your reasoning ability. I have supplied tremendous data clearly showing GHE. You can continue to deny it. It won’t change reality. Your denial just makes you the one with the problem.
Norm believes that the more he pounds on his keyboard, the more he has a chance of getting it right.
Little does he realize, it’s the opposite.
It’s funny to watch.
Norman,
If you could provide a copy of a testable GHE hypothesis, I might take some notice of your GHE ramblings.
But you can’t, so I won’t.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Are you not demonstrating an extreme case of closed mind syndrome. Completely closed and shut tight.
I give you several good and valid empirical values that demonstrate to you the GHE. You ignore the excellent material provided for you and sit on your toadstool in the dark wondering why you don’t understand the GHE. I give you empirical proof of it and all you do is reject real evidence. Wow how closed a human mind can get. It is an interesting thing to see. Not pleasant, just amazing that even with good solid evidence you soundly reject it with no reason, no logic. Just denial of reality.
What do you mean by this? ” GHE ramblings.” Not sure what is rambling. I presented graphs and explained to you what to look for, that you consider this rambling means you have no comprehension of the word or how to use it properly.
I do not see how any of the definitions apply.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rambling
I did completely waste a few hours on showing you real facts and evidence. Really sad and a mistake I will not repeat. You are too closed minded of a human to even attempt any intelligent or useful debate.
Mike Flynn
Before I quit responding to you. I just need to know one thing (for future reference when debating with intelligent people) is it the graphs you can’t possibly understand? You look at them and do not understand what you see? What is it that you are unable to process. If you let me know what your mental blocks are I can avoid people with similar ones in the future. It takes time to research the information you request. I find it, present it in easy to understand format and yet you cannot understand it or are unwilling to even think you could be totally wrong (which you are). You have not got even a clue of science and I can see from this latest waste of my time the you can’t process information that most high school students could easily understand. I overestimate your thought process.
Sorry for doing that. You are much less intelligent than I can figure out. You don’t even have basic thinking skills. Too bad, it was a complete waste of valid research and presentation.
Norm, you hilarious con-man. If you’re trying to convince anyone of your “science”, don’t forget to include your best science effort ever:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293405
Otherwise, they might just think you are an immature brat.
Glad to help.
A pretty decent primer on blackbody radiation and the fictitious back-radiation from GHGs. Along with an explanation of quantum theory based on Newtonian mechanics. A bit heavy on the math for the latter but it can be waded through if one takes the time to look up terms and understand them.
****place holder for URL test. To be posted later if post succeeds**********
“A blackbody is thus like a high-pass filter, which re-emits frequencies below a cut-off frequency while capturing frequencies above cut-off as heat.
A blackbody acts like a censor which filters out coherent high-frequency (dangerous) information by transforming it into incoherent (harmless) noise. The IPCC acts like a blackbody by filtering coherent critical information, transforming it into incoherent nonsense perceived as global warming”.
********
“The net result is that a warm blackbody can heat a cold blackbody, but not the other way around. A teacher can teach a student but not the other way around. The hot Sun heats the colder Earth, but the Earth does not heat the Sun. A warm Earth surface can heat a cold atmospheric layer, but a cold atmosphere cannot heat a warm Earth surface. A blackbody is heated only by frequencies which it cannot emit, but has to store as heat energy.
There is no “backradiation” from the atmosphere to the Earth. There is no “greenhouse effect” from “backradiation”. fig. 5 propagated by NASA thus displays fictional non-physical recirculating radiation with an Earth surface emitting 117% while absor-bing 48% from the Sun””.
http://www.csc.kth.se/%7Ecgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
He is talking about “IPCC back-radiation”. That’s different from the actual back-radiation that can be measured. The “IPCC back-radiation” involves the atmosphere heating the surface. That does not happen. That’s why “IPCC back-radiation” does NOT exist.
Real “back-radiation” is merely the IR emitted by all matter. A harmless bowl of fruit emits “back-radiation”. A bowl of fruit in NOT heating the planet. Atmospheric CO2 emits IR, but is NOT heating the planet.
As someone has said: “Foolish Warmists”!
g*,
Damn. I wonder if that might have been moi?
Cheers.
It was!
☺
Atmospheric CO2 emits IR, but is NOT heating the planet.
So where does the energy of that IR go? (E=hf)
It went where your “150 W/m^2” went, Jelly.
I’m not surprised you have no explanation. That’s how it always is with deniers like you.
Jelly, you are always surprised by reality.
It’s fun to watch.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295206
You claimed the atmosphere emits IR. So where does that energy go?
Jelly, you hilarious clown.
Learn some physics.
You don’t want to stay stupid, do you?
I’m not stupid. I expect people who make claims to defend and explain them.
Instead, you use insults to avoid explaining. Other deniers here do the same. Do you think we don’t notice?
What are you doing here if you don’t want to discuss the science?
You claim CO2 in the atmosphere emits IR. So where does the energy of that IR go?
Jelly the Clown, spews: “Im not stupid. I expect people who make claims to defend and explain them.”
OK, Jelly the Clown, defend that you are not stupid when you claim a toy train is rotating in its axis on an oval track.
Then, we can go on to your other nonsense, once we verify you are not stupid. (See, I’m keeping an open mind.)
DA,
Ooooh!
“Don’t think we don’t notice.” Scary, oh so scary!
Don’t think I give a toss whether you and the other bumbling fumblers notice or not. You lot are so stupid and ignorant you couldn’t find your backsides with both hands!
If you claim you aren’ stupid and ignorant, where’s your proof? Are you in denial? Do you deny you are a buffoon?
Cheers.
I shouldn’t have expected you to possibly be serious about anything.
Deflection is all you have, denier.
Jelly, you prove, AGAIN, you are a clown.
QED
Right on cue, you prove my point.
Like candy from babies.
Yes, you are a clown.
More, please.
Why are you so afraid to address legitimate scientific questions?
Clown, you don’t have any “legitimate scientific questions”.
You pose your phony nonsense, and then run.
It’s fun to watch.
Wow, you really scramble to try to get out of answering questions.
Clown, here’s a question for you.
How far did you get with your “150 W/m^2” nonsense?
Hilarious.
How much solar energy does the earth absorb at its surface?
How much energy does the earths surface emit, assuming its at a temperature of 288K?
DA,
Ice can emit 300 W/m2, so maybe it swamps your 150 W/m2.
So where does all that IR go (E=hf, and all that)? Maybe the 150 gets added to the 300, and the resultant 450 adds to the original 300, given the miracles of forcings, feedbacks and foolishness, and so on.
Pretty soon even Pierrehumdrum would agree the temperature would reach at least 760 000 K!
But it doesn’t, does it?
Your silly assumptions must be wrong. Sad.
Cheers.
If an object continually absorbs energy, but never emits any energy, what is its maximum temperature?
Clown, something tells me you don’t have such an object.
But, your hilarious attempt to remake physics is fun to watch.
Yet another question you can’t address.
DA,
Another stupid attempt at a gotcha.
Show me how one gram of water at 20 C can be made to absorb energy at 300 W/m2 from all the ice in the world. How high can you get its temperature, eh?
You and Pierredumbert are off with the fairies. About as stupid as the magical (but strangely non-existent) testable GHE hypothesis, which would need magical pseudo-scientific physics in order to exist.
No wonder you don’t blink an eyelid at the fact that such a basic scientific requirement as a testable hypothesis doesn’t exist!
No, a hotter body stubbornly resists absorbing energy from a colder one, and getting even hotter. You can logic away and consensus on, till the cows come home – you can’t actually make it happen, can you? It doesn’t matter how much water at 272 K you have, you cant raise the temperature of even a minute amount of water at say, 274 K.
So, off with your silly and irrelevant gotchas, you buffoon. Here’s one for you –
How long would it take for you to become less than completely stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
You whine about “gotchas” when you can’t answer a question.
How long would it take for you to become less than completely stupid and ignorant?
You use insults to mask your insecurities.
DA…”So where does the energy of that IR go? (E=hf)”
E = hf is the conditions of absorp-tion and emission. If E or f does not match the requirements of an absorbing electron it is rejected.
Where does it go? Good question. It could be scattered, reflected, or any other mysterious form of treatment. I think, though I’m not sure, it can be converted to other forms of energy than heat.
No, Gordon, and you should know better.
E=hf is true for every photon, everywhere and anywhere.
So if the atmosphere emits IR, and it’s directed downward, where does that energy go?
Clown, why can’t you heat your basement apartment with ice cubes?
Asking that question reveals how much science you do understand.
Well clown, you’re the one trying to heat the planet with photons “warmer” than those from ice cubes.
Hilarious.
I have simply asked, if the atmosphere emits IR, where does the energy of that IR go? Especially if it impacts the surface.
Clown, where do the photons from ice cubes go when they impact the frozen pizza you are trying to heat.
Photons carry energy.
When they are absorbed by another object, their energy is transferred to that object.
Well, there you go. You can now heat your frozen pizza with ice cubes.
You’re “saving the planet”!
Hilarious.
How much do the photons from our use hit the frozen pizza?
Define “use”.
Translation: You lose again, clown.
Ice….
DA…”E=hf is true for every photon, everywhere and anywhere”.
Not according to Niels Bohr, who put out the equation initially. He had the temerity to claim an electron put out E = hf based on the potential difference between energy levels through which an electron drops while emitting E.
He claimed further than in order to absorb E = hf of EM, the E and f had to match the energy level through which the electron needs to jump plus the frequency of the electron in that energy shell.
You see, the frequency is related to the angular momentum of an electron in a specific energy shell and that is also related to the temperature of the atom.
Bohr would clearly not be a climate alarmist. Even though his initial Bohr model has been superseded, the basic math has not. Schrodinger went on to use it coupled with the wave equation to invent modern quantum theory.
Being a bit of an ingrate on the side, Bohr whimsically took quantum theory off into the world of sci-fi, causing Schroddy and Einstein to withdraw, holding their noses in protest.
DA…”Photons carry energy.
When they are absorbed by another object, their energy is transferred to that object”.
Specifically, EM is not absorbed by an object per se but a particle in an atom called an electron, which has mass and charge. Alarmists like to use a black box hidden in a ‘molecule’, which could involved hundreds of atoms joined by electrons, as a source or absorber of EM. That way, they can avoid certain inconvenient problems, like the 2nd law.
There are rules with electrons for absorbing and emitting EM. It comes from quantum theory. One rule is that the electron must fall to a lower energy level to emit a photon and the other rule is that it must jump to a higher energy level after absorbing a photon.
IF it can absorb the photon, that is, which is far from guaranteed. The photon must have certain properties to be absorbed and if it came from an atom with lower energy, aka low temperature, it won’t be absorbed.
Now some people try to get around the basics by talking about molecular vibration and rotation. They fail to realize that the electron is what bonds atoms together to form molecules. Molecular and rotational vibration is all due to electrons and it has to involve electron transitions where absorp-tion and emission are involved.
The 2nd law tells you that as well.
g*r…”He is talking about IPCC back-radiation. Thats different from the actual back-radiation that can be measured. The IPCC back-radiation involves the atmosphere heating the surface”.
I have no problem with the atmosphere back-radiating energy. I was quoting the author, who has other reasons for claiming it does not exist.
I liked his explanation of blackbodies, that a cooler BB cannot warm a hotter BB. When you see the traditional explanation offered for a BB it’s that the BB absorbs all energy incident on it. The absor.bed energy is converted to heat and the broader the bandwidth of the absor.bed energy the hotter the BB.
There is more to BB theory as he explains. A tiny hole is drilled in the BB to allow emission and the emission temperature is always lower than the BB temperature due to absorp-tion. He treats that as an amplifier with a high pass filter.
If you have a hotter BB, and its emission is used to warm a cooler BB, it stands to reason that the emitted EM from the hotter BB will warm the cooler BB. However, the emitted EM of the cooler BB cannot warm the hotter BB since the hotter BB would require a much higher frequency and intensity of energy to warm.
Consider the Sun-Earth system. If the Sun is the hotter BB and the Earth a cooler BB, which is fairly absurd but OK with alarmists, the Earth warms then emits a cooler form of EM in the IR band. That cooler IR cannot warm the Sun, even though DA thinks it can.
Now take the cooler GHGs in the atmosphere which are warmer than the surface. It’s plain the back-radiated energy from cooler GHGs cannot warm the surface.
Gordon, just don’t get confused about the “back-radiation”. IR from the sky DOES exist. It just has no ability to heat the surface. Your source uses the term “back-radiation” because the IPCC used it. If you check the publish date of your source, you will find it was in response to the IPCC nonsense. Your source is referring to the “IPCC back-radiation”, not the real IR from all matter.
IR is emitted by all matter, even ice. But, you would not use ice cubes to bake a turkey. Neither would Warmists or Lukewarmers.
They just IMAGINE it.
It’s fun to watch.
g*r….”Gordon, just dont get confused about the back-radiation. IR from the sky DOES exist”.
I agree completely that back-radiation exists. Like you, I think it has no effect on the surface.
The ‘source’ is also in agreement. What he calls nonsense with regard to back-radiation is the claim by NASA, based on mathematical calculations using S-B, that about as much ‘heat’ is back-radiated by the atmosphere as what is transferred to the atmosphere from the surface. He claims that is nonsense if it lacks a physical reality to explain it.
He is essentially in agreement with us and he invokes the 2nd law as backup. He uses a similar analogy to one I have used, that back-radiation as a feedback is as useless as the feedback in a system with a microphone and speakers with the amplifier turned off. In other words, you cannot talk of a reality in which heat is amplified if you have no amplifier. The atmosphere has no heat amplifier.
The entire premise of his paper is that an EM spectrum can be calculated using waves rather than particles like photons. Planck invented the notion of the photon in order to implement his theory that EM has to exist as discrete particles he called quanta. That quanta has now become the photon.
The author thinks that was not necessary, that EM radiation can be explained as wave action in Newtonian terms if a certain form of math is used. He goes on to explain that theory in the paper and I think is reasoning is sound.
Although my math is seriously rusty, I can follow what he is saying and it’s sound.
Gordon Robertson says:
However, the emitted EM of the cooler BB cannot warm the hotter BB since the hotter BB would require a much higher frequency and intensity of energy to warm.
How does either body know the temperature of the other?
Wavelengths, clown. This has been explained to you before. You just can’t learn.
What information in the “wavelength” specifies the temperature?
Poor clown, doesn’t even understand how photons are emitted.
Hilarious.
So tell me how photons are emitted…….
You can’t learn. You have no cognitive ability. You can’t see that the toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”, in the same motion as the Moon.
Your brain can not process facts and logic.
That’s why you are a clown.
What is it I don’t understand about how photons are emitted?
ibid
You crumble when asked for details about something you wrote.
No clown, you just can’t understand.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295450
Again, what is it about the emssions of photons that I do not understand?
Study the reference comment, clown.
You lose, AGAIN.
I read that link. So, again, what is it about photon emmission that I do not understand?
DA…”What information in the wavelength specifies the temperature?”
Temperature can only be related to atoms, i.e. their average kinetic energy. However, the average KE is related to the frequency of an electron in an orbital, and frequency is the inverse of wavelength.
With a sine wave, the frequency is the number of complete cycles per second and the wavelength is the length of a complete cycle (2pi radians).
When an electron emits a quanta of EM, the frequency of the EM relates to the angular velocity of the electron in it’s orbital. That in turn is related to the average kinetic energy of the electron which is its temperature.
Something like that. If you know the frequency, you know the wavelength, and the temperature of the body that radiated that wavelength/frequency.
Think of a steel rod being heated by an acetylene torch. The first colour to show up is red and you know what the temperature needs to be to radiate a red frequency. On the EM spectrum, infrared means below red. Next, is orange, and so forth. Each colour can be related to a temperature, a frequency and a wavelength.
Gordon Robertson says:
That cooler IR cannot warm the Sun, even though DA thinks it can.
Why not?
Does that IR carry energy? (Yes.)
So what happens to that energy when it impacts the Sun?
It can’t impact the Sun, clown. You need some advanced physics, but that would ruin your career as a clown.
So what, does it do a U-turn?
Based on what criteria?
Clown, you vacillate between IR and “150 W/m^2”. You have no science. You don’t know physics. You appear as a fraud and a phony.
But, your clown antics are hilarious.
More, please.
Yet another question you can’t answer.
No clown, I can answer that one.
Here’s one you can’t answer: Why do you choose to be stupid?
So do those photons do a U-turn when they meet the Sun?
Or not?
Clown, what do all those photons do in your freezer? Do they heat all the other frozen food?
And then the other frozen foods heat the other frozen foods?
That’s why freezer don’t work, huh clown?
Hilarious.
Photons carry energy, right? E=hf.
So when they are absorbed by an object, it absorbs that energy, right?
If not, where does that energy go?
See my previous comment, clown.
I dont see an answer in anything you wrote previously.
What did I miss?
Let me help you, clown.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295460
So why dont fluxes add?
DA…”So what happens to that energy when it impacts the Sun?”
Like the troll on the bridge in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail, “I – I – I – don’t know…”. Out comes the hook and he is deposited in the canyon, near the Killer Rabbit of Antioch.
The question he could not answer is “What is the ground velocity of an unladen swallow”?
You need to watch both short videos. On my system one follows the other automatically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liIlW-ovx0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPOyOM7wxlE
He is talking about IPCC back-radiation. Thats different from the actual back-radiation that can be measured.
Why can’t the first be measured?
IR can be measured, clown, but that does not mean it has any potential to warm anything.
Try baking your frozen pizza with ice cubes.
Hilarious.
Does all IR carry energy?
Is all energy the same?
DA,
Do you have the faintest idea what you are talking about? It doesn’t seem so.
Keep going with the gotchas. They are a usual tactic of the stupid and ignorant fanatical buffoon trying to appear intelligent.
Have you found a testable GHE hypothesis anywhere, yet? No?
Oh, what a pity – not terribly scientific, is it? More like Cargo Cult Scientism, the usual ploy of the second raters demanding unearned respect and adulation – like you, perhaps?
Have fun with it.
Cheers.
Flynn, you avoid any and all questions.
Because you don’t have answers.
What a poseur.
Yes, all energy is ultimately the same.
Does all IR carry energy?
The poor clown believe all energy is the same.
Jelly, tell us more about your distorted views of reality.
It’s fun to watch.
So tell us how energy differs.
Clown, you’ve just hit another red herring.
Hilarious.
You claimed all energy isnt the same. So tell us how it differs.
No clown, you’re twisting my words again.
You lose, AGAIN.
At 8:07 PM, you asked, isnt all energy the same?
I said it is. What do you say?
Does “back radiation” satisfy E=hf?
Does a = b + c?
(The poor clown is so logic-deprived>)
AGAIN, you’re avoiding basic scientific questions.
Again, you’re avoiding basic scientific questions.
OK, Ill ask again. Does radiation from the atmosphere satisfy E=hf?
OK, lets try again. Do photons emitted by the atmosphere satisfy E=hf?
Jelly, do some research on photon emission. Then, you might learn something.
One can hope.
OK, so you dont know. Its OK to admit that.
DA…”Does back radiation satisfy E=hf?”
It’s a type of gotcha. The E must satisfy the requirements of an electron in an atom needing to jump to a higher energy level, which reflects warming. According to the 2nd law, IR from a cooler object lacks the required E.
I equate that to my experiences in electronics. If you have a resonant filter, tuned to a certain frequency, it passes only frequencies in and around the central frequencies of the filter. It rejects all other frequencies and please don’t ask me what happens to such signals. They simply vanish into the region of rejected signals.
So radiation from the atmosphere doesn’t carry energy?
Only in your pseudoscience, clown.
Wow, you claim radiation doesn’t carry energy.
Did you tell Einstein?
The world?
This finding will win you an immediate Nobel Prize.
But you’ll have to reveal your real name.
Nice try, Jelly. That’s not what I said. You lose by trying to twist my words.
No surprise, that’s a common trick in pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
Does radiation from the sky carry energy?
Does snow carry energy?
Why the need to avoid the question?
DA,
Gotchas, gotchas, and yet more gotchas!
And still you haven’t even got a testable GHE hypothesis, have you?
You can’t disguise your denial by continuously spouting pseudoscience. Carry on trying, if you think it makes you appear other than stupid and ignorant. It doesn’t, but you wouldn’t realise this, of course!
Cheers.
DA…”So radiation from the atmosphere doesnt carry energy?”
It doesn’t only carry energy, it IS energy…electromagnetic energy. You seem to presume all EM has to be absorbed by anything it touches.
If that was the case, there would be no colour since what we see as colour is EM that is not absorbed by an object. It’s not simply reflection, colour is EM rejected by an object.
You don’t see colour approaching an object, it is white light approaching the object which is comprised of all colours. When the white light hits an object, the object absorbs some of the white light and rejects the rest as a certain shade of colour frequencies.
The reflected light has no colour either, it’s the eye that adds the colour. Can you imagine how bizarre it would be if the eye saw all the frequencies in white light? The sky would be a myriad of rainbow effects.
Come to think of it, I have seen that while doing Berkley acid. Sounds are great too, especially Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Zeppelin, and even CCR. Not much fun walking into a McDonald’s, however, since the sound of everyone talking at once is most unnerving.
Gordon Robertson says:
“A blackbody is thus like a high-pass filter, which re-emits frequencies below a cut-off frequency while capturing frequencies above cut-off as heat.”
No. A blackbody is, by definition, a body that absorbs all incoming energy. ALL.
And it emits all frequencies, in accordance with the Planck law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Clown, try to order one of those from Amazon.
Hilarious.
More insults in lieu of physics.
You don’t understand physics, clown.
You can’t even understand that you are the one insulting yourself.
It’s fun to watch.
Still more insults in lieu of science.
Yes clown, you keep insulting yourself.
Probably the next step is self-mutilation.
I hear it is a common practice among the brain-dead.
Notice how now you’re several replies deep into insults, all to avoid a basic question about the science.
Clown, you don’t have any science. You think the toy train is rotating on its axis. You’re brain-dead and expecting everyone else to join you.
Ever heard of zombies?
The Moon isnt a train, but yes, both are rotating. Every astronomer in the world knows this, but somehow you think youre special and know more than all of them. Its fun to watch.
What are cutoff fequencies, for both emission and ab.sorp.tion, Of a black body?
DA,
Why do you want to know? Are you stupid, or merely ignorant?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
April 2, 2018 at 12:37 AM
If there is one person behaving stupid and ignorant on this web site, than that’s YOU, Flynn.
In comparison with you, any animal looks highly intelligent.
However, as opposed to most animals, you are a coward, Flynn.
Never and never would you be courageous enough to publish your poorish insults at WUWT or Climate Etc: you perfectly know that you would then be banned out there within just one day.
You abuse this site’s tolerance (or is it simply lack of time), and I still have the hope that some day in the near future this will come to an end.
Pfui Deibel!
DA…”What are cutoff fequencies, for both emission and ab.sorp.tion, Of a black body?”
The temperature of the BB determines it’s maximum frequency. That’s the cut-off frequency. Any emission has to be below the cutoff.
http://www.csc.kth.se/%7Ecgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
See bottom of page 2 of 29 (actual page 169):
“A blackbody acts like a transformer of radiation which absorbs high-frequency radiation and emits low-frequency radiation. The temperature of the blackbody determines a cut-off frequency for the emission, which increases linearly with the temperature: The warmer the blackbody is, the higher frequencies it can and will emit. Thus only frequencies below cut-off are emitted, while all frequencies are being absorbed”.
Page 4 of 29:
“A blackbody thus absorbs and emits frequencies below cut-off without getting warmer, while absorbed frequencies above cut-off are not emitted but are instead stored as heat energy increasing the temperature. A blackbody is thus like a high-pass filter, which re-emits frequencies below a cut-off frequency while capturing frequencies above cut-off as heat”.
Wonder where I got obtain such a device?
DA…”No. A blackbody is, by definition, a body that absorbs all incoming energy. ALL.”
Agreed. What they don’t tell you in most blackbody discussions is that Planck drilled a small hole in his imaginary BB to allow energy to be emitted. He must have used an imaginary drill and bit.
They don’t often tell you either that the bandwidth of a BB depends on its temperature. That’s why you see the Sun depicted as a mountain related to its emission with the BB curve of the Earth appearing like a pimple beside it.
I am still trying to figure out what Em frequencies it absorbs. Some claim it is at such a high temperature due to thermonuclear explosions involving hydrogen and helium.
BB radiation is based on Planck’s Law which is a probability distribution not an actual radiation from a blackbody. The actual radiation based on E = hf as proposed by Rayleigh-Jeans leads to a runaway energy spectrum. Planck had to apply some fudged math from Einstein-Bose to give the probability of finding energy of different intensities in a spectrum. The nice, smooth Planck distribution you see is fudged.
Planck’s formula has an exponential in the denominator that is dependent on temperature. It provides the probability distribution.
You have to realize that all this stuff is highly theoretical and based on fudged math. As Feynman said about quantum theory, it works, but no one knows why.
The output of a BB is of a lower frequency and intensity than the input. Those conditions can warm a cooler BB but the output of a cooler BB cannot warm a warmer BB because it lacks the required frequency and temperature to accomplish that. Same with atoms, the output of which a BB tries to depict.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html
I don’t think it’s April fool’s:
BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK MARCH 26, 2018
“Lockheed Martin has quietly obtained a patent associated with its design for a potentially revolutionary compact fusion reactor, or CFR. If this project has been progressing on schedule, the company could debut a prototype system that size of shipping container, but capable of powering a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier or 80,000 homes, sometime in the next year or so.
The patent, for a portion of the confinement system, or embodiment, is dated Feb. 15, 2018. The Maryland-headquartered defense contractor had filed a provisional claim on April 3, 2013 and a formal application nearly a year later. Our good friend Stephen Trimble, chief of Flightglobal’s Americas Bureau, subsequently spotted it and Tweeted out its basic details.”
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19652/lockheed-martin-now-has-a-patent-for-its-potentially-world-changing-fusion-reactor
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Anyhow news is the filing patent, five years after provisional
And they said before it would take 10 years to get working engine.
But I think this is mostly about fusion Rocket engine, but if had fusion rocket engine (rather mere concepts of them) it probably would to things like using them to power aircraft carriers and then all kinds of things (including fusion electrical powerplants for residential use. But might have them used for suborbital travel before residential use (or more useful/valuable using for suborbital and/or orbital spacecraft).
24 times could / should / would found within
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19652/lockheed-martin-now-has-a-patent-for-its-potentially-world-changing-fusion-reactor
Not bad!
A fusion rocket might be like an electric car.
A electric car was made over hundred years ago.
A fusion rocket has not been made yet.
After a century, the electric car has some uses, but
it’s not the “answer” like the gasoline car was.
Likewise if fusion rocket is make, it might not be the
answer which it is hoped it would be.
I wonder if we have fusion rockets and we have lunar water mining and making chemical rocket fuel what would be significant in terms of transporting people to say, Mars.
I would bet the chemical rockets are more significant for at least the next 50 years. But fusion rockets could be significant.
You seem to believe in fusion tech as a path to future’s energy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111106184414/http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/TerraPowerGilleland.pdf
Good luck.
You linked to fission power plants. And topic was fusion engines, and possibilities for use for things like aircraft carriers.
Current US carriers are and been for decades powered by fission nuclear power plants
BTW, Russia has fission nuclear powered ice breaker. I think the US should build a couple of them.
The Earth’s surface receives an average of 240 W/m2 from the Sun.
But, at an average temperature of 288 K, it radiates 390 W/m2.
Where does the other 150 W/m2 come from?
(Scienific replies only, please.)
Jelly, you poor clown, perhaps you missed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295206
That comment was nonsense.
Fluxes are just energy per unit time per unit area. They can certainly be compared, added, subtracted. This is basic freshman physics. Its basic common sense.
Did you ever take freshman physics? Be honest. It doesnt seem that you did.
So, again, where does the extra 150 W per square meter come from?
David Appell
Thanks for removing the tick from my back. He keeps coming back after I tell him I have no interest at all in his stupid opinions. When you interact with him you use established science of photon energy and he replies with “jelly” and “clown” about 100 times. He does not say anything. He repeats himself. He wastes time and lowers the IQ of this blog considerably. He never seems to tire though. He drones on and on about nothing. He seems to enjoy his new found toy words “jelly” and “clown”
I ignore this idiot as often as I can. I really do not like the person in the least. He is a true low mind and real idiot. You should ignore this one as well. When he prompts you for a reply ignore it. He will pester someone else. That is all he is able to do. You already know he doesn’t know any physics at all. He really does not know much at all. His goal is to elicit responses. I am aware of this. That is why I am happy you pulled him off me. Now you just need to forget about responding to this one. If anyone reads his comments and thinks they are of value, that mistake is on them. He is an utter and complete moron with no value to contribute at all. He whines like a baby because of a realistic post I made about his personality. He poops his diaper and demands attention. He stinks up this blog and is proud of his total lack of decency or character. Every post of his looks like a stinky turd and smell about the same.
I agree Norman. This guy only uses insults because he cannot provide answers about the science. Whats funny is he seems to think no one notices that.
Climate science Does have a place for skeptics, But its really not difficult to show the deniers for who they are.
Now watch both of them reply with all the same old dumb and boring insults and excuses.
Norman,
Some real scientists use the scientific method – you may not have heard of it, I realise.
Part of this method requires that a testable hypothesis, adhering to scientific protocols, be proposed.
Of course, the usual crowd of bumbling buffoons follow pseudo-science, which only requires stupidity, ignorance, and gullibility from its adherents.
Good luck with the pseudo-science. Try praying harder, and the GHE might become reality.
Cheers,
MF, you wrote awhile back that CO2 increases the opacity of the atmosphere.
So theres a good hypothesis.
DA,
Maybe you could write a testable GHE hypothesis, if you are so clever.
Your comments so far are of the bumbling pseudoscientific buffoon variety.
Nonsensical and irrelevant evasions.
Off you go, David. Try to compose some more witless gotchas – the more pointless the better!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Please do not pretend to be interested in the scientific method or science. You can peddle your “fake” science interest to a few but you and I both know you are a complete fraud. You have zero interest in science or the scientific method. You are here for one reason and one reason only. To provoke responses and see how many you are able to get. You are currently using insult tactic hoping it increases your number.
I have given you factual empirical information above showing you the GHE effect, that it is real and works and applies to the higher average temperature the Earth experiences. You have rejected the real science and facts and post down here like you are interested in science and the scientific method. Nothing is farther from the truth. If you are honest you would admit you are just a troll with zero knowledge of physics and zero desire to learn it. You come here for entertainment to provoke scientific minded people and hope to get a few responses. Do you keep a tally of how many replies you get from the blogs you post on? Maybe the posters on this one give you the most.
Anyway keep being a complete phony and fraud. We can learn about human behavior by observing what you are doing and speculate on the motive. Science is not your motive or passion.
The air surface is 288 K, but air surface is not a blackbody surface and it is not in a vacuum.
Earth surface and it’s air surface is transporting it’s energy via convective and evaporative heat processes.
And the surface air is a convergence of two temperature gradients of the atmosphere and the ocean and land surface, that thin layer of gases has radiant energy passing thru it, but it not cooling as blackbody surface would cool if it were radiating heat to space.
The surfaces which are radiates similar to a blackbody are the land and ocean surface which also evaporating and convecting heat. And a blackbody in vacuum does not convect or evaporate heat, rather it is solely a radiant process of emitting energy in to space.
I would add, the the heat gradients are created by gravity.
Another heat gradient created by gravity is a solar pond.
A ideal thermally conductive blackbody has no effect created by gravity- works same in no gravity or a lot of gravity.
And with atmosphere, gravity will have effect upon temperature of the air and water.
The surfaces which are radiates similar to a blackbody…
Should be:
The surfaces which are radiating similar to a blackbody…
gbaikie says:
April 2, 2018 at 9:29 AM
Show us a source scientifically contradicting the following information:
The surface absorbs about 48% of incoming sunlight. Three processes remove an equivalent amount of energy from the Earths surface: evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation, or heat (net 17%).
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page5.php
and I will be ready to believe you!
I tend to believe the surface evaporate about 25 % (though perhaps more) and a number of energy budgets tend to indicate less than 25%.
But suppose you interested in the surface absorbing 48%, part of it.
I would ask what surfaces are absorbing this 48%.
I would divide land and ocean surface. And would be interested in claim of land surfaces absorbing more energy as compared to ocean surface.
Though if agreed that ocean surface absorbs more solar energy how much more?
And does this including all direct, indirect, and emitted shortwave light (UV to shortwave IR ) which would and could pass thru top 1 mm of ocean water.
from your link:
“Remember that about 29 percent of incoming sunlight is reflected back to space by bright particles in the atmosphere or bright ground surfaces, which leaves about 71 percent to be absorbed by the atmosphere (23 percent) and the land (48 percent). ”
So they are claiming land absorb 48%.
And one can assume it means the sunlight reaching the land (which is 30% of earth surface) 48% is absorbed.
Continuing:
“For the energy budget at Earths surface to balance, processes on the ground must get rid of the 48 percent of incoming solar energy that the ocean and land surfaces absorb”
OK. But how much does ocean absorb, but I would agree, that land “must” get rid of heat from the land and the ocean.
Or ocean warmed land. Ocean warms Europe, European land must get rid land heat and ocean heat.
anyhow, other not being specific (enough) I don’t have a disagreement (unless or until the babble about the greenhouse effect religion), they even correctly said tropical oceans are primary heat engine of Earth – they didn’t make the error of saying the tropics.
binny…”Show us a source scientifically contradicting the following information:”
It’s a fictitious diagram someone made up. Why would you need a source of contradiction, can’t you see that for yourself?
The graphic is claiming 5% of surface heat removed by convection. No heat is removed by convection it must first be conducted to the atmosphere which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
Or maybe you think nitrogen and oxygen molecules touching a surface can exist at a higher or lower temperature.
I am claiming that most heat is removed from the surface by conduction then convection and that their 5% figure is bogus. Radiation is a poor mode of heat transfer at terrestrial temperatures.
Here’s a statement by an expert on IR, Wood, circa 1909.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
“Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions”.
The radiation enthusiasts have it wrong.
A testable hypothesis.
I think it is obvious and true that the oceans have a higher global average surface temperature, than compared to average land temperature.
But over hundreds millions of land position has altered, and my testable hypothesis is that oceans have always and will always have a higher average ocean surface.
And this is due Earth characteristic of being a water planet, there would always be a sizable body of oceans at or near the tropics.
But over hundreds millions of (years, ) land position has altered…
…will always have a higher average ocean surface (temperature)
gbaikie says:
April 2, 2018 at 12:48 PM
I think it is obvious and true that the oceans have a higher global average surface temperature, than compared to average land temperature.
*
Again, gbaikie: can you show valuable data confirming what you merely think and guess but probably do not know?
Unfortunately, it is not quite simple to find absolute data in ASCII text form for global land and sea surfaces: all this data (HadSST3, COBE SST, …) is in netcdf format, e.g.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.cobe2.html
and I’m too lazy to search for software reading netcdf files.
*
But do you really think that ocean surfaces are warmer than land surfaces if the lower troposphere above them mostly shows the contrary?
Take for example Roy Spencer’s UAH 6.0 dataset
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
and look at data columns 2 (Globe land) and 3 (Globe ocean).
You see that the ocean anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 are lower than the land anomalies, and so is their trend for the period 1979-2018 as well (0.18 C /decade for land, 0.11 for oceans).
Again, gbaikie: can you show valuable data confirming what you merely think and guess but probably do not know?
So you want information regarding the average land temperature?
Generally speaking, Berkeley Earth has all kinds data on Earth land temperatures, graphs showing land temperature changes
for all countries. They also have paper about all land air surface temperature.
For average ocean, you search it on any search engine.
gbaikie says:
April 2, 2018 at 6:38 PM
For average ocean, you search it on any search engine.
No, gbaikie: YOU pretend something based on your vaque assumptions. It is YOUR job to give a proof of what you pretend.
I won’t do the job for you.
Google: ocean average temperature :
about 17 degrees Celsius
Ocean water, with an average salinity of 35 psu, freezes at -1.94 degrees Celsius (28.5 degrees Fahrenheit). That means at high latitudes sea ice can form. The average temperature of the ocean surface waters is about 17 degrees Celsius (62.6 degrees Fahrenheit).Feb 16, 2011
Temperature of Ocean Water – Windows to the Universe
https://www.windows2universe.org temp
http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/
Results paper (December 07, 2012):
Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
Graph near bottom and gives links under
Learn more.
Also has video (I haven’t watched).
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/city-list/
By country:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/country-list/
Simple math:
70% = 17
30% = 10
17 x 7 = 119
10 x 3 = 30
119 + 30 = 149 divide by 10 = 14.9 C
Or about 15 C
About 70% ocean and 30% land.
“It is YOUR job to give a proof of what you pretend.”
In this case my job was to provide falsible hypothesis:
Ocean surface is always warmer than land surface temperature.
As far as I am concern, presently it is this way, the way falsify is to find a time when this isn’t the case.
Another task, would to find a hothouse global climate, in which the entire ocean is cold, cold being 5 C (and our cold ocean is about 3.5 C.)
And during our present million years of an icebox climate the entire ocean has varied by about 1 to 5 C.
Or you need to look much earlier to find a hot climate.
Once find it, check out the temperature of ocean.
Or simply find when Earth had a warm ocean and if warm enough,
well over 10 C, it can be a hothouse climate.
Or simple find out the definite of a icebox and hothouse climates.
It not my fault you don’t know basic stuff about earth’s climate.
gbaikie says:
April 3, 2018 at 9:18 AM
Google: ocean average temperature :
about 17 degrees Celsius
I’m still waiting for data confirming what you guess.
I repeat: I won’t search within web sites for you!
gbaikie says:
April 3, 2018 at 9:38 AM
http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/
*
All these papers I read years before you did.
None of them contains absolute ocean temperature data, excepted these two graphics:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/land-and-ocean-baseline-comparison-map-large-1024×788.png
Only anomalies wrt 1951-1980. But even that you don’t know.
If land is 10 C and global is 15 C and land is 30% and ocean
is 70%, what is ocean temperature?
Time for you to provide evidence that total land area is about 10 C and ocean isn’t about 17 C.
Do you think ocean and land have about same temperature, or that ocean is cooler than land.
Tropics is about 26 C, and about 80% of tropics is ocean.
And tropics is 40% of earth. Or 510 million square km times .4
is 204 million square km. 204 times .8 is 163 million sq.
Land being 30% 510 times .3 = 153 million square km
The average temperature of Greenland is -17 C, do you how people can live in -17 C average temperature?
The answer is they don’t, they live near the coast (near ocean warming effects) in average temps of about 0 C.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
Anyhow if people don’t choose to live in a region with average temperature of -17 C, why would they choose on Mars which has average of -50 C (or the Moon also with low average temperature).
The simple answer is Mars lacks atmosphere and the lack of atmosphere means -50 C on Mars is a lot different from -50 C on Earth.
Though not sure the Mars fanatics are aware of this, instead they might imagine Mars would be like living in Antarctica (which isn’t living, it’s camping- with a nuclear reactor or lots of fossil fuel use.)
The lack of atmosphere means one could have low heating costs, something like heating cost of living in LA. Though you probably need to park the car in the garage.
Heating a home could similar to heating ISS (which is not done, rather one refrigerate (have air conditioning) on ISS.
The costs is related to living in a sealed environment or your environment must managed, provide oxygen, and remove Co2, and etc.
One could change the question, what is average temperature of land areas where average human (7 billion of them) live.
Using Barkley earth one could get answer. Now if simply average India and China (2.5 billion) it could be around 12 C, but more people are living in warmer regions of these countries, so if did more work of where they live, it could be few degrees warming, of course you would include the urban heat island effect, and so making it warmer.
— gbaikie says:
April 3, 2018 at 9:38 AM
http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/
*
All these papers I read years before you did.
None of them contains absolute ocean temperature data, excepted these two graphics: —
The land temperature which peaking close to 10 C, is, as far as I know is the most exact that is available. Displaying as graph is more exact than giving any number, as the value is changing or value is true with a given date, but I think saying land is about 10 C and ocean is about 17 C is reasonable, and more reasonable than the average global temperature is about 15 C.
“Take for example Roy Spencers UAH 6.0 dataset
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
and look at data columns 2 (Globe land) and 3 (Globe ocean).
You see that the ocean anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 are lower than the land anomalies, and so is their trend for the period 1979-2018 as well (0.18 C /decade for land, 0.11 for oceans)”
Ocean surfaces will warm slower.
And average of entire volume of. ocean increase very slowly.
And 1 degree increase of entire ocean which is currently about 3.5 C will allow average surface oceans (mostly outside of tropics) to increase quite bit. I would say average ocean was around 4.5 to 5 C in the warmest part of the last interglacial period, Eemain:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
And I suspect during the warmest period of our current interglacial, average ocean was around 4 C.
If our oceans warm to 4 C, average ocean surface temperatures could be as much 18 C or more, and land average temperature could be 2 C or warmer, sea levels meters higher, ice free polar ocean in summers, with Canada and Russia getting higher average temperature, instead – 4 C, their average temperature could above freezing, maybe even warmer.
But increasing the ocean temperature would require a lot of time, centuries, and so far there is no evidence that such warming will occur (within centuries or thousands of years).
Anyhow average ocean surface is about 17 C.
“Near the Martian shoreline”
((And I would say, in the tropics))
“One of the prime areas of research for Mars planetary geologists is the region on Mars where the geography appears to transition from the southern cratered, rough terrain to the northern low, generally smooth, and flat plains. It is theorized by some scientists that the northern plains were once an ocean, probably shallow and probably intermittent, but wet nonetheless for considerable periods.”
…
“None of this really tells us that much about the theorized oceans of Mars. The image doesnt tell us how long it existed, or even if it existed intermittently. What this image shows however, along with almost all the images taken of features in the transition zone, is liquid was clearly able to exist on the Martian surface at some time in the past. ”
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/near-the-martian-shoreline/
Linked from:
http://www.transterrestrial.com
“As part of the study, the researchers investigated climate evolution since the early Pliocene epoch, 4 to 5 million years ago. They looked at the development of gradients along the equator and mid-latitude regions to the north and south.
The early Pliocene was the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were as high as today’s levels, yet ocean temperatures during the Pliocenefrom the subtropics to the Articwere much warmer than today. The tropical Pacific, for example, had conditions resembling a modern El Nio that persisted for thousands of years.
“The puzzle is how to explain this warmth during the Pliocene,” said lead author Alexey Fedorov, a professor of geology and geophysics at Yale. “Ocean temperature contrasts are a major part of this puzzle.”
As part of their work, the researchers developed a temperature record for the mid-latitude South Pacific, where there had been no long-term temperature record. The new data shows that water temperatures during the Pliocene were about 5 degrees Celsius warmer than today.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-11-ocean-temperatures-global-climate-patterns.html#jCp
So, ocean surface temperature were 5 C warmer. 17 + 5 = 22 C
Which I would predict, average volume temperature of ocean was
2 C warmer than our present ocean of 3.5 C or it would have been about 5.5 C and land surfaces would been more than 5 C warmer. Now 10 C, then +15 C.
And global average temperature:
7 times 22 = 154
3 times 15 = 45 plus 154 = 199
/10 equals average global temperature of 20 C.
Hmm, almost a hothouse climate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407908615523
Costs money to look at, title:
“Hothouse Earth: what it was like the last time our planet warmed up”
Wiki:
Overview of greenhouse earth
A “greenhouse earth” or “hothouse earth” is a period in which there are no continental glaciers whatsoever on the planet, the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (such as water vapor and methane) are high, and sea surface temperatures (SSTs) range from 28 C (82.4 F) in the tropics to 0 C (32 F) in the polar regions.”
And
Overview of icehouse earth
“An “icehouse earth” is the earth as it experiences an ice age. Unlike a greenhouse earth, an icehouse earth has ice sheets present, and these sheets wax and wane throughout times known as glacial periods and interglacial periods. During an icehouse earth, greenhouse gases tend to be less abundant, and temperatures tend to be cooler globally. The Earth is currently in an icehouse stage,[5] as ice sheets are present on both poles and glacial periods have occurred at regular intervals over the past million years.”
Not very helpful.
Strange:
“It is generally accepted among the scientific community that ocean temperatures were around 15 degrees Celsius warmer 100 million years ago than they are today, during the Cretaceous period.”
http://www.newsweek.com/ancient-ocean-temperatures-wrong-unparalleled-climate-change-694434
So were ocean surface 15 C warmer, so 17 plus 15 C = 32 C average surface temperature? I would say, no, not oceans warmed by the sun, from large impactor, sure, but they would not stay warm for long.
Maybe they meant average volume temperature of ocean, so 3.5 + 15 C is 18.5, maybe and certainly would be a hothouse climate.
But this could be that deep water is about 10 to 15 C, with mid waters being +15 C or polar ocean water are not around 2 C, but more like 15 C average and surface waters cooling in 6 months of winter, so average surface in polar waters could cooler than 15 C (no chance of polar ice caps- and no polar ice ever forming, obviously). Anyhow, 18 C seems pretty warm, but land air temperature, does not have to be very hot, but do you get tropical like conditions, globally. Including tropical in poles in winter.
Anyhow, not sure what Newsweek is talking about.
Meant, no polar sea ice, ever forming.
One could still have snow and ice at higher elevation mostly in winter, though surviving summer, unlikely/extremely rare and not permanent in terms of decades.
Same story as Newsweek, said differently:
“This tells us the temperature of the deeper parts of the ocean at the tropics were about 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today.
Yet it turns out things might not be quite so straightforward.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-ocean-temperatures-cooler-than-predicted
So current water in tropics in “deeper parts” can be below 0 C, so deeper parts could be 15 C in tropics.
Not saying they are right, but not as insane and unclear as the Newsweek article.
Oh,goody, sciencealert gave a ref:
https://actu.epfl.ch/news/the-oceans-were-colder-than-we-thought/
“According to the methodology widely used by the scientific community, the temperature of the ocean depths 100 million years ago was around 15 degrees higher than current readings. This approach, however, is now being challenged: ocean temperatures may in fact have remained relatively stable throughout this period, which raises serious concerns about current levels of climate change.”
Yes, it would raise concerns, but challenge, away.
Hmhm:
— 26.10.17 – A team of EPFL and European researchers has discovered a flaw in the way past ocean temperatures have been estimated up to now. —
Elsewhere:
“The new technique works by analysing variations in the ratio of magnesium to calcium contained in the fossilised shells of tiny microorganisms called foraminifera trapped in successive layers of sediment on the seabed. As the foraminifera were growing, they absorbed calcium and magnesium in proportions that depended on the temperature of the water around them.”
And:
“Previous methods instead used the ratio between two forms of oxygen, known as isotopes – one slightly heavier than the other. Oxygen isotope analysis was originally conceived as a proxy for past temperatures. But later scientists pointed out that the ratio was more heavily influenced by how much ice there was at the time the foraminifera were alive than by the temperature per se – more of the lighter isotope tends to get locked up in ice as it formed, so the water left in the oceans has more of the heavier one, and foraminifera shells preserve this difference.”
October 11, 2012 by Tom Marshall, PlanetEarth Online
https://phys.org/news/2012-10-deep-ocean-sediment-ancient-temperature.html
Clue, the French are lying, or just stupid.
Clue, gbaikie doesn’t have a clue.
Interesting links gbaikie, real science.
“Their findings could mean that the current period of climate change is unparalleled over the last 100 million years.”
https://tinyurl.com/y73e2fag
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwibo8q55qfaAhUNH6wKHWRLCH0QFggmMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.geochemsoc.org%2Findex.php%2Fdownload_file%2Fview%2F1053%2F378%2F&usg=AOvVaw1GqlOriDSJ5uL2pBgiW2fb
Bathythermals: coldest part glacial period
Hypsthermal: warmest part of interglacial which in present interglacial (Holocene) was about 8000 years ago and called
Holocene optimal
Optimum
Looks like we passed the interglacial maximum recently, see:
https://tinyurl.com/y7yc6kwh
gbaikie says:
April 3, 2018 at 11:24 AM
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
You’re right, this graph I had indeed forgotten.
1:0 for you.
Good.
It would not have been waste of time if you had not remembered, as I learned few things going over it. And it is why post things – I think it good way for me to get a better understanding.
svante…”Gordon Robertson says:
You seem like a good guy, why do you buy into that pseudo-science?
I would really like to know that about you.
Did you work for the oil industry?”
*********
Nope. Can’t stand the behavior of corporations. I am driven by what this will do to the poor and disenfranchised should alarmists get their way.
Originally, I was just curious as to how the IPCC could claim a 90% confidence level for an opinion that humans are causing global warming.
Googled it and one of my first hits was from Lindzen. He was involved with the IPCC process at the time and claimed the IPCC as a whole had never claimed the 90% CL, that it came from the 50 politically-appointed lead authors who wrote the Summary for Policymakers.
What floored me was his revelation that the Summary is published before the main report then the main report is amended to reflect the Summary, which is the views of 50 polically-appointed lead authors.
Many of the 2500 authors of the main report complained about such announcements from the 50 and they were ignored.
Since then, I have unraveled one bit of pseudo-science and downright corruption after the other. I did not set out based on a conspiracy theory or with any dogma in mind. I was just curious. Now I am deeply concerned that this kind of pseudo-science is being allowed to prevail.
You confuse things if you bundle separate issues like CO2 and poverty.
You need to disentangle them and solve them one by one.
CO2 is surely not the best way to solve poverty.
Forget about the IPCC, it is just a filter. You must find their scientific sources.
The same applies to chiefo and everything else you find on the internet and in media, not to mention politicians.
I wish you could talk to these scientists directly instead of through internet hearsay.
Visit lectures or conferences or take a university course.
The world is not like you think, it is much better.
svante…”You confuse things if you bundle separate issues like CO2 and poverty”.
What do you think this AGW scam is about? It was started by Margaret Thatcher, a Tory PM in the UK who was an uber-right-winger. She had been advised to use her degree in chemistry to baffle the hoi polloi at the UN into believing coal was a threat to global warming. She wanted to abandon coal to kill the threat of unionized coal miners.
Of course, when others saw the possibility in such a scam through the UN, such as Maurice Strong, a billionaire with a socialist bent, who became the father of Kyoto, they jumped on it as a means to funneling carbon taxes to poorer nations. A good chunk of the representatives to the UN represent poorer nations.
The UN has been trying since the 1960s to get some kind of tax scheme going by which they could tax world nations. AGW proved to be a vehicle to such a tax scam.
I am all for helping poor nations provided a means can be found of keeping their corrupt leaders away from the money. I am not for science being perverted to aid in such a scheme.
What I am talking about is what the UN has not foreseen, the effect carbon taxes and other taxes will have on the poor and lower income earners, even in Canada, Europe, and the US.
Here in my province of BC, we are taxed 6 cents per litre of gas plus 20 cents that goes to Translink, an outfit that oversees local transit. In other words, motorists are being bled to support those who use the buses, all in the name of saving the environment.
Yeah, sure!!!
We now have a government in BC that has vowed to cut back on CO2. Since they have been in power, we are paying up to $1.50/litre while those in the next province, Alberta, are paying about $1 /litre. We are paying 50 cents a litre more to satisfy the idiots supporting AGW.
It’s not only gasoline for cars, however, the carbon tax applies to home heating, both in private homes, hospitals, and schools. And, get this, the carbon tax proceeds go to a private company to encourage them to lower their carbon footprint. It’s a reverse Robin Hood scenario, steal from the poor and give the proceeds to the rich.
Come on, Svante, you’re not that naive are you?
—Svante says:
April 8, 2018 at 3:51 AM
You confuse things if you bundle separate issues like CO2 and poverty.
You need to disentangle them and solve them one by one.
CO2 is surely not the best way to solve poverty.—
If you had studied the issue of poverty, you would know that building electrical powerplants, is the known way to solve poverty.
Or the industry revolution has and is solving poverty.
What causes poverty is governments. The Cuba government is causing poverty. Even a government like the Soviet Union, which focused on energy production, still managed to cause poverty. But if don’t have crazy despotic government, the way to get out of poverty, is a focus on allowing electrical power plants to be made.
Or China (a quite despotic government) focused on getting more electrical plants (mostly coal powerplants) and allowed foreign investment which which was focused using Chinese labor to export products to the rest of world
But I think the way to solve global poverty (and UsedS poverty) is to have a Space Revolution.
I would say everybody is currently poor, and they poor because they can’t leave Earth (if they want to).
I would also say the anyone who can’t leave nation (if they want to) is the poorest of poor (so, most people of Cuba and N Korea are the poorest of the poor).
A dumb solution would be for the less hideous governments to have “open borders”, instead they should demand that any valid nation should allow it citizens to leave whatever hellhole nation they live in (assuming the citizens want to do this, and assuming they follow the laws of whatever nations they want to go to).
Having space revolution is actual open borders. And has more freedom for people of choosing a nation they want to live in.
Earthlings would richer, if they can go to any where in world is less than hour. Example:
“SpaceX is coming off the successful launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket in February that captivated the nation in a way that harkened back to the early days of the space race. But Musk has come to see Falcon Heavy primarily as a transitional step to an even more powerful launch vehicle, known as the BFR (which stands for Big Falcon Rocket or Big F***ing Rocket to others).
BFR is SpaceXs first Mars transport vehicle. But Musk plans to use BFR as an all-purpose space vehicle for trips ranging from point-to-point suborbital passenger travel, to orbital satellite deployment, to moon missions and more. ”
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/elon-musks-spacex-aims-raise-500m-makes-progress-big-fn-rocket/
Also if they had unlimited future energy, and if they could decide to have vacation on the Moon. Or live on Mars,or to to stars, etc
It will take awhile before we can be less poor. Point to point may be only years away. And I think it could start with suborbital travel, but I think once we have commercial lunar water mining, we would be much closer. And we have not yet explored the lunar poles, which would be needed to be done, first.
Kneel before Zod.
Are you a friend of g*e*r*a*n?
In the situations of equilibrium temperatures considered here, there are no feedbacks and radiation incidence equals radiation emission.
The albedo can also be assumed to be 0.3 without greenhouse gases due to the corresponding proportion of ice covering the surface. The surface temperature is well below 255 K because the surface temperature is not uniform (Hlder’s inequality due to the nonlinear relationship between local temperature and local radiation). The atmosphere will be mostly warmer and is separated from the surface by an inversion layer.
With greenhouse gases, the radiation from the surface is hindered, but because of the equilibrium, it must release the absorbed energy. This is only possible if the disabling body (the atmosphere) has a temperature difference between the top and the bottom.
Without convection, the surface temperature would rise sharply until the obstructing body transports the corresponding power, i. the surface temperature reaches about 350 K.
However, at a certain height, the temperature gradient becomes so great that convection starts and the additional heat transport parallel to the radiation transport reduces the obstruction and thus we obtain the observed surface temperature.
More CO2 increases the disability and the surface temperature increases. Where are there feedbacks?
255 K (or 25whateve) is not the global average temperature w/o greenhouse gases. It is the effective average temperature if the entire surface were at the same temperature and the Earth did not rotate (w. a few other caveats). In short, it is the result of a 1 dimensional calculation w/o taking diurnal variation and variation with latitude into effect, let alone geography
The reason for this is that emission scales as T^4 not linearly. Arthur Smith went through the calculation a number of years ago. The result is that with reasonable assumptions about average albedo, variation of temperature, etc, the average for the Earth is about 253, mostly bcs the heat capacity of the oceans limits the diurnal variation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
Better to call it the effective temperature w/o ghgs