Home/Blog
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has advocated a Red Team approach to evaluating the climate science guiding CO2 regulations.
The Red Team approach has been used for many years in private industry, DoD, and the intelligence community to examine very costly decisions and programs in a purposely adversarial way…to ask, what if we are wrong about a certain program or policy change? What might the unintended consequences be?
In such a discussion we must make sure that we do not conflate the consensus on a scientific theory with the need to change energy policy, as is often done. (Just because we know that car wrecks in the U.S. cause 40,000 deaths a year doesn’t mean we should outlaw cars; and I doubt human-caused climate change has ever killed anyone).
While science can help guide policy, it certainly does not dictate it.
In the case of global warming and the role of our carbon dioxide emissions, the debate has too long been dominated by a myopic view that asserts the following 5 general points as indisputable. I have ordered them generally from scientific to economic.
1) global warming is occurring, will continue to occur, and will have dangerous consequences
2) the warming is mostly, if not totally, caused by our CO2 emissions
3) there are no benefits to our CO2 emissions, either direct (biological) or indirect (economic)
4) we can reduce our CO2 emissions to a level that we avoid a substantial amount of the expected damage
5) the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is low enough to make it worthwhile (e.g. mandating much more wind, solar, etc.)
ALL of these 5 points must be essentially true for things like the Paris Agreement (which President Trump has now withdrawn us from…for the time being) to make much sense.
But I would argue that each of the five points can be challenged, and not just with “fake science”. There is peer-reviewed and published analysis in science and economics that would allow one to contest each one of the five claims.
The Red Team Approach: It’s NOT a Redo of the Blue Team
John Christy and I are concerned that the Red Team approach, if applied to global warming, will simply be a review of the U.N. IPCC science on global warming. We are worried that it will only address the first two points (warming will continue, and it is mostly caused by CO2). Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2.
But a Red Team reaffirming those points does NOT mean we should “do something” about global warming.
To fully address whether we should, say, have regulations to reduce CO2 emissions, the Red Team must address all 5 of the “consensus” claims listed above, because that is the only way to determine if we should change energy policy in a direction different from that which the free market would carry it naturally.
The Red Team MUST address the benefits of more CO2 to global agriculture, “global greening” etc.
The Red Team MUST address whether forced reductions in CO2 emissions will cause even a measurable effect on global temperatures.
The Red Team MUST address whether the reduction in prosperity and increase in energy poverty are permissible consequences of forced emissions reductions to achieve (potentially unmeasurable) results.
The membership of the Red Team will basically determine the Team’s conclusions. It must be made up of adversaries to the Blue Team “consensus”, which has basically been the U.N. IPCC. If it is not adversarial in membership and in mission, it will not be a real Red Team.
As a result, the Red Team must not be allowed to be controlled by the usual IPCC-affiliated participants.
Only then can its report can be considered to be an independent, adversarial analysis to be considered along with the IPCC report (and other non-IPCC reports) to help guide U.S. energy policy.
Well the problem for them is global warming is now in the process of ending.
Salvatore…”Well the problem for them is global warming is now in the process of ending”.
Hope you’re right, all the signs are there.
The astronomer, Syun Akasofu, who I told you pioneered studies in the solar wind, has put forward a natural theory for the warming based on the Little Ice Age. He claims it was significantly cooler during the LIA (some claim 1C to 2C cooler) the second phase of which was going on when the IPCC started measuring atmospheric CO2 based on proxy ice core studies.
Akasofu claims the IPCC erred by not recognizing this significant cooling in their claims of anthropogenic causes. He thinks the 1 C warming claimed by the IPCC since the pre Industrial Era, right in the middle of phase 2 of the LIA, should have including natural re-warming at the rate of 0.5C per century.
If Akasofu is right, the rewarming phase has ended, or is nearing the end, and that is evidenced by the flat trend since 1998. I just hope the cooling you predict does not turn out to be another LIA.
Stop dreaming.
Roy
‘The membership of the Red Team will basically determine the Teams conclusions. It must be made up of adversaries to the Blue Team consensus, which has basically been the U.N. IPCC. If it is not adversarial in membership and in mission, it will not be a real Red Team.’
Sounds like you’ve decided what the conclusions should be. Hardly seems worth organizing such a team, to find the answers to your questions, if you know what the answers will be.
Also if you select only members who are ALREADY adversarial to Paris accord (the 3% ?), then you’re going to get a highly political, propaganda document, aligned with the FF-industry agenda.
Is that what we the people should want from our govt?
That’s what they’ve gotten for two decades.
Laura,
How so?
“Highly political, propaganda document”
We already have that in the IPCC reports. What we need is a fresh start, looking at the science, economics and finally social impacts of the global warming fraud from fresh eyes. That is what is needed to counteract an entire generation of global warming propaganda.
Remember, the blue team has already had at least 100 $B of funding to put their case. It is time the red team got some of that funding.
‘What we need is a fresh start, looking at the science, economics and finally social impacts of the global warming fraud from fresh eyes. ‘
That would indeed be good. But that is not what Roy is proposing with his Red Team of people who are already ‘adversarial’ to one side, and aligned with the other.
He would like our govt to develop propaganda that is aligned with a narrow set of corporate interests. Already this is occurring. Pretty much what an oligarchy does. That what you would like?
The IPCC, was open to contributions from contrarians such as Roy, John Christy, etc.
Contrarian views had input, but they happen to have been in the minority, in both the IPCC, and the larger scientific community. Oh well, so sorry. The IPCC was not setup to be a BlUE TEAM. Calling it one after the fact is just sour grapes.
They now want to form a RED team of just minority viewpoints and give it an equally large megaphone as the IPCC. Good luck.
@Nate: Your assertions are specious at best. Refer to Wikipedia’s entry for IPCC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Origins_and_aims
What am i supposed to see there?
Here John Christy discusses his Nobel for his contribution to IPCC report.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119387567378878423
nate…”The IPCC, was open to contributions from contrarians such as Roy, John Christy, etc. ”
The IPCC blasted a full page ‘add’ for the hockey stick and on the opposite page had a tiny UAH satellite data graph.
The IPCC has never been open to anything objective. Read the comments of original co-chair John Houghton. About as narrow minded as you can get.
That is the whole point of a red team exercise, Nate 8-|.
I cant read the wsj piece on this, so not clear how it is proposed to apply to agw.
In the usual use, it is intended to enhance an organization’s ability to deal with threats.
By bringing out adversarial positions that have been suppressed by groupthink, and forcing the herd consensus to acknowledge and confront them.
I think science already rewards novel findings, that may disagree with previous results. It is self correcting.
You think wrong, and no it isn’t.
Examples?
If you think the academic world rewards people who simply reproduce others results, then you clearly have no knowledge or experience of that world. I do.
Promotions in the academic world are based on demonstrating innovation, or pioneering a new direction that is influential.
Alfred Wegener died long before Continental Drift became generally accepted. Wegener was ostracized and lost several teaching appointments because of his unconventional theory. Posthumous encomiums are hardly a reward. Here are some others.
It is meaningless to say something is “self-correcting”. It can be self-correcting, but so slowly that it hardly makes any practical difference. Or, we may know a few instances of self-correction, but lacking omniscience, we cannot extrapolate those specific instances to a general rule.
Can I give you an example of something that is wrong today and has not yet been corrected? Well, obviously, that is rather an epistemological conundrum. How can we know it is wrong if we do not yet know it is wrong?
However, given that things like Continental Drift and the cause of gastric ulcers were uncorrected for many decades, we can extrapolate that there are almost surely other items taken for granted today which will eventually be found to be wrong. Here are some recently debunked items, and some of it has been re-bunked just since the article was written!
AGW is an item many currently take for granted, but the handwriting is pretty much on the wall for anyone who actually looks at the data than thinks!
Continental drift was an idea that was debated for several decades, without conclusive evidence available, one way or the other. That evidence came in the 1960s. Then a consensus quickly formed.
Were there holdouts? Contrarions who didnt accept the evidence supporting continental drift. Sure. Remind me of agw contrarions.
Thats an example of how its supposed to work.
Most of the debunked items are either plain dumb, or anthrpolgical notions based on very limited data.
I have long felt that the human family tree, derived from a few pieces of skulls, was not much better than guesswork.
“Can I give you an example of something that is wrong today and has not yet been corrected? Well, obviously, that is rather an epistemological conundrum. How can we know it is wrong if we do not yet know it is wrong?”
Cuba is wrong. Slavery is wrong [cf: Cuba].
Islam is wrong. The current Pope is wrong.
The +20 trillion debt is wrong [cf: slavery and Cuba].
Politicians are wrong.
TV sportscasting is wrong [cf: drooling idiots].
News is wrong. Actors tend to suck.
Hollywood is wrong.
Marxism is wrong. Lefties are still the useful idiots.
The UN is wrong. EU is wrong. Russia is wrong.
Adding stupid flavors to coffee, is wrong.
The idea that Men and Women are the same, is wrong.
Murderers are wrong. Criminals are wrong. Rapist are
wrong. Women falsely claiming to have been raped are wrong.
And the hypothesis of the Greenhouse Effect is wrong.
All pseudo science is wrong- a very long list [and including above mentioned Marxism and all the numerous and popular health fads].
And that absolute power, corrupts absolutely is still correct.
And God exists is still a correct assumption- and this partial list above could considered as some proof confirming such assumption [or I guess, a faith in God].
I got lost in all the people who are wrong, and missed the point.
For 34 years, establishment science believed there were 24 pairs of chromosomes. Why? Because an ‘expert” believed it. Even studies that counted accurately revised their number to conform with Painter. Sound familiar?
“Painter is also known for his early study of human chromosomes. In 1921 he first gave the number 24 for the count of human meiotic chromosomes. He had tried to count the tangled mass of chromosomes he could see under a microscope in spermatocytes in slices of testicle and arrived at the figure of 24. Others later repeated his experiment in other ways and agreed upon the number of 24. Popular thinking held that if there were 24 chromosomes in spermatocytes, there must be an equal number contributed by the female and the human chromosome number must be 48, which was undisputed for more than 30 years.[2] Then in 1955, Joe Hin Tjio, using more advanced techniques, looked at the chromosomes in human somatic cells and found 46 chromosomes. Together with Albert Levan, Tjio published his finding in early 1956, and the human chromosome number was finally revised.
In 1934 Painter was awarded the Daniel Giraud Elliot Medal from the National Academy of Sciences.[3]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_Painter
“Contrarions who didnt accept the evidence supporting continental drift. Sure. Remind me of agw contrarions.”
Reminds me of AGW religious devotees, who refuse to accept the evidence of the “pause”, and keep coming up with increasingly epicyclic hypotheses to explain away inconvenient facts.
But, you miss the point. Wegener first brought up the concept in 1912. It took over 4 decades for it to become generally accepted, and that only because new data became available. If that data had not become available, what then? No correction.
Wegener died before then, and so was not rewarded, indeed was penalized heavily. And, it was not self-correcting in the sense that detractors saw the light when new evidence became available. Old guard critics like Franz Kossmat simply died, and science, as Max Planck was wont to say, proceeded one funeral at a time.
‘Wegener first brought up the concept in 1912. It took over 4 decades for it to become generally accepted, and that only because new data became available. If that data had not become available, what then? No correction.’
Exactly. This illustrates well that without the evidence, the scientific approach cannot reach a conclusion.
Same with photons, proposed by Einstein in 1905. Not generally believed, until Compton found his effect in 1922. Acceptance had to wait.
“I got lost in all the people who are wrong, and missed the point.”
That was the point.
Or it’s not a epistemological conundrum, to determine what is wrong, unless you imagine there is some totalitarian type solution to what is wrong- then you would be wrong.
Bart says:
“Reminds me of AGW religious devotees, who refuse to accept the evidence of the pause,”
Better and deeper analysis showed there was no pause (Karl et al, Science 2015). Changes in ocean heat content confirmed that.
See what I mean? Religion is impervious to evidence. If the data don’t fit the hypothesis, they just change the data.
“The 3%”…HILARIOUS!!!
Shouldn’t the members of a Red Team have at least the same or more expertise in the science as the Blue team? That rules out all of the so-called ‘skeptics.
Salvatore has long claimed warming has stopped, and has been wrong each and every time.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
OMG, you have qualified as a true denier. Allow me to join you in your assertion. I’m looking forward to Maunder minimum II.
Not even another Maunder-like Minimum can stop AGW. This exact question was studied a few years ago by Feulner and Rahmstorf (GRL 2009), Song et al (GRL 2010) and Jones et al (JGR 2012), and it was found that anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.
“On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
“Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)
http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
Unfortunately, where does society go to find a bona fide independent group to sponsor Red Team? Virtually every governmental body is tainted with the bias of UN-IPCC. This will end up like the current USA political “resistance” wherein the Blue Team folk will simply cast aspersions and obstacles to block the whole process moving forward.
Rhee…”This will end up like the current USA political resistance wherein the Blue Team folk will simply cast aspersions and obstacles to block the whole process moving forward”.
I am looking forward to see how the US electorate reacts to such tactics by the Democrats. I think Trump will find a way to turn this ‘resistance’ to his advantage. The Democrats and their sympathizers are essentially holding up the US government from getting on with business.
This resistance is based on the false and superficial ideals of political correctness. Here in Canada, we had multiculturalism imposed on us without consultation. No one asked Canadians what kind of country we wanted in the future, they simply opened the floodgates to immigration.
We are seeing the result of similar policies in Europe and some Europeans are getting pretty hot about it. The same people who imposed this ideology on us are behind the resistance to which you refer.
You have it exactly right IMHO.
A larger mistake than failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is the potential tragedy of failing to realize what actually does. The still-rising water vapor is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback).
The warmer temperature is welcome but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation caused flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dikes, etc.) should be upgraded from design for 100 yr floods to design for 10,000 yr floods.
Dan Pangburn…”The still-rising water vapor is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback)”.
That feedback is a creation of climate modelers and does not exist in the real world. Why should WV be increasing from water temperature when there was no global warming from 1998 – 2015? The 2016 EN warming should not be included till we see where it is going.
Is that where you are getting your WV trebling, from the 2016 EN?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why should WV be increasing from water temperature when there was no global warming from 1998 2015”
Yet again you lie.
The world is greening. Hurricanes are becoming less frequent. The idea that a rising temperature – or a rising CO2 – is harmful should be challenged.
Nonono, the world is dangerously and unprecentedly greening.
You missed the question of CO2 reduction being the optimal adaptation choice. we all know it is cheaper to build a taller seawall than any alternative.
Don
A taller sea wall is not always a solution.
The tidal flooding which has affected Miami and southern Florida in recent years would not be stopped by a sea wall. The whole area sits on porous limestone and the seawater finds its way into low lying areas through cracks in the rock below ground.
Just let the property drown if nothing can be done. Just provide realistic information on when it will happen, yes?
They could remodel Miami to make it “The Venice of the West.”
Property prices are still holding up well in Venice.
..and don’t forget Holland: The Dutch have been creating new land from the sea for a very long time.
If the “property drowns,” it will be taxpayers making those property owners whole. That could cost trillions of dollars….
Which is what you propose doing to avoid your perceived threat. Who will be harmed: the poor. Certainly not the rich who live by the sea and have their costs of living there subsidized by those who live inland.
It’s mostly the rich who live right along the coasts.
But, yes, some very poor people will also be required to move — there have been stories recently about this happening in Louisiana, and an Maryland island in Chesapeake Bay.
Of course, the poor don’t have lawyers like the rich do, or the rich’s political connections. They’ll just get screwed, like the poor in Bangladesh, S Pacific islands, and elsewhere will be screwed.
Don,
Check PSMSL.org for world-wide tide gauge data including Miami Beach. Sea level at the beach has been increasing at about 1 or 2 mm/year for the past 100 years (about 4-8 inches total). There is no sign I can see of a change in the rising trend – no inflection whatever. I do not doubt that the 4 to 8 inch rise is causing Miami some problems and another 50 or 100 years will add another 4 to 8 inches compounding those problems. But the rise appears unrelated to CO2 since there is no inflection.
It’s also sinking ~9X faster than sealevel rise has likely increased.
Says who?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiTsue-qcXUAhWL24MKHdWqBDoQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ces.fau.edu%2Farctic-florida%2Fpdfs%2Ffiaschi-wdowinski.pdf&usg=AFQjCNErbIy5L3qNJZt_AxSMvpJREHH73A
Subsidence 3mm. GW contribution to SLR is probably 0-1mm. Circulation variance roughly 9mm the past decade.
Ok, 9X is hyperbole. 2-3 is probably more fair.
Probably confused the 9mm circulation change vs roughly 1mm GW SLR increase with subsidence.
“Ok, 9X is hyperbole.”
Caught you in a lie.
“2-3 is probably more fair.”
Where exactly on that poster does it say that?
BR corner. 3mm/yr subsidence.
That was no lie, it was an honest mistake. Confused 9mm /yr total with subsidence. Most is from change in Atlantic circulation. GHW is probably about .8mm/yr global average, may be higher and add to variance in the region, but doubt much.
Miami subsidence has nothing to do with AGW.
There has already been a Red Team.
Richard Muller, Judith Curry and others from outside the usual climate science community set up BEST to provide an independent check on the temperature record. The Koch brothers helped finance it.
What happened? BEST found that the temperature record was reliable. All the climate sceptics who had been so keen on it dropped BEST like a hot brick.
The real problem with a Red team is that it is not necessary. Science itself is self correcting in this respect. The usual checks and balances act as a Red team would.
Genuine evidence falsifying climate change would make a big splash in the scientific literature and earn its authors a Nobel Prize.
In the end all BEST did was confirm that the various incarnations of the temperature record were very similar. BEST did not correct measurement error or stop misuse of temperature series. Additionally, Richard Muller went beyond the data and made public comments that implicitly endorsed the consensus view of CO2 as the causal agent of warming. So as a Red Team effort BEST was limited at the outset and ultimately co-opted by the Blue Team.
Red Teams have to be aggressive and energized. Think Stanley Cup Playoff teams in the final series. Any less and they will not achieve the goal of full and complete testing of the prevailing paradigm. Any less and they waste time and effort.
He endorsed the consensus because the log(CO2) correlation was “smack on” (at 1:06 here):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
More:
– We can rule out any other scientific theory (4:00).
– I wrote a book about the changes of the earths orbit (4:12).
– Something else that just happens to match […], are you serious (4:34)?
Correlation diagram (note the pause from 1998):
– http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes/
Entropic…”What happened? BEST found that the temperature record was reliable”.
I think you’d better read Judith Curry on that. She claims the results of BEST were Mueller’s invention and not what the team had derived. She has distanced herself from BEST.
Where is Curry’s peer reviewed journal paper specifying her technical problems with the BEST methodology?
Entropic Man,
You wrote –
“Genuine evidence falsifying climate change . . . “
Climate is the average of weather. It has always changed. Next thing somebody will be saying something silly about “preventing climate change”, or “stopping climate change “, or similar nonsense.
Seriously, what do you think would happen if the climate stopped changing?
What a pack of foolish Warmists – deny, divert, confuse. Anything to avoid admitting they’re talking absolute rubbish!
Cheers.
Who says climate has always changed????
Wow.
Who??? The very same scientists whose other work you so gleefully insult and denigrate?
How’s that “Earth heats the Sun” paper going, David?
Lindzen, Richard S.
Not Muller!
Lindzen, Lindzen, Richard S.
Not Muller!Richard S.
Not Muller!Lindzen, Richard S.
Not Muller!
Entropic man, You do not seem to understand what BEST did.
First, BEST did not do what they pledged that they would do.
Second, BEST accepted the adjustments made to actual temperatures. If you accept the adjustments, of course you will end up with what the others had. There was a profound lack of acceptance by independent scientists who understood what BEST did.
BEST did not accept adjustments from anybody else.
They applied a terrific statistical method that
could use very bad input to increase accuracy:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf
“The Koch brothers helped finance it.”
Now that is just an out and out lie.
The BEST web site lists “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)”.
Richard Muller says they did not try to influence the results,
and I believe him.
He also said fracking is necessary to curb CO2 emissions,
and I think he has a point there too, even if the Koch
brothers agrees.
Next time read the post before spouting ridiculous talking points.
Damn Jingoists.
‘Science itself is self correcting in this respect. The usual checks and balances act as a Red team would.
Genuine evidence falsifying climate change would make a big splash in the scientific literature and earn its authors a Nobel Prize.’
Absolutely.
Right. It would be the discovery of the century, one of the greatest finds in all of scientific history.
But it also won’t happen, because well-established scientific laws require AGW, and the evidence for it is very strong.
The REAL surprise would be if the planet WASN’T warming in recent decades.
“It would be the discovery of the century, one of the greatest finds in all of scientific history.”
Just like your wackadoodle earth heats sun theory.
Well, you obviously don’t have any such evidence, that’s clear.
But thanks for playing.
Nonsense. You do not know science at all. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Scientific truths happen because they have better evidence. Regarding AGW denial, that is nowhere is sight. The determination of the cause of modern warming was accomplished long ago.
Perhaps you would like the quote in the original German:
“Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, da ihre Gegner berzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklren, sondern vielmehr dadurch, da ihre Gegner allmhlich aussterben und da die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.” – Max Planck
For a mathematician you know surprisingly little science.
Newer generations take up the better ideas that the older generations reject because they are old and/or stuck in their ways.
That’s what Schrodinger meant.
Well, apparently you agree with me now.
Except it was Planck, not Schrodinger.
Yes Bart, Max Plank describes the situation in climate science quite well.
“The Red Team MUST address whether the reduction in prosperity and increase in energy poverty are permissible consequences of forced emissions reductions to achieve (potentially unmeasurable) results.”
Sorry, this is a loaded question.
You need to firstly address the assumption that reductions lead to reduced prosperity and increased energy poverty. There is plenty of evidence that a switch to renewables has the opposite effect.
The issue then becomes one of short term pain (the cost of switching) versus long term gain.
Why is Dr. Spencer attached to a volatile commodity like oil? Is our dependence on fossil fuels somehow good for the economy?
Here’s part of an article from Deloitte Press (2016):
“History repeated itself when disruptions in Irans oil production during the Iranian revolution, followed by the Iraq-Iran war, caused oil prices to skyrocket in 197980. This time, in addition to a supply shock, increased inventory demand in anticipation of supply shortages and rising global demand contributed to the oil price rise. The price shocks had a substantial impact on US GDP, and the US economy went into a recession.
The timeline of the Soviet Union collapse can be traced to Saudi Arabia deciding to stop protecting oil prices and increasing production fourfold in 1985. The sudden fall in oil prices was one of the key factors that weakened economic fundamentals of the Soviet Union. The region lost approximately $20 billion per year due to lower revenues from oil exports, which resulted in huge government borrowing in the following years. By 1989, the Soviet economy had stalled.
Wide fluctuations in oil prices have played an important role in driving economies into recession and even regimes collapsingwhich is why movements in oil prices are closely watched by economists, investors, and policymakers globally. Since 2008, oil prices have seen two cycles of highs and lows, with no indication of a steady path in the near future. The historic high values of oil prices during 201013 and the following prolonged downturn during 201416 (the longest since the 1980s) suggest that the world economy is in unchartered territory (figure 1).”
https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/economy/global-economic-outlook/2016/q3-understanding-economic-impact-of-fluctuations-in-oil-prices.html
snape…”Is our dependence on fossil fuels somehow good for the economy?”
It’s not only good for the economy, at the moment, it is essential to life and longevity. We have no viable or affordable alternatives.
Gordon, these two questions sound similar but have different meanings:
Are fossil fuels good for the economy?
Is our dependence on fossil fuels good for the economy?
Your answer makes sense for the first question, but that’s not the one I asked.
snape…I don’t think you can separate the economy from the quality of peoples’ lives. Interfering with oil supply, either in quantity or pricing, based on the notion that oil is producing catastrophic climate change and must be curtailed, will not only prove to be bad for the economy, it will prove disastrous for the well being of humans who depend on it.
John Christy has worked as a teacher in Africa and he has talked about the effect of fuel, or lack thereof, on peoples’ lives.
Gordon
If US citizens were to consume less fossil fuels because of a carbon tax, why would this make oil more expensive in Africa?
snape…”If US citizens were to consume less fossil fuels because of a carbon tax, why would this make oil more expensive in Africa?”
Not following. I was just reading a book by a guy who traveled extensively in Africa. You can’t even buy gasoline in parts of Africa, they have run out. It’s about corruption.
Why should anyone, against the wishes of the majority, have the right to prevent people buying gasoline? If you put it to a vote tomorrow, as to whether people should pay more for gasoline to support a carbon tax, I’ll bet it would be defeated soundly.
People at large are not willing to support Green initiatives. It has to be forced on them by a minority of fascists intent on controlling the way people live, against their wills.
Greens are essentially fascists. Fascism is essentially a dictatorial control of the economy by a minority. What do you call it when a minority of politicians, not supported by their constituents, force a program of carbon taxes onto the general public?
Here in Canada, we had a carbon tax enforced in our province (BC) by an uber-right wing government. The money collected from the carbon tax goes to a private company. Governments are using the justification of a carbon tax to line the pockets of their friends in the private sector.
Federally, we had multiculturalism forced on us without a vote. Not one politician ran on such a policy, they simply introduced it as a good idea and passed it into law.
Carbon taxes are not about the environment, they represent agendas that are being hidden.
Gordon, you need to edit the wikipedia page on the BC carbon tax. They say the money went to income tax reductions.
“Here in Canada, we had a carbon tax enforced in our province (BC) by an uber-right wing government. The money collected from the carbon tax goes to a private company.”
Which company?
Nate, that’s what I’ve read too — income tax reductions.
“BCs levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.”
“British Columbia’s carbon tax: The evidence mounts,” Economist, July 31, 2014.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax
So what will happen when they run out?
You are using up fossil fuels as mushroom flies consume a mushroom.
Run out?? You can’t be serious. Tiny Israel alone has a shale oil deposit larger than all the oil that the Saudis have, including what they’ve already pumped out of the ground. Running out of oil is a grand red herring. It’s known that the earth’s oil reserves are so massive that speculating on when we’ll run out is simply a waste of everyone’s time.
Oil demand will decline before oil production declines. That’s what oil people really need to be preparing for.
“Snape says:
June 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM
Why is Dr. Spencer attached to a volatile commodity like oil?
Anyone reading and not attached to oil,
please raise your right hand?
None.
Thought so.
John, I should have written,
“Why is Dr. Spencer attached to a volatile commodity like oil instead of advocating for greater fuel efficiency and the development of alternative energy sources?”
Snape,
I do not know if you are being intentionally obtuse or not. Dr. Spencer is “attached” to what is economic, to what is practical, to what is efficient.
if Alternative Energy sources would give us those results, he would be “attached” to them. Dr. Spencer is not seeking the role of deciding what society should do; he would rather the people in their free choices decide that.
John
I still rely on fossil fuels. Does this mean I’m attached to them? Not at all. I’m hoping my next car will be a Tesla.
snape…”Why is Dr. Spencer attached to a volatile commodity like oil instead of advocating for greater fuel efficiency and the development of alternative energy sources?”
I don’t know of anyone who is not interested in alternative fuel sources but when you come down to the practicality of replacing fossil fuels it proves far to expensive and unreliable.
I worked in the electrical field for many years and I am familiar with electrical distribution. Changing what we have currently to adapt it to wind farms and solar energy will be a nightmare. They have tried it in the UK and Australia and it has proved a complete bust.
Until we develop an alternative source that does not rely on the wind or the Sun, there’s little point in moving to replace fossil fuels. Augmenting them with wind and solar is not nearly enough.
Gordon
I can see how solar might be a disaster in the U.K.. From what I’ve read, though, it’s starting to do very well in Australia. As is wind and hydro. Here’s a recent article (February 2017)
http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/australia-positioned-to-be-renewable-energy-superpower-20170216-guf55r.html
Snape:
Clearly you have little understanding of economic issues and facts. Oil is a commodity; it varies just like other commodities viz iron ore, coal, fish, oil, cocoa and so on. Come to think of it climate also varies. Now, who would have thunked that!?
Oil prices fluctuate less than the prices of power in Oz particularly in the State with the most windpower (S.A. the infamous blackout state).
Your assertion that Oz is doing so well in wind and hydro is misplaced. Oz is very poorly served for hydro as it is an ancient continent with few viable mountainous options. As to wind being a success we have SA as the epitome of stability with a total blackout unprecedented is the word I seek! It cost BHP over $100 million. Other more contained blackouts have occurred in both NSW and Vic.
So not only are users heavily subsidizing renewables via a de facto tax but we are now subjected to more disruptive conditions which threaten industries. We were doing well without the counter productive unnecessary, subsidized investment in disruptive, inefficient renewables. If these were not inefficient they would not need subsidies. One of our biggest wind farms is McArthur in Victoria; capacity utilization is a pathetic 28%.
Productivity may not mean much short term but in the long run it means everything for standards of living. Thus far it is a monumental failure in overpriced solar and windmills causing power prices to surge. I worked out the subsidy a few years back and it equated to about 26c per kWhr of renewable power across the board. Pathetic! So much for capital productivity! So much for your assertion that they are efficient.
If wind was any good and economic I suggest we would still have sailing ships and the Dutch would never have given up their windmills.
What backward third world thinking could result in Oz becoming the biggest world exporter of coal and gas yet we do not now have sufficient to power our own needs.
A report on power has just been released to the Govt by the Chief Scientist of Oz. One recommendation is that renewables must supply a defined level of backup (by any means). So the hard lessons are finally being learned! Coal and gas are now back in the mix!
“You need to firstly address the assumption that reductions lead to reduced prosperity and increased energy poverty. There is plenty of evidence that a switch to renewables has the opposite effect.”
All the evidence I see is that the current policies are designed to make energy too expensive to use. As a direct result of that, people are suffering energy poverty and therefore reduced prosperity. If you don’t believe that, look at the people whose power is being switched off in Australia, UK, Germany. Look at the 20,000 people dying of hypothermia because they can’t afford to heat their own homes.
…..Without productive economic enterprises that are powered using energy from conventional sources, i.e., hydro, coal, oil, natgas, nuclear, etc., there will be no real money with which to provide subsidies for the so-called “renewables.” If you can find a way to provide the subsidies to keep the renewables going by having central banks magically conjure magic money out of their magic holes in the air to use to provide subsidies, then go for it. I am all for energy of all kinds ASSUMING it is viable source(s) of energy and not just some pie-in-the-sky phoomrah that is of the nature of what we have so many fantasoidics dreaming about currently.
The mere fact we are talking about blue/red teams implies people don’t believe the IPCC are objective in their approach.
Your best analogy fails because best dealt with temp trends only which is a very, very, very small part of what the two team approach Is trying to remedy
David Appel says
“A universe: Object A and Object B, at blackbody temperatures Ta and Tb respectively.
A obviously emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.”
To understand why a colder object does not ‘heat’ a warmer object lets follow your logic and show that its false and this can be tested by a simple experiment.
Let A be at a higher temperature than B
Let A be in an adiabatically isolated box.
Something like a polystyrene box with perfectly reflecting inner surface will do for this experiment.
The object A radiates but the radiation is perfectly reflected and its temperature stays the same.
Now place object B in the box.
Object B also radiates but with a lower intensity than A.
After some time measurements will show that object A will drop in temperature and object B will rise in temperature.
So placing a colder object has not ‘heated’ the warmer object in fact the opposite has happened.
Bryan 4:47am, Dr. Spencer has actually performed that experiment on the real atm. He did not get the same results you think up. You need to actually perform the experiment and take data & use rough, simple calculations to support the data as he did.
Roy…”Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2″.
I think the problem is that we are deviating from basics physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics and relying far too much on radiation theory, the only theory that works well in models.
I realize the atmosphere is rife with perturbations related to convection and other forces but it is essentially a mixture of gases in a relatively constant volume and a constant mass. I have been arguing that the Ideal Gas Equations applies in a basic sense and with constant volume and mass it can be argued that atmospheric temperature should be based on the partial pressure of the gases.
In that case, there is no way CO2 should have a 50% warming factor assigned to it. At best, based on its partial pressure of a a tiny fraction of a degree C, CO2 could warm the atmosphere no more than a tiny fraction of a degree over a century.
sorry, brain is lagging…I said “At best, based on its partial pressure of a a tiny fraction of a degree C, CO2 could warm the atmosphere no more than a tiny fraction of a degree over a century”.
Should have read…”At best, based on its partial pressure of a tiny fraction of one percent of the total atmospheric pressure, CO2 could warm the atmosphere no more than a tiny fraction of a degree C over a century.
Take a look at this video, illustrating the effect of 400ppm of ink on the transparency of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
CO2 has the same effect in the infra-red part of the spectrum.
Notice that there is a dramatic change from zero ink to the simulated 290 ppm ink. There is a much less dramatic change from 290 ppm to simulated 400 ppm. This somewhat corresponds to the logarithmic effect (or diminishing effect) of increasing CO2 concentration.
Perhaps good demonstration to counter those that contend that 400 ppm is too small to have any effect on atmospheric temperature but not a “smoking gun” demonstration that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will have catastrophic effects. But we do know that the increased CO2 concentration is loved be plants as demonstrated by the greening of the earth.
It does provide a good demonstration for the scattering and/or reflection of the visible light that’s in the wave length of the color of the ink — What else? With ink, you are, in fact making use of particles of matter rather than just the individual molecules, don’t you know? (And furthermore, it is the smell of the red herring, not the color, that throws the hounds off the scent they are trying to track.)
entropic…”Take a look at this video, illustrating the effect of 400ppm of ink on the transparency of water”.
I have no interest in thought experiments. I gave you the figures, based on the Ideal Gas Equation which is based on partial pressures for multiple gases. The heat contributed to the atmosphere is directly proportional to its partial pressure which in turn is directly proportional to its partial mass.
The proportion of all CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, that’s 4/100ths of 1%. The proportion of nitrogen + oxygen is over 99%. It’s plain as day that CO2 contributes no more than a tiny fraction of 1% of the warming.
Your ink analogy is an apples and oranges diversion.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The proportion of all CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, thats 4/100ths of 1%. The proportion of nitrogen + oxygen is over 99%.”
Do you understand why CO2, CH4, N2O, etc molecules (all consisting of molecules of three or more atoms) absorb infrared radiation, while bi-atomic molecules like N2 and O2 do not?
entropic…”Take a look at this video…”
I did, the guy is obviously not a scientist of any repute. He claims the ink is initially watered down in the syringes at 9 parts water to 1 part ink but he fails to tell the viewer how he got the figure 290 ppmv.
Before starting he made the egregious error of claiming IR is heat. He makes no reference to the magnitude of the IR flux being emitted by the surface and what percentage of it is absorbed by CO2. Of the percentage absorbed he supplies no proof of how much the CO2 warms the atmosphere.
His suggestion is that the CO2 is trapping heat, which is utter nonsense. Heat cannot be trapped unless the atoms of which it is a property are trapped, like by the glass in a real greenhouse.
Overall his analogy between ink in water and CO2 in the atmosphere has proved absolutely nothing.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Before starting he made the egregious error of claiming IR is heat. ”
IR is heat. Everyone knows this but you.
IR isn’t heat. IR radiation is a wave, heat is mechanical, there is a necessary transfer step. At best, you are being disingenuous. Which is my guess since it’s obvious you know this.
David,
Next time you are in an ice cave, let me know how warm you feel with all that hot IR bombarding you.
SGW: Again you misunderstand, purposely distorting the situation.
A universe: Object A and Object B, at blackbody temperatures Ta and Tb respectively.
A obviously emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.
What happens to the temperature of B when that energy-carrying radiation is absorbed by it?
Hmm……….?
A universe: Object A and Object B, at blackbody temperatures Ta EQUALS Tb.
A obviously emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.
What happens to the temperature of B when that energy-carrying radiation is absorbed by it?
Hmm.?
Well, DIMWIT, Q equals ZERO per the radiative heat flow equation. So B does not increase in temperature. Why not EINSTEIN?
robert…”Perhaps good demonstration to counter those that contend that 400 ppm is too small to have any effect on atmospheric temperature…”
In which way? The ink is obviously interfering with all light in some way, whether it’s by reflection, diffraction, or what. CO2 affects only a tiny portion of the IR spectrum. It is masked by the spectrum of water vapour and there’s no way to separate the effect of each.
The basis of this argument is still that 400 ppmv of CO2 acts to trap heat, which is utter rubbish. I have no argument that it absorbs a tiny amount of the overall IR flux emitted by the surface but what happens to the rest of that IR?
Heat is a property of atoms. It is essentially a measure of the kinetic energy of the atom and represents in which energy bands the outer shell electrons reside. The higher the energy level, the higher the KE, and the hotter the atom. In gases, the electrons acquire energy through collision, moving to a higher energy level and heating.
Heat cannot be trapped by GHGs. It can be trapped in a greenhouse by the glass which won’t allow warming air molecules to rise. The warmed air molecules become hotter through collision and through contact with the soil heated by solar energy.
There is no mechanism in the atmosphere to do that. It’s plain as day that the bulk of atmospheric warming comes from nitrogen and oxygen being warmed through conduction at the surface then spreading the heat through convection.
A basic law in chemistry is that in a mixed gas container of constant volume, each gas contributes to the warming of the total gas in proportion to its partial pressure. You don’t need the ink. Look at the partial pressure of 400 ppmv which is 4/100ths of 1% of the mix of gases in the atmosphere. CO2 can contribute no more than 4/100ths of 1% of the overall heat.
Gordon, the demo is a nice illustration of the fact that different molecules can have very very different interactions with light. So much so that 400 ppm of ink interacts much much more with visible light than than 2000 times as much water.
Your oft repeated argument that mass ratios alone should be dominant factor is simply wrong.
At 1/2 the current CO2 concentration all energy in it’s part of the spectrum is absorbed. Beyond .02% there is no more energy that increased CO2 can absorb because it already has absorbed all that exists in that bandwidth.
Sooooo, more CO2 does not have the effect you incorrectly allege.
This is called the “saturation fallacy.” Claims of saturation are wrong because the atmosphere also emits radiation, not just the surface.
On Earth, CO2 is far from being saturated. It isn’t even saturated on Venus. See the sidebar in:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Strictly for your entertainment: An animated ‘cartoon’ with a CO2 molecule as the lead character.
https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
Just as fiat currency can never provide a viable, reliable medium for storing financial value, CO2, nor any other so-called greenhouse gas, can never provide for viable storage of energy.
What an ineffably fatuous “experiment”.
Bart,
For you maybe, but not for the many many followers of the ‘400 ppm is too small to possibly have an effect’ meme.
Gordon,
You claim to be open minded and here learn but you never seem to.
‘In that case, there is no way CO2 should have a 50% warming factor assigned to it. At best, based on its partial pressure of a a tiny fraction of one percent of the total atmospheric pressure, CO2 could warm the atmosphere no more than a tiny fraction of a degree over a century.’
You really think this remotely captures how our complex atmosphere works?
Why should the fraction of CO2 match the fraction of a DEGREE of warming? Per century no less??!
As Einstein said, the correct model is usually as simple as possible, but not simpler.
nate…”You really think this remotely captures how our complex atmosphere works?”
I do…based on the Ideal Gas Law. I notice you have not responded with a scientific rebuttal. Tell me what’s wrong with my Ideal Gas Law analogy.
“Why should the fraction of CO2 match the fraction of a DEGREE of warming? Per century no less??!”
Because the ideal gas law says so, as does Dalton’s law of partial pressures.
It would be easy to argue, as you have claimed, that the atmosphere is so complex that no simple answer is enough. I agree wholeheartedly. Why don’t GHE and AGW proponents see that with their overly simplified and metaphorical models?
I am willing to settle for ‘we don’t know’. However, the flat trend over 18 years strongly suggests there is no significant correlation between CO2 and warming.
Gordon Robertson says:
“However, the flat trend over 18 years strongly suggests there is no significant correlation between CO2 and warming.”
Again you lie.
Gord, see my coment above on ink demo
‘each gas contributes to the warming of the total gas in proportion to its partial pressure. You dont need the ink. Look at the partial pressure’
No. Your model does not include the vast differences in optical props of gases, wich are central to the effect.
In the ink demo, what if he then shined an intense horizontal beam of visible light through the beakers? Would the ones with ink warm more than the one without?
I think we need a blue team that say we must increase global average temperature by a lot.
A Red team that argues we should stay in our icebox climate.
Roy,
You say:
“The Red Team MUST address the benefits of more CO2 to global agriculture, global greening etc.”
The real killer in history is global cooling. The natural drivers like the sun and orbital parameters are now cooling. The anthropogenic warming from CO2 plus feedbacks may offset this cooling for centuries thus prolonging the optimal phase of a slowly warming climate. I challenge that a warming climate is destructive in the first place. It seems almost as if the IPCC assumes climate is naturally static and we are leaving natural variability and this is not a valid position based on high frequency paleoclimate proxies. I suggest a fair look at disease and global precipitation along with agriculture, and greening would support this position.
So which natural factors are now big enough to overwhelm manmade warming, and why? Which even come close?
Roy, you mentioned five essential subjects that have to be addressed. Perhaps there is more to mention. The Red Team must promote the real physical aspects of the real world. This in contrast to the virtual world (Blue Team) in which you can create every monster, even climate monsters. Those virtual images of what could, may, might happen words we often find in climate papers – never represent the real earth. There it happens or it does not happen.
Some aspects:
– Orbit has a huge influence on very long term climate changes (think about thousands and ten thousands of years). Orbit did not stop to change all climates when human influence was added.
– At the scale of a thousand years the oceans play a main role. Those 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of (ice cold) ocean water continue to do what they always did, uncontrolled by man.
– Atmosphere follows the oceans in the way that atmosphere never can have a too big discrepancy with the oceans: a correcting reaction will follow.
– Pure physical processes have always been changing climate and they still continue to do so. Weather and climate are always searching for that new equilibrium which normally is as close as possible to the old one. That normal way of doing is the opposite of the propagated runaway danger.
– Natural forces of the Earth are massive. Man never did change an ocean current.
– Chaotic processes in the oceans and the atmosphere make any prediction a guess. And educated guesses are guesses as well.
– Our limited knowledge of physical processes on Earth and of their data make any model just a virtual world. Their results only work for the model itself. The Earth never follows a model. And models never represent the real Earth.
Most of what you say can be considered part of the discussion of the general points I listed. The whole subject has many sub-elements, and I think it’s important to categorize them.
— Roy Spencer says:
June 14, 2017 at 4:51 AM
Most of what you say can be considered part of the discussion of the general points I listed. The whole subject has many sub-elements, and I think its important to categorize them.–
Well a large point missing is idea that we have solve any problem by cooperation with other nations.
Or actually, that one must impose a global totalitarian order to control it.
And we have idea that if Hollywood stars believe in global warming why do fly around in personal jets.
Or we have “nations leading the way” who not vaguely solving the problem.
Or we have the US not doing enough, which is reducing CO2 more than those supposedly doing more.
And 5: “5) the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is low enough to make it worthwhile (e.g. mandating much more wind, solar, etc.) ”
The way you actually reduce CO2 from governmental action, is to promote more nuclear power.
Though making more natural gas available is shorter term solution [and wasn’t something supported by government [Obama didn’t do anything], but if interested in longer term solutions, it’s something like what France did- which they did, because they didn’t want to depend upon imported coal [or wasn’t driven by wanting to reduce CO2].
Which brings us to existing an existing “global totalitarian order to control it” of nuclear proliferation.
How is that working out, btw?
I would say it’s not working at all, if anything it’s encouraging nations which should not have nuclear weapons to acquire nuclear weapons. And it had a huge amount time in order to impediment it, so can’t say they didn’t have enough time to get it right.
Now the “deal” of nuclear non-proliferation, was nations were give up their right to make the weapons, in exchange they get nuclear technology for civilian use [they get nuclear power]. Lovely idea, but it’s not very practical.
What would work better is something like what Bill Gates wanted to do, mass produce portable nuclear powerplants. Or not a government somehow helping other nation make nuclear energy [which is essentially a clusterf*ck- it’s like expecting the Dept of Energy to actually do something about energy problems- and the Dept of Energy are actually funded a lot to do this.
And making car factories is something other nations have managed to do.
What best way to help Bill Gates or others. Basically getting government out of the way. The government is in the way in numerous ways. And government knows how to get out of the way, but doesn’t do it [for political reasons- mainly because they are bunch of power crazy idiots]. A model of how to do this was done in regard to spacecraft- govt allowed experimental spacecraft.
Basically, governments know how to do this, because they have done it before. Whenever there is enough need, governments will do it.
And generally this occurs when a nation is at war.
And an example is with Apollo program, Apollo was part of Cold War- a PR stunt to beat Soviets. Most people think it has something to do with a government throwing tons of money at something. It’s not really true. The main aspect was the government was in a hurry to do something. Throwing money at something, might be useful in this respect [if nothing else it add realism to idea they are actually being serious] but main part was the part about being in a hurry to do something.
Or generally, the only time government is anywhere close to being in a hurry, is to stop things from happening.
Anyways, something like making portable nuclear reactors, will take time and will have mistakes made, and etc.
A government forcing something to happen too quickly is not the point, rather it’s having enough priority to allow it to happen.
gbaikie…”What would work better is something like what Bill Gates wanted to do, mass produce portable nuclear powerplants”.
Is Baikie Scottish by any chance?
I don’t know how Bill got to be such a guru. He fluked his Microsoft success by adapting another language then fluking an exclusive contract with IBM, who had the machine but not the software.
You know how the portable nuclear plants would be employed by terrorists.
Gates has been in Africa peddling antivirals to people suffering severe malnutrition while suffering from contaminated drinking water and parasitic infections like malaria. They have blamed their subsequent illnesses, like wasting syndrome, on sexually acquired HIV.
The antivirals are severely toxic, causing liver failure, kidney failure, and death. The manufacturers admit they cause a form of drug-induced AIDS (IRS) and that they cannot cure HIV.
It’s amazing how you can be regarded a guru if you’re a billionaire.
— Gordon Robertson says:
June 14, 2017 at 4:58 PM
gbaikieWhat would work better is something like what Bill Gates wanted to do, mass produce portable nuclear powerplants.
Is Baikie Scottish by any chance?–
Apparently there is a number of them in the Orkney islands, and according to a google search the islanders second choice is to be considered Scottish. I was born on Vancouver island, Canada. With our mainland being a continent.
“I dont know how Bill got to be such a guru. He fluked his Microsoft success by adapting another language then fluking an exclusive contract with IBM, who had the machine but not the software.”
I think anyone with too much money to spend, tends to be regarded as something like a guru. I regard his idea that spending money on space related stuff, as not a good idea, as ill informed, but of course his partner in crime, apparently does think spending money on space related things as good idea. Paul G. Allen, stratolaunch was rolled out the other day- though still a couple years be it flies anything. It might end up something like the Spruce Goose, but I always been fan of using motherships. We will see, I suppose.
Do not forget the constantly changing tilt of the earth…..it should have a significant effect!
Not on century time scales — its cyclicity is 41,000 years.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
Powerful storms before a cold front in the central US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/15/0000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-112.26,44.08,903
You can see that the GCR radiation over North America is strong.
https://i2.wp.com/sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif
Transport of the cosmic ray particles GCR and SEP through the magnetosphere is estimated using the CISM-Dartmouth particle trajectory geomagnetic cutoff rigidity code, driven by real-time solar wind parameters and interplanetary magnetic field data measured by the NASA/ACE satellite.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/10/indirect-effects-of-the-sun-of-earths-climate/
“Showers. Primary cosmic rays above ~ 1012eV generate extensive showers of secondary particles in the atmosphere and above ~ 1014eV these penetrate to sea level. At this level, such a shower contains about 1 charged particle per 10 GeV of primary energy (at 1014eV, or 1 per 3 GeV at 1017eV, 1 per 1.6 GeV at 1020eV): 5% of the particles are within 3 m of the centre, 50% are within 40 m and 90% within ~ 250 m. Most of the particles are electrons and positrons; a few percent are penetrating muons. A burst of >100 particles m−2 over a few m2 due to a shower in the air would be seen about once per hour near sea level under a very thin cover (mass can add local showers), and >650m−2 once per day, the rate of showers doubling per 100 mb reduction in atmospheric overlay.
Variation with latitude. The number of vertical muons above 0.2 GeV is typically about 13% lower at the equator than at high geomagnetic latitudes; above 50 the flux does not change much. The component generating neutrons by nuclear interactions (largely the neutrons below 1 GeV)long used to monitor cosmic ray variationsfalls by about 24% in going from latitude 55 to the equator.”
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_7.html
Sorry.
10^12, 10^14 eV, 10^17 eV, 10^20 eV.
ren…”Most of the particles are electrons and positrons;”
The sun is made of mostly hydrogen and helium. When they break down under such intense heat and pressure, all that’s left is the electron and the proton from the nucleus (for hydrogen). Don’t know where the neutrons go.
When those orphaned particles are ejected from the Sun they become the solar wind.
Our magnetosphere is supposed to divert them but it stands to reason that a significant portion get through.
I suppose evolutionists will claim the Earth evolved its magnetic shield as an adaptation for humans and other lifeforms.
Cosmic-rays detected half a mile underground in a disused U.S. iron-mine can be used to detect major weather events occurring 20 miles up in the Earths upper atmosphere, a new study has revealed.
Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and led by scientists from the UKs National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), this remarkable study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching a detector deep underground, closely matches temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere (known as the stratosphere). For the first time, scientists have shown how this relationship can be used to identify weather events that occur very suddenly in the stratosphere during the Northern Hemisphere winter. These events can have a significant effect on the severity of winters we experience, and also on the amount of ozone over the poles – being able to identify them and understand their frequency is crucial for informing our current climate and weather-forecasting models to improve predictions.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121091228.htm
PRIMARY COSMIC RAYS
Almost all primary cosmic ray particles (about 99%) are the nuclei (particles in the nucleus) of atoms,
with the rest being free electrons (similar to beta particles – see Backgrounder: Radiation & Human
Space Exploration). Most of the nuclei are protons (i.e., hydrogen nuclei) as well as helium nuclei
(similar to alpha particles – see Backgrounder: Radiation & Human Space Exploration). The nuclei of
other heavier elements (elements heavier than hydrogen and helium) also make up cosmic rays. These
high-mass, high-charged particles are known as HZE ions.
Primary cosmic rays originate from a variety of sources, including solar flares and explosions on our own
Sun (these are often referred to as Solar Energetic Particles) and stellar explosions such as novas and
supernovas which are mostly from within our galaxy, but can also come from other galaxies as well
(these are referred to as Galactic Cosmic Rays or GCR). Galactic cosmic rays begin as particles
propelled out of the expanding cloud of gases and magnetic field caused by a stellar explosion. They
tend to bounce around in the magnetic field and some eventually gain enough energy to become cosmic
rays and escape into the galaxy. As these particles continue to accelerate, some can travel close to the
speed of light.
The high speed and high energy of primary cosmic ray particles make them very dangerous to people
and machines. On Earth, and to some degree in low-Earth orbit, we are protected from primary cosmic
rays by Earth’s magnetosphere (magnetic field) and atmosphere. However, as astronauts travel away
from Earth (to the Moon, Mars, or asteroids for example), they are no longer under this protection and
hence would be directly exposed to these particles. HZE ions are especially dangerous due to their high
charges and high energies. These particles can penetrate through thick layers of shielding and body
tissue, breaking the strands of DNA molecules, damaging genes and killing cells (see Backgrounder:
Radiation Effects on Cells and DNA).
SECONDARY COSMIC RAYS
When primary cosmic rays collide with particles of other things, such as a spacecraft, the International
Space Station, or molecules in our atmosphere, they can split molecules, which results in the formation
of Secondary Cosmic Ray particles. For example, when primary cosmic rays enter the Earth’s
atmosphere, they collide with molecules of gas, mainly oxygen and nitrogen, which shatters the nuclei of
the gases into smaller pieces (a process called spallation). This shattering results in a cascade of
ionized particles and electromagnetic radiation, known as an air shower, in the direction in which the
primary particles were travelling.
Typical secondary cosmic ray particles include protons, neutrons, positive and negative pions (short for
pi mesons a type of subatomic particle), and positive and negative kaons (short for K mesons
another type of subatomic particle) (see Figure 1). Some of the pions and kaons decay into muons
(elementary particles similar to electrons) and neutrinos (electrically neutral elementary particles), while
other pions decay to form gamma ray photons, a form of electromagnetic radiation.
http://explorecuriocity.org/Portals/4/Images/ActionProjects/radn2/Backgrounder%20-Cosmic%20and%20Neutron%20Radiation.pdf
— ren says:
June 15, 2017 at 12:03 AM
PRIMARY COSMIC RAYS
… —
Kind of sounds scary.
GCR are problem related to exploring Mars [human exploration]
and the degree it’s a problem has a bit of denial connected to it- among advocates who favor such things as human settlements on Mars.
There is a degree of uncertainty about it, generally, but I would say that more is being known about in last decade or so.
I would say that roughly speaking, in open space [trip time to Mars] it’s about twice as bad as same time spent on ISS. Or roughly 6 month in Earth to Mars transit, is equal to 12 months in LEO. And roughly water shielding or substances with high hydrogen molecule content are best to diminish the effects of the very high velocity protons, but such things as the ‘oh my god particles” are different:
“The Oh-My-God particle was an ultra-high-energy cosmic ray detected on the evening of 15 October 1991 over Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, by the University of Utah’s Fly’s Eye Cosmic Ray Detector. Its observation was a shock to astrophysicists (hence the name), who estimated its energy to be approximately 31020 eV or 3108 TeV. This is 20,000,000 times more energetic than the highest energy measured in electromagnetic radiation emitted by an extragalactic object.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle
And roughly we have not been studying this stuff for long enough time period- or one has the unknown unknowns.
The reaction of the two main sceptic players in BEST was revealing.
Muller accepted the evidence and changed his beliefs.
Curry rejected the evidence and kept her beliefs.
There is no point in having Red or Blue teams unless both sides put evidence before belief.
The red and blue team members don’t necessarily have to believe what they are advocating…it’s like lawyers advocating for clients. They just provide the best possible evidence for the side they are defending.
Roy…”The red and blue team members dont necessarily have to believe what they are advocatingits like lawyers advocating for clients”.
Like Dershowitz et al defending O.J. Simpson.
I’ve long thought pro and consters should swap sides (on blogs such as this) and play DA for the other team.
We’d find out who is really objective just by noting who participates with full integrity. But such a challenge is beyond most people, who are too ideologically attached to their view to attempt arguing for the opposition.
Roy Spencer says:
“The red and blue team members dont necessarily have to believe what they are advocatingits like lawyers advocating for clients. They just provide the best possible evidence for the side they are defending.”
Roy, you just admitted you are biased and not at all interested in all the scientific evidence.
Amazing. And you wonder why people look upon your work as suspicious.
Entropic, you have the roles reversed.
Muller did not change his beliefs. He was always a believer in CAGW as was demonstrated in numerous post in numerous skeptic bogs.His claim to having changed after BEST was complete BS.
Curry was the one who changed her position over time from believer to skeptic.
Entropic, Your handle on history is suspect, and a weakness of democracy is that with your either careless or deliberate mischaracterization of history, you can still vote.
Muller did not accept the evidence. He selected the procedure that would give him the results he desired; thereby, he could justify remaining the warmist that he describes he always was.
Curry changed her position based on the evidence, and the shenanigans of Muller was part of misbehavior of warmists that prompted Curry to more thoughtfully review the evidence.
“Curry rejected the evidence and kept her beliefs.”
All you need to do is look at the gigantic level of scientific fraud being actively practiced by the blue team to realise that there is no evidence to support their case.
If I remember correctly, Curry was originally a believer. She actually looked at the evidence and realised how false global warming is.
Curry didn’t publish her misgivings.
I wonder why.
The jet stream will contribute to a very dangerous weather in the central US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/15/0900Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-112.26,44.08,903
CAPE can reach 6000 J / kg.
Solar wind from the coronal hole will increase the instability of the atmosphere (wind energy).
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20170613.png
“The Red Team MUST address the benefits of more CO2 to global agriculture, global greening etc.”
————–
Most of the effect is not very useful – more leaf more stem less protein.
Some is possibly harmful increasing cyanogen content
Stavro.your comments are misleading .apart from soya. eating plants is a poor way to obtain protein.plants are mostly eaten for their vitamin and fibre content.the larger the leaf the bigger the plant.the heavier the crop and yield.the bigger the yield the less land you have to plough.less land means less fuel and more food. It’s a win win situation
Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation.. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.
— Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat, Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
David supermarkets are full of fruit and veg growing in CO2 enriched atmospheres.all growers report increased yields .more pest resistance .better flavour.and less fertiliser is required .the benefits far outweigh any drawbacks
So how does the nutritional quality of the supermarket produce grown under elevated CO2 compare to that grown in a natural environment?
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. Its going to be fairly universal that well be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and its not just protein…its also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition/2014
David ,how many years will it be before atmospheric CO2 reaches the same levels as induced CO2 in polytunnels eg in excess off 1200 ppm, as far as i am aware there has been no incidents regarding health, either from working in such an environment,or from the consumption of the products.enhanced growing with CO2 has been used for decades
Ian: The question of CO2 isn’t about its direct respiratory health effects or hypercapnia — of course — but its impact on planetary temperature and precipitation.
Continuing your courtroom analogy, they apply two standards of proof.
For civil cases they decide on the balance of probability.
For criminal cases the threshold for guilt is “beyond reasonable doubt”.
As a Red team member I would have great difficulty assembling a case which would pass even the lower threshold.
Evidence that you aren’t a red team member. I could easily provide enough evidence just from a few blogs that would spending trillions on foolish prevention measures was not value for money.
Blogs?
From the same internet which tells me that the aliens from Roswell live in Area 51, that the Moon landings never happened, that the Illuminati are green lizards who rule the world and that Queen Elizabeth I was the man who wrote Shakespeare’s plays.
“There are stupid people on the internet, so everyone on the internet is stupid”
Nice try, but that’s nonsensical – and dishonest.
And Hivemind is right, you advocate for the “blue” conclusion here so ofc you say the “red” case is “difficult” to defend.
Entropic man says: June 14, 2017 at 5:53 AM
As a Red team member I would have great difficulty assembling a case which would pass even the lower threshold.
————–
This has always been my problem.
Ask a “sceptic” to give a scientific explanation for the temp increase and they will say “No way – you are proposing AGW it is up to you to prove it without using temperature records which are fake”
All I want to see is a number of climate scientists/physicists give an explanation why doubling co2 will have little effect, and what the cause is of their “it’s natural and cyclic”
Where is their valid research, were are their scientists/physicists.
I do not want to see research from the likes of dellingpole/wuwt. Why will they not provide the evidence?
Stavro, what do you think Dr. Spencer’s site is? He has already laid out the evidence for you here and in his books. You’ve already found the right place.
His evidence won’t convince you that no global warming exists, because that’s not his position. What it will do is show you that global warming from the current drivers is not big enough to be alarming.
What Dr. Spencer features is actual instrument readings, more than broad theories. Please read a bit here.
Roberto: UAH’s satellites don’t even measure temperatures.
They measure molecular oxygen microwave intensities as a function of frequency.
They then use a rather complicated model to convert these to temperatures.
The RSS also does this. Their leader says he trusts surface thermometers more.
test
I’m trying to reply to Entropic man about the experiment he linked above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
It’s not significative because the black ink removes ALL the wavelengths in the visible spec-trum.
Hi Dr Spencer,
for a strange reason I’m unable to post the whole reply.
Is there any list of unwanted word to avoid?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo…”Is there any list of unwanted word to avoid?”
So far I only have Had-crut and absor-pt-ion. I had others but I forgot them. If you find any, please post the,…with hyphens of course.
Try posting in small parts to see what gets through. If you have a small part, test each apparent word by inserting a hyphen, dot, or whatever.
Massimo…this time I had to add two hyphens to absor-pt-ion.
Also *.noaa[dot]gov/*
Massimo Porzio
The experiment could have been done using red or green ink and you would have seen a similar reduction in transparency, though over a narrower range of wavelengths.
What happens when you use a more realistic case, eg a glass of black ink (representing the wavelengths absorbed by water vapour in the atmosphere), then add a couple of drops of blue ink (representing the wavelength absorbed by CO2). Still black, isn’t it?
Massimo Porzio:
Did u not catch up with the news: CO2 now is able to absorb all radiation up to the light emitted by a candle.
Well at least that is what one experiment was showing on U tube courtesy of D Appell I think.
True, the flame of the candle completely disappeared from view once CO2 was introduced into the large tube between the detector and the lit candle. This warmist world is full of surprises; very convincing.:)
Oh yeah tonyM,
I know the candle trick, since last december I own a thermal camera and know how ot works!
I’ve been unable to specify why the experiment was wrong because something goes wrong with some wrords I use (I think).and I can’t post it
Have a grat day.
Massimo
Massimo, you do very well in expressing yourself given the English lingua franca is not your native language. I enjoy reading your comments as you invariably have given the subject considerable thought.
I have found the clip and you may like to try and explain it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
You have a great day too.
Massimo PORZIO
Is this the candle trick you were talking about?
http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html
They used a filter on the camera that is in a range absorbed by CO2 to create the effect but the Carbon Dioxide still did absorb IR.
Entropic man,
there are “absorbers” and absorbers, if you use an opaque pigment it absorbs all but the color you see and limits the whole light to pass through, if instead you use a real narrow band filtering liquid it absorbs only the red band and it’s all an another story. Especially because the absorbtion isn’t at the Wien’s BB peak but quiet ifar from it.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
tonym…”the flame of the candle completely disappeared from view once CO2 was introduced into the large tube between the detector and the lit candle”
That has already been explained as reflection rather than absor-pt-ion. There is no telemetry set up to measure reflection.
How much CO2 was used, BTW.
At what wavelengths does CO2 ‘reflect’ radiation?
Gordon Robertson:
Don’t know those details; I quickly lose patience with these Mickey Mouse experiments. But have found it for you (it was endorsed by D. Appell so that is a clear clue to its worth):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
I quote A.Watts on the fake Nye/Gore experiment:
“Then there was the time that I proved without a doubt that both Al Gore and Bill Nye were not just incompetent, but liars too, faking a science experiment. That finding by me was later backed up by a peer reviewed paper in the American Journal of Physics.”
Earlier, above an experiment involving black ink is suggested. So CO2 now behaves like black particulates.
The irony is that I have never come across a skeptic who does not accept that CO2 absorbs and emits at defined frequencies.
Gordon Robertson says:
>> tonymthe flame of the candle completely disappeared from view >> once CO2 was introduced into the large tube between the detector >> and the lit candle
“That has already been explained as reflection rather than absor-pt-ion.”
Explained where?
And as Barry asked — at what wavelengths does CO2 reflect light?
tonyM says:
“Did u not catch up with the news: CO2 now is able to absorb all radiation up to the light emitted by a candle.”
Tony, you misrepresented the demonstration.
It shows that the INFRARED view of the candle is extinguished, not “all radiation.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo&t=3s
David Appell:
You must have a guardian angel protecting you from my reply…for the 3rd time!!
Perhaps you should examine your own role in misrepresentation when you clearly refuse to acknowledge the deliberate misleading nature of this Mickey Mouse experiment. I simply parodied it in my exchange with Massimo.
The clip states it shows how CO2 affects climate; it does no such thing!!! Even Mickey Mouse would acknowledge this.
Its sensor is a “heat sensitive or infra red camera.” As the conditions are not defined nor quantified a viewer is entitled to assume this means all frequencies lower than visible light.
The clip further states the “hot spo-ts are glowing white” implying that these are the highest frequencies (still in the infra red). What else could such a message imply or conjure up in a viewer’s mind?
The clip then purports to show that CO2 ab-sor-bs ALL these frequencies. Yet real Science shows CO2 is severely limited in ab-sorp-tion frequencies.
It then confirms all this by saying the “CO2 is trapping THE heat” and that “candle’s warmth no longer reaches the camera. Instead it is ab-sorb-ed by the CO2.”
“That is exactly how CO2 works in the atmosphere. It tra-ps heat preventing it from escaping to space.”
Another fake CO2 demo with junk commentary; you fully endorse it.
QED
tony wrote:
“Its sensor is a heat sensitive or infra red camera. As the conditions are not defined nor quantified a viewer is entitled to assume this means all frequencies lower than visible light.”
False.
It means frequencies in the infrared.
It’s a very poignant demonstration.
David Appell:
CO2 absorbs specific frequencies in narrow bands so it cannot absorb all infra red.
This is a junk experiment, with junk commentary by a junk scientist to fool the ignorant.
You swallow and foster junk science!!
Dr. Spencer, I am interested in your opinion on this: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
N&Z are easily shown to be wrong, because
1) Their model cannot produce the observed TOA outgoing spectrum
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
2) Roy has thoroughly discussed why pressure cannot account for observed temperatures
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
3) N&Z can’t even calculate the average temperature of the Moon, while standard radiative physics does so exactly, as I showed here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
David,
I’m not sure you are honest or not.
Let me assume that your point 2 and 3 are right (I didn’t check, and I don’t have the time to do it because I’ve my own tasks).
But why do you still present the graph at point 1 such as it represent “the observed TOA outgoing spectrum”?
That’s just one outgoing flux at the nadir of a single point of the TOA.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo, I’m not sure you’re honest or not.
Whether that outgoing TOA spectrum is for a single point or the global average, N&Z’s theory predicts neither.
David Appell:
As usual you can be really thick.
Where does the N&Z suggest it should predict it? Totally irrelevant to their objective. Read their paper.
Gavin’s unlabelled graph allows me to say he purports that the average emission from the surface is represented by a 294K flux average. We know that the earth avg T is 288K. Therefore the greenhouse effect is to reduce the T of the surface by 6K!! Your GHE fails! End of story.
I am fully aware of what you are trying to say but it is totally meaningless from this graph. People like you who confuse the outgoing flux with the surface flux ought go on a long retreat and contemplate. I think a desert retreat would help a bit like St Augustine of Hippo. Do it for a couple of dozen years or so. You might then grasp what the N&Z paper says.
tony: It’s obvious what N&Z’s pressure theory predicts for the TOA outgoing spectrum, and it’s nothing at all like what’s observed.
The TOA outgoing spectrum is the best evidence for the greenhouse effect via IR absorbing gases. Any theory of the Earth’s temperature has to predict it. N&Z don’t.
David: You are not reading clearly or not thinking clearly or both; I leave it to you. After having pointed out that it is irrelevant to the paper’s purpose you still don’t grasp it. I asked the question of you and you have no answer but irrelevant repetition of your ideology of what you think it ought say.
I have to lead you by the nose with a couple of quotes from the paper:
At the same time, greenhouse-gas concentrations and/or partial pressures did not show any meaningful relationship to surface temperatures across a broad span of planetary environments considered in our study
Have you grasped that point yet? It is an empirical fact from their study! It is the surface T that is the focus of their paper.
Try and grasp the following; it is simple and only ideology will stop you from understanding:
Furthermore, the relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (RATE) defined as a ratio of the planets actual global surface temperature to the temperature it would have had in the absence of atmosphere is fully explicable by the surface air pressure alone.
David, you have good intellect but your own predilection with this GHE ideology often seems to prevent you from seeing the obvious. Throw away this religion and focus on the thinking with an open mind.
Pressures don’t explain planetary temperatures. This has already been discussed on this blog. Nor do they explain the observed TOA outgoing spectrum.
N&Z are just plain wrong.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
David, here you go again, off on another tangent, obfuscating and conflating.
The issue was the irrelevancy of TOA emission to the paper. It is still irrelevant no matter how often you dive up different paths.
As an aside, your belief on pressure is also irrelevant to the paper. Further assuming the same net insolation as now and keeping other variables constant (to the extent possible) then the relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (RATE) according to you:
Venus: remove 98% of the atmosphere mass ; result same RATE
Earth: add 91 times the current atm mass in the form of Argon; result no change to RATE
Mars: add the equivalent of an earth atmosphere mass as Argon; result no change to RATE
Mars: add the equivalent of 92 times earth atm mass as Argon; result no change to RATE
If this is what you believe then I suggest it is time for you to go on that St Augustine retreat. Make it a double retreat at least.
David,
The point is that that graph doesnt show any point of the TOA outgoing energy spectrum.
That’s only the Nadir outgoing flux with the very narrow FOV of a satellites.
Under an energetic equilibrium point of view, it was meaningful if and only if the spectrometer was looking the baricentre of a radiating homogeneous sphere not surrounded by LWIR gases. Since the Earth hasnt a radiatively homogeneous surface and it is surrounded by a mixture composed also of LWIR active gases, the only way you have to give significance to that kind of graph is acquiring its spectrum data by a wider FOV that includes the full Earth dish and the atmosphere too.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I think that a serious point should be the egregious allowing of the media to print wild claims, and repeated us of ‘unprecedented’ without core scientists having the courage to say no.
Example. NSDIC scientists have regularly published the demise of arctic is in 2040’s. But they never once voiced issue with people, saying and printing 2012, 2016 2020 etc….. they were silent.
This is a huge issue. Consider the continuous publications concerning the rising seas in Miami, where every gauge nearby says it is constant AND substanence is also occuring. But no-one voices opposition and lets it ride.
When real scientist do not put down stupidity, because it helps fund them, they lose all credibility and that should be pounded home. They have acted as 1/2 scientist 1/2 leech.
There is a mechanism for scientific disagreement – peer-reviewed literature.
Yes Barry, you mean the pal reviewed literature or do you mean the press releases – the likes of Wadhams, Hansen, Schmidt to name a few.
Prognostications of an ice free Arctic by 2012; Manhattan underwater – great for easy fishing from your office window; hottest year EVAAAH well maybe 38% chance; urgent need to extract CO2 from the air suck the oxygen right outa my lungs; Tuvalu n Maldives under water while the latter built a new runway to welcome more tourists with the President declaring no problems; we’re all gonna be ruined by rising seas a 2 mm p.a. rise made for some very cheap prime water front real estate for the warmista tycoons; destruction of the Great Barrier Reef – while one dissenting Uni scientist was reprimanded for not being collegiate in supporting his alarmist colleagues. The list goes on and on.
We will all be ruined say the actors, promoters, hangers on and carpet baggers congregating en masse in Paris with some even flying in private jets spewing out that awful, awful, insidious fertilizer for plants; the giver of life.
Yes Barry, if only scientists were dumb enough to apply for grants to counter this voodooism via pal review.
There are plenty of papers published by ‘sceptic’ scientists. The IPCC also includes their literature. Mcintyre and McKitrick’s anti-hockey stick papers (peer-reviewed and published) made it into IPCC AR4, for example.
How do you tell between someone whining about a low quality paper being rejected and an actual plot against them. Conspiracy theories = lazy argument.
I definitely don’t mean ‘press releases.’
Barry:
Can you retrace the anti hockey stick saga and genuinely say this was honest peer review given all the obstacles and time it took? How long did it take for IPCC to acknowledge it?
Please don’t come protesting the strawman, Lewandowsky “conspiracy theory” crap. Many of the events are clear from the leaked emails and behaviour.
But why would there ever need to be a conspiracy when we have the biggest gravy train in the history of humans? Ponzi and Madoff eat your hearts out – two bit operators by comparison.
From your comment I guess you endorse the quality of all the pro papers produced in this field. Many would not!
As an illustration of my points let me give you a practical example. A few years back the Oz Govt wanted a study to evaluate the most cost effective way to tackle this issue of “climate change.” The study was not to be about questioning climate change. Only one university (UWA) agreed to the study which had a $4 million grant attached.
Can you guess what happened? UWA had to renege on the agreement. There was such a furore created by academics and students that the Chancellor had to go tail between the legs and extract UWA from the agreement.
What sort of a field of so called science and what sort of academia is it that free thought and investigation is quashed in such a manner. It smacks of academia in Galileo’s time; we have gone backwards.
This is but one illustration; there are many involving notable people. You seem to be endorsing this sort of behaviour. I find it hard not to conclude you are either oblivious or being disingenuous.
Can you retrace the anti hockey stick saga and genuinely say this was honest peer review given all the obstacles and time it took? How long did it take for IPCC to acknowledge it?
The papers appeared in the very next IPCC report. Steve McIntyre reacted to the graphic in the 3rd assessment report (2001), his papers were published (2003, 2005), and were covered in the 4th assessment report (2007).
From your comment I guess you endorse the quality of all the pro papers produced in this field.
Peer-review is a necessary first step that doesn’t guarantee a paper will hold up under further scrutiny.
“Pro-papers” looks like a political phrase. Most papers focus on narrow lines of research, not the general AGW debate.
Quality survives science, ideology doesn’t.
Politics was the basis of the Lomborg centre at UWA. The uni did not ask for it, the government ‘endowed’ it. Don’t you think that’s odd?
Barry:
Do you believe you know more about this issue than the Chancellor of UWA? O paste snippets but his official message is here:
http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
On your funding he said:
Is it appropriate for the Australia Consensus Centre to be funded by the Federal Government through a direct grant?
Again the answer is yes as many well-respected research centres across the country are funded this way including the Australian Centre on China in the World at ANU, the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine at James Cook University, and our own Perth USAsia Centre.
On your politics and Lomborg:
I understand there are strong views on this issue. However, I believe that a man who has worked with many Nobel Laureate economists, has been named one of Time Magazines most influential people, and has published with Cambridge University Press meets the criteria of being made an Adjunct Professor an honorary position that carries no salary.
Despite all this, there remains strong opposition to the Centre. Whilst I respect the right of staff to express their views on this matter, as all universities should be places for open and honest sharing and discussion of ideas, in this case, it has placed the University in a difficult position.
other
Therefore, it is with great regret and disappointment that I have formed the view that the events of the past few weeks places the Centre in an untenable position as it lacks the support needed across the University and the broader academic community to meet its contractual obligations and deliver value for money for Australian taxpayers.
I have today spoken to the Federal Government and Bjorn Lomborg advising them of the barriers that currently exist to the creation of the Centre and the Universitys decision to cancel the contract and return the money to the government.
I don’t believe I know more about the issue than the (ex) vice chancellor of UWA.
But there are things he doesn’t mention.
The Climate Change Commission – tasked with collating climate change research and examining economic issues, was shut down in Sept 2013, pretty much as soon as the Abbott gov came to power.
The reason given? It was a cost-cutting exercise for an unnecessary department.
2 years later, Abbott’s office initiated a government offer of $4 million over 4 years to establish Lomborg’s centre, dedicated to studying the economics of climate change. Which is what the Climate Commission had been doing. For only a little bit more cost. Suddenly there was money for it?
This was not initiated by the Dept of Education (Pyne). It came from the Prime Minister’s office. Abbott liked Lomborg’s views.
The decision was not reviewed, nor requested by the university. Academics at the university protested, as well as the student body, surprised (outraged) that there had been no involvement by academic staff in the decision.
This was a political appointment. It was obviously so. People protested. It fell through. Welcome to democracy.
Flinders uni academics also protested when the idea was floated to host Lomborg’s centre there, for much the same reasons as UWA – political interference with academic appointment and Lomborg’s credentials.
You reckon they know more or less than the vice-chancellor of UWA?
Barry:
You are confusing the Climate Commission with the Climate Change Authority. The latter is fully operational and is established by legislation.
The Climate Commission was led by flim flam Flannery, a political appointment, who ended up costing our various Govts $billions with desal plants given his prognostications that the ‘ rivers were unlikely to ever run or that the dams unlikely to ever fill again’ crap just before major floods that broke the drought was sacked. Great! Could not happen to a nicer person!
You are not privy to Cabinet discussions why make assertions that you can’t back up. It was Greg Hunt.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt rang chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery at 10am on Thursday to tell him the body had been shut down.
Plans to shut down the Climate Commission, along with a range of other climate-change related institutions and the carbon price, had been foreshadowed by the Coalition before the 2013 election.
The only person politicizing this is you. A Govt elected to make changes in this area is not entitled to do so according to your view of the world.
The then vice Chancellor of UWA certainly did not see it as either political or in the narrowed lines that you posit. Read his document fully where he covers all your points more than adequately. Are you suggesting he was unaware of what was happening in Oz? He did state:
This sentiment is captured in UWAs values which espouse the importance of academic freedom to encourage staff and students to engage in the open exchange of ideas and thought; and fostering the values of openness, honesty, tolerance, fairness, trust and responsibility.
The objections from Flinders Uni staff as well as the experience with UWA staff and students only serves to emphasize what I said earlier that we have regressed back to the academia of Galileo’s time.
Barry:
If by political you mean that I am suggesting this field has been bastardized by obfuscation, refusing to hand over data, methodology and the like then yes you can call it political if you like.
The merry go round of hockey sticks requires detectives to find out whodunwat and not scientists. It is true that it is the few who have orchestrated most of this but many have stood by silently! Not that I blame them. Fortunately peer review is not a part of the Scientific Method but in this field it is part and parcel of the corruption of science as the IPCC is set up purely as a political tool. Its charter says it all!
Re M&M hockey stick paper you assert:
The papers appeared in the very next IPCC report. … and were covered in the 4th assessment report (2007).
Your version is contradicted by:
Regrettably, the IPCC has refused to acknowledege the ‘hockey stick’ error or to review, let alone change, the slipshod procedures which allowed it to endorse it in the first place. All it has done and in the circumstances it could scarcely do less- is quetly drop the hockey stick from its latest, 2007 Report.
Source (Amazon):
AN Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming
By Nigel Lawson
Perhaps you can provide a reference as to where your version appears in that IPCC report.
IPCC 2007 report, AR4, McIntyre and McKitrick are mentioned about halfway down, after box 6.4.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
Their papers are also in the reference section for that chapter.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson gets his info from contrarian bloggers. He’s also wrong about this:
All [IPCC] has done – and in the circumstances it could scarcely do less – is quetly drop the hockey stick from its latest, 2007 Report.
MBH99 (the ‘hockey stick’) is in the 2007 assessment report, in a graph with other reconstructions that had been done since 2001. You can see that graph at the same link to chapter 6 above.
You are confusing the Climate Commission with the Climate Change Authority.
Your following quotes mention the CC by name.
Abbott tried to abolish the CCA, too, but failed.
Will you acknowledge, please, that McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms are included in AR4?
Barry:
(unsure why my reply gets rejected ..try breaking it up)
Of course I will acknowledge that the 2007 report does reference the M&M study. Perhaps not in a way M&M may have desired but it certainly is there.
It may be my eyesight but the “hockey stick” is not the same as in TAR. There is no splicing and the instrumental records are now very clearly identified. I recall Muller’s response to the original graph; he would not trust such a scientist (about Mann) (the splicing had further issues viz how was it then used to extend the graph).
barry:
(..ctd hmnnn…grr)
Acronyms:
Climate Change AUTHORITY – CCA
Climate Change Commission – did not exist
Climate Commission – CC
Acronyms:
Climate Change AUTHORITY – CCA
Climate Change Commission – did not exist
Climate Commission – CC
I am not sure how Abbott’s abortive try at removing the C.C.A (Climate Change AUTHORITY) via the requisite legislation meets your original statement that:
The Climate Change Commission tasked with collating climate change research and examining economic issues, was shut down in Sept 2013, pretty much as soon as the Abbott gov came to power.
diplomatically.
barry:
Acronyms:
Climate Change AUTHORITY – CCA
Climate Change Commission – did not exist
Climate Commission – CC
I am not sure how Abbott’s abortive try at removing the C.C.A (Climate Change AUTHORITY) via the requisite legislation meets your original statement that:
The Climate Change Commission tasked with collating climate change research and examining economic issues, was shut down in Sept 2013, pretty much as soon as the Abbott gov came to power.
It did not exist so was never removed. I assumed you meant to say the Climate Commission – CC , which was headed by Tim Flannery. This was indeed removed in line with your date.
But why do you express surprise or irritation that Abbott wanted to remove the legacy of Labor (equivalent to US Dems) given he campaigned so strongly and made CO2 such a central issue? To me, it is a pity he did not succeed as we are now clearly seeing this legacy has led to some mighty power price increases and lack of secure supply.
This is why Abbott wanted the study using ‘Lomborg methodology’ to optimize the Oz response to the targets he was setting for Paris. He certainly was not going to get that from Flannery who basically was an inconsistent, garrulous parrot for IPCC reports. The Govt stated that openly just more diplomatically.
barry:
grr … will post the offending line (with hyphens now)just to illustrate the frustration.
This CC was not a statu-tory body and hence did not need Parliament-ary approval for its removal.
I’m not arguing that the abolition of the Climate Commission was illegitimate in law. Where’d you get that idea?
I made a point, but you nit-picked an error of naming. I also got the name correct a few sentences later, but you determined it was a good idea to zoom in on the error. I’m very doubtful our conversation will rise higher than that.
But if I’m wrong, read my post for the points and respond.
This post: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251635
It may be my eyesight but the “hockey stick” is not the same as in TAR. There is no splicing and the instrumental records are now very clearly identified.
The profile is exactly the same. Middle graph. The error bars are shown for the ensemble in the graph below that.
The instrumental record was clearly identified in T.A.R. Here’s a copy of the MBH99 graph direct from the report.
http://tinyurl.com/yc4b2auq
Instrumental data is clearly labeled at the top of the graph.
barry:
You ask Where did I get that idea? that you thought it illegal.
I didn’t! You expressed irritation at Abbott dispatching the CC. Abbott was able to do this unceremoniously unlike the CCA which required legislation. That’s all!
There was no nit-picking but trying to establish that we were talking about the same body the CC. Flannery would never have been considered competent to undertake an analysis comparable to the one provided by Lomborg’s methodology. But you asserted otherwise so I thought of the possibility you may have been referring to the CCA. I did not pick up that you had identified the CC later. In any case don’t you think it may have just added to the confusion?
It would have been pretty pointless and rather self defeating time-wise for me not to acknowledge it as that is what I did want to establish. If it was then Flannery headed it. I consider him totally incompetent for the task which is contrary to the view you had expressed about the CC. The Govt certainly concurred as they sacked him and the CC. I expressed my views clearly on his competence before.
I have also given you clear answers or referred you to the Vice-Chancellor’s statement which covered your other objections. Just because the answers may not agree with your view does not mean your objections have not been addressed.
Re IPCC graphics:
I have checked and as one of the hockey stick issues is clearly the lack of distinction of the instrumental plot I stand by what I said. Muller picked up on this too. We are talking two different graphs. The 2007 centre graphic version shows the instrumental record clearly and distinctly just with more plots.
The equivalent TAR graph I referred to was well covered by McIntyre. He blows up the section where there is a “blending” of a less distinct instrumental plot (which is what I was referring to in saying it was less distinct). But the whole set of shenanigans is more complex and subtle including end period smoothing and its effect Mike’s nature trick. The TAR graph in question and relevant discussions are here:
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/#comment-340175
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/14/briffa-and-mbh99-smoothing/
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%e2%80%99s-nature-trick/
Tony,
You expressed irritation at Abbott dispatching the CC.
I am not “irritated” by the dispatching of the CC.
Abbott was able to do this unceremoniously unlike the CCA which required legislation. Thats all!
Ok. But I don’t know why this is relevant.
Flannery would never have been considered competent to undertake an analysis comparable to the one provided by Lomborgs methodology.
Is it your understanding that Tim Flannery was personally tasked to do an economic analysis? It seems to me you are making this an argument of personalities. The CC included expertise in economics and business as well as environmental researchers.
Can you say who the economic experts were and the teams they formed? And can you shed light on what specific knowledge/ability they lacked that Lomborg has?
I’m going to assume that your response on this particular question will not be some sort of politico-conspiracy.
I have also given you clear answers or referred you to the Vice-Chancellors statement which covered your other objections.
“Objections” is too strong. I provided a narrative that the Vice Chancellor didn’t cover.
Just because the answers may not agree with your view does not mean your objections have not been addressed.
The UWA VC didn’t address my points at all. Were you hoping I would accede to an argument to authority?
You also have not addressed those points. Namely, CC abolished because unneccesary and costly, according to the Abbott gov, then 2 years later the PM’s office (not the Dept of Education) initiates an academic appointment that costs nearly as much as what was abolished. Seems pretty clear to me the gov abolished a group they didn’t like, and attempted to install one that they did (Lomborg is hailed in Abbott’s book).
It would be great if we could discuss the politics of the situation without barracking for one side or the other.
Re IPCC graphics:
I have checked and as one of the hockey stick issues is clearly the lack of distinction of the instrumental plot I stand by what I said.
You said that the MBH graph in the TAR was not labeled with the instrumental record. It was. I provided the graphic from the TAR report in a link for you. What did you make of that?
We are talking two different graphs.
The links at climateaudit display the spaghetti reconstruction (with other reconstructions besides MBH) that appear immediately beneath the one I linked in the report. I though you were focused exclusively on TAR’s display of the MBH graphic.
Your first 2 links to climateaudit show the spaghetti graph from. That graph has the instrumental data clearly labeled.
Wondering if I had misunderstood what you’d said, I read back to your quote that prompted my response. Here’s what you said.
It may be my eyesight but the hockey stick is not the same as in TAR. There is no splicing and the instrumental records are now very clearly identified.
I think I understood you correctly. You posited that the TAR graph did not clearly identify the instrumental portion of the reconstructed temperatures.
The instrumental data is clearly labeled and displayed in the TAR graph Steve displayed.
If you are thinking of resurrecting those old arguments, please don’t. They are beside the points we are discussing. I have demonstrated that ‘skeptic’ papers are published and appear in the IPCC, as you requested. I can provide more examples, too – of Pielke Snr and Jnr, and Lindzen’s publications and inclusion in the IPCC documents. Same with Spencer and Christy. And more.
If I’ve seemed frosty it because years of climateball has made me impatient with sweeping generalizations. And of gratuitous comments on my feelings and motives. Should we continue, let’s set such suppositions aside, ok?
barry:
It is hard to ignore the politics underlying this whole field. It is what drives it and is exemplified by Angela Merkel criticizing Trump for ‘just not understanding that this was a new way of doing international business.’ So CO2 is really not so important as if we needed to be told. Scientists are two bit players in the whole field. They are really just useful tools to help stimulate the gravy train the biggest in the history of the world. Politics, ideology and money are inextricably woven here. I suspect there is a key factor in there which may be important but as yet I am not clear in my own mind (it is touched on by Merkel’s comment and Bob Brown below).
Where does one start Agenda 21, Pauchuri extolling it as his religion, the precautionary principle, the scare tactics, scientists involved in conspiring to evoke RICO to prosecute deniers when the hallmark of Western Science has been skepticism, former Green’s leader Bob Brown gleefully rubbing his hands at the prospects of the demise of all Oz coal and the establishment of one world Govt just to touch the surface of this quagmire. I might add I have a lot of admiration for Bob just not in this other than his forthrightness.
Back to Tim Flannery. His name reeks of politics and ideological alarmism costing $billions in mothballed desal plants alone. The $90 million Govt award to the failed Geodynamics does not go unnoticed given he was a beneficiary (Solyndra rings a bell in the US).
I say Tim Flannery is incompetent for the jobs in question; you disagree. I say the CC was a waste of money; you say it had great capability. You say the Govt should not have terminated the CC; by its action it disagreed. The Govt gave its reasons that it could effectively get all his reports direct from the IPCC. You disagree. So what?
I don’t hide the fact I see him as inconsistent, incompetent and cost Oz $billions. I said so before. If even Virginia Trioli, who is as left as any in the ABC, can spot his faults and complain about them even commenting on Tim’s denial of his own comments then why would you expect that I or Abbott would form positive views.
I did not appreciate his touting that there was a consensus on the science and the science was settled; nothing was settled in science except for political purposes. It came back to bite the science community when Abbott cut funding on the basis that the science was settled. I could not imagine a worst outcome than having Flannery in charge of an in depth economic evaluation no matter who worked for him.
Ultimately a Govt has to have confidence in such a leader’s capability as well as rapport or else it becomes a dysfunctional, counter productive appendage. There may have been plenty of good people under Flannery but it would not suffice to offset these issues.
These principles apply equally well to Govt or senior management in large corporations where even Divisional heads often can bring their own team so the issue of whether CC had capable people does not arise.
Abbott had faith in Lomborg’s methodology no doubt for similar reasons given by the Vice-Chancellor. Ultimately Abbott had to take responsibility for the outcome, and not you nor I, so his choice is the only one that matters. There are no grounds for you to take exception when it is the norm not to persist with a previous Govt’s baggage around one’s neck. As I said, Flannery himself was a political appointment as was the creation of the CC. It was a useful tool for PM Gillard in prosecuting a carbon tax. This does not resonate with you: fine.
You assert the CC was tasked with examining economic issues and ..dedicated to studying the economics of climate change. Which is what the Climate Commission had been doing. I don’t recall any in depth analysis of climate change economics. Preaching a mantra of renewables versus scorched earth consequences is a poor substitute.
The UWA proposal using Lomborg methodology was much broader than this. Although Lomborg would not draw any a salary from the UWA he was already on the Govt payroll (DFAT)
as an advisor on aid innovation and would run rings around Flannery as foreign aid was also to be a project at UWA.
Re the Vice-Chancellor’s comments you dive up the first path to negativity. So my design is for you to be cowed by authority. That is silly! That document explains clearly the motivation and rationale for taking up the proposal and addresses many of your questions including Lomborg’s economic credentials which overwhelm Flannery. Saves me time to write about them; I couldn’t do as fine a job. But you choose to see it in a different light. Fine.
Ultimately we see the legacy playing out right in strained power supplies, threats to industry and people least able to afford it simply struggling.
barry:
I will briefly clear up a few points you asked.
Relevance of Abbott being able to dismiss CC:
Your assertion that I was suggesting you had thought the action illegal had to come from somewhere. I was just covering this area by closing off any thought that there was any other meaning behind my comment (by adding That’s all to it).
You were not irritated:
So you were pleased, indifferent or displeased? I suggest the latter.
IPCC Graphics:
From my first reference to the difference and lack of clarity I was always talking about the centre or middle spaghetti graph. I would not have been able to say that for MBH99 as the instrumental is clear there (despite my eyesight!). You understood it as MBH99. There is nothing further I can add but clearly this created confusion.
You yourself are creating confusion here as well. This is your statement:
The profile is exactly the same. Middle graph. The error bars are shown for the ensemble in the graph below that.
What does your middle graph mean if not the spaghetti graph? This is why I dismissed the graphic tinyurl you sent as MBH99 (the bottom graph) was not the graph I was talking about. I thought you had made an error.
For me the 2007 compared to TAR (spaghetti) is chalk and cheese in terms of clarity of the instrumental. Having two similar colours (pink & red) does not help in FAR.
Resurrecting climategate:
Beyond the obstacles put in McIntyres way I had no purpose other than following up on the comment you made that the hockey stick and M&M were in the 2007 report. I had mistakenly believed otherwise which was then confirmed by that book reference that came up. Not good and not desirable. I am nonplussed as to why the writer chose to write it in book form without checking.
It’s disappointing that you continue to need to characterise my emotional response. I did not “express surprise or irritation” about the climate commission. I said only that the Abbott gov abolished it soon after coming to office.
Barry: The Climate Change Commission tasked with collating climate change research and examining economic issues, was shut down in Sept 2013, pretty much as soon as the Abbott gov came to power.
The reason given? It was a cost-cutting exercise for an unnecessary department.
Your interpretation of my ‘feelings’ comes out of thin air and gives me no confidence we can have an objective conversation. One more try, then…
It is hard to ignore the politics underlying this whole field. It is what drives it…
If everything you say is laced with your own politics, then there is an unwelcome bias in our conversation. There is a science element to the discussion, and a political element. If you are unable to extract them from each other I’m not interested in continuing. I’ll see how your response goes.
Scientists are two bit players in the whole field. They are really just useful tools to help stimulate the gravy train the biggest in the history of the world.
With each change of government policy has changed on climate change. This is so in the US, too.
But the message from national science bodies remained consistent. The GW Bush administration rejected AGW for most of its course, scientists complained that the gov was wrong and interfered in their reports. The scientists did not become lackeys of that government. Same with Howard and Abbott.
The politics has changed, the science hasn’t. If scientists were following the government of the day, then the CSIRO would have piped out the Howard and Abbott message on climate change. they didn’t. Neither did the US National Academy, NOAA, GISS and other science bodies in the US when anti-AGW conservatives took power.
Researchers do not facilitate their scientific conclusions to the government of the day.
Back to Tim Flannery. His name reeks…
Again the argument to personalities. I’m not particularly fond of Flannery, but instead of citing the work of the CC you trounce the director.
Do you even know the names of the economists and business people who were on the CC?
I say Tim Flannery is incompetent for the jobs in question; you disagree.
I neither agreed nor disagreed. You just made that up.
I say the CC was a waste of money; you say it had great capability.
I made no comment about their “capability,” great or otherwise. You just made that up.
You say the Govt should not have terminated the CC
I did not say that the government should not have terminated the CC. You just made that up.
The Govt gave its reasons that it could effectively get all his reports direct from the IPCC. You disagree.
I did not comment on this at all. You just made that up.
I referenced other reasons the government gave for abolishing the CC.
I dont hide the fact I see him as inconsistent, incompetent and cost Oz $billions. I said so before.
Indeed. It has become somewhat of a mantra for you. I do read your posts, you know.
If even Virginia Trioli, who is as left as any in the ABC, can spot his faults and complain about them even commenting on Tims denial of his own comments then why would you expect that I or Abbott would form positive views.
I think it’s beginning to dawn on me that you don’t like Flannery….
I did not appreciate his touting that there was a consensus on the science and the science was settled
Still talking about Flannery?
Want to know something funny? The Lomborg Centre was to be called… The Australian Consensus Centre.
Ultimately a Govt has to have confidence in such a leaders capability as well as rapport or else it becomes a dysfunctional, counter productive appendage.
This is the most reasonable comment you’ve made.
I certainly agree that a government needs to have departments or other bodies that have leaders which give them confidence. I’m no fan of Flannery.
Abbott had faith in Lomborgs methodology no doubt for similar reasons given by the Vice-Chancellor.
But the academics didn’t. The following article outlines why in great detail.
https://theconversation.com/the-australian-consensus-centre-what-are-the-costs-and-benefits-to-uwa-40808
Now, you may be wondering why I’m not protesting that Flannery was a good leader and the CC should have remained. that surprise would be entirely of your own making, as I never argued differently. If you’re now wondering what my criticism was, I refer you to my original post on it.
The UWA proposal using Lomborg methodology was much broader than this. Although Lomborg would not draw any a salary from the UWA he was already on the Govt payroll (DFAT)
And you don’t see his attempted appointment to UWA as a political move?
Re the Vice-Chancellors comments you dive up the first path to negativity.
You just made that up. I never disavowed his comments. My points were orthogonal to his. You, on the other hand, “dive up the first path to negativity” regarding the academic response.
And the academic response was the point. The vice chancellor was not the only, nor the most authoritative voice on the matter.
Would I be correct in predicting you will write off every other opinion from academics on the matter as being political? Yet the VC was in the most politicised position of all the academic commenters as the sub head of an institution.
I refer you again to the link above as to the academic basis for rejecting the Australian Consensus Centre at UWA.
Ultimately we see the legacy playing out right in strained power supplies, threats to industry and people least able to afford it simply struggling.
When the Carbon Tax was abolished we were promised lower energy prices. Instead, they have soared since. That this is little to do with carbon and renewables policy is in no doubt. There have been a number of reports and articles on it.
A parliamentary report in 2013 covered causes for soaring rises in energy prices. None of those reasons was to do with climate change policy. And, perhaps surprisingly, prices briefly leveled off around the time of the introduction of the carbon tax. Note: I am not claiming that that is related, but it does work against an assertion that climate policies cause soaring energy prices.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/EnergyPrices
What we see here is energy prices soaring well before any carbon policy is enacted. The cause cannot be laid at the feet of any climate policy.
Since then a number of factors, different for each state, has contributed to the rise in energy prices, mainly grid maintenance (sometimes criticised as ‘gold-plating’), gas price rise, an uncertain policy environmant (due to changes with each new government) and closure of power stations.
Re coal station closure, an example that has been mischaracterized is the closing of the Victorian Hazelwood power station. While some point to it being a government decision, that initiative was scrapped by the government, and instead came from the private company that owned it, due to it being non-economic to run a 52 year-old power station that had endured past its projected operation life.
Here is the company’s press release:
http://tinyurl.com/y8oujykp
Lest you assume my position on coal and renewables, I’ll make it clear. I expect some cost would come with moving to renewables, and a concurrent increase in the price of electricity. But i know that blaming the majority of of the price rises we have seen on clean energy policy is false.
Australian policy on climate change and CC economics cannot occur in a vacuum. Hazelwood, for example, was owned by a French company. While the rest of the world (America absent for the moment) shifts to cleaner energy technologies, affecting the price of conventional fuels and technology to some degree, Australia would be unwise to go it alone as the US seems to be doing. Our economic success through successive governments of both stripes has come with positioning ourselves intelligently in a global market (ever since Keating floated the dollar) as well as domestic economic policies.
The issues are not as black and white as you present them, and the facts are much subtler. You seem to demonise all things AGW and renewables related. If it is, as you say, all politics, then that politics is global, and Australia (and the US) should face these realities instead of trying to deny them or get left behind.
Ultimately a Govt has to have confidence in such a leaders capability as well as rapport or else it becomes a dysfunctional, counter productive appendage.
A second look at your comment here:
Rapport? Counter-productive?
If you mean to imply in your above comment that Abbott’s office initiated the Lomborg centre because it would not be counter-productive to the government’s agenda, then we are in agreement.
barry:
You comment:
If everything you say is laced with your own politics …
I did go to lengths to explain that this field is covered completely and inextricably by politics. That does not mean that I am lacing it with my politics.
You rationalize for different administrations but don’t respond to practical on the ground consequences that have been lived by scientists to name a few like Judith Curry, Dr Roy or Lindzen, who has expressed a total frustration suggesting this field to have become a religion, that it should be de-funded and start again.
Further the RICO legislation gambit by scientists did not take place without political endorsement; I suggest even Obama was into it up to his neck (no I don’t have evidence).
If the science was sound I would also be in there driving CO2 mitigation on scientific grounds. But there is no fundamental science which can dethrone the null hypothesis of natural variability. There is no falsifiable hypothesis or testing to even call it science.
The best that could be done after over 150 years of this idea is to extract Hansen’s hypothesis (he has claimed thus his physics was exact), the Far predictions and even the hotspot consequence in the tropical mid troposphere. All fail and thus falsify whatever hypothesis one extracts. Other than that you are welcome to show me a clear, testable, quantifiable, falsifiable hypothesis and clear empirical evidence supporting that hypothesis.
Words are limited; interpretations can be limitless. This seems to be what is happening in our interchange and casting my eye over your objections I can see I would have to go into repetitive mode, address a whole lot of issues on the financial side where you are simply not comparing like for like and don’t seem to understand what goes into strategic analysis of major investment decisions and then even onto the bizarre notion of the US being left behind.
If I take an imaginary whiteboard and put up points on which we agree or have gained fruitful insights from each other and mark these with a tick or a smudge for just a semblance of a meeting of the minds, I imagine the board still being very white with just a smudge or two. So I ask the rhetorical question is it worth pursuing it any further given the length of postings.
Continuing on from your rather crude conditional statement ( more than one person is entitled to become sensitive) :
If you are unable to extract them from each other Im not interested in continuing
then I suggest you just assume that I am unable to do so.
I do genuinely wish you a nice day.
Roy…”Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2″.
Pure speculation, Roy. It’s really discouraging to see guesses put forth as representing reality. You did qualify your claim by saying “might”, which just confirms that it is a guess.
The temperatures climbed from 1910 to 1940, at the same magnitude as they have climbed from 1978 to the present. I don’t think you attribute the 1910-1940 warming to human-derived CO2, yet you are guessing that the current warming is attributed to CO2 to one percentage or another.
I assume you are making this leap merely because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than then, but there is no evidence this increased amount of CO2 is increasing the temperatures.
When the current temperatures go higher than the 1930’s, about 0.4C higher than today, then you might be able to make a case that something unusual is going on with the atmosphere.
Until then, we are still in the same kind of natural variation we have been in for the last century. We have been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. So when we talk about current warming, we are really only talking about catching back up to where we were in the 1930’s, and we’re not quite there yet, even with all this added CO2 in the mix.
Prove ANY percentage of the warmth we are currently experiencing is from CO2. You can’t do it, so please refrain from putting a number on it, when there is no way you can know that number. It’s pure speculation.
TA: Your proof
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
Davie, is all that “radiative forcing” measured in Watts/m^2, by any chance?
Is that really the smartest reply you could come up with?
It’s not a “reply”. It was a question, directed to you. It was just one more way of ridiculing your pseudoscience.
It’s about the dumbest question possible.
It was obviously over your head.
If you are trying to used the IPCC “radiative forcing”, the units are in Watts/m^2. That, of course, means that CO2 is a “heat source”.
TA says:
“When the current temperatures go higher than the 1930s, about 0.4C higher than today”
Actually the 1930s were about 0.9 C *lower* than today:
GISS average global anomalies:
1930s: -0.10 C
2010s (so far): 0.76 C
David Appell:
Don’t know about world data but I have an archived GISS T set for the USA anomalies (John Daley archive):
1931 1.15
1933 .73
1934 1.30
1938 .93
1939 .91
This compares to the 1990’s:
1993 -.62
1994 .28
1995 .17
1996 -.37
1997 -.14
This is consistent with Hansen’s comment of no higher T in the USA in the 90’s.
I don’t have a full set of global but these global data suffice from GISS:
1941 is +0.09C
1945 is +0.05C
1960 is -0.02C
1976 is -0.17C
1995 is +0.40C
2011 is +0.51C
They are quite different to your data set. No surprise here given that Tony Haller showed a 0.98 R^2 correlation between T adjustments and CO2 increases. In other words the T fix is in!!! More GISS junk science!
Here are the current decadal averages for USA48, from NOAA:
decade average
starting
1901 51.5 F
1911 51.2
1921 51.9
1931 52.6
1941 52.0
1951 52.2
1961 51.7
1971 51.7
1981 52.4
1991 52.8
2001 53.2
2011 54.1 (so far)
David Appell:
You will have to do better than that. As I said the fix is in. Do you think NOAA and GISS use independent data and independent fixes? What a laugh.
All use basically the same data with components of homogenizing, kriging, infilling, projection, Karlizing etc with a good dose of past-ur-eysing. Add to that UHI, site quality, operator capability, inclusion/exclusion of sites over time, height adjustments and many with which I am unfamiliar that the mince pie that comes out just does not reflect the beef, chicken or pork that was really there. Some find it tasty!
Specific adjustment for specific, understood reasons is justifiable of course.
Now in the past I have asked you on two separate occasions to explain the T measures of two Perth sites which varied by 7C to 11C for most of the day to about 11pm. The sites are separated by less than 8km and both are basically at sea level. No response from you. So what was the T of Perth for those days? What would the official records show?
Yet you expect me to accept that infilling and projections of T are scientifically supportable methodology just because Hansen wrote a paper that showed just over 0.50 R^2 correlation coefficient within 1200km. What absolute junk!
I will go on from my experience in another field. Whenever an algorithm is introduced to average data and reduce variances by changing it when new data is available it will have the effect of moving the differences in a direction away from zero slope. I have tried to dampen the effect by using James-Stein estimators but an effect still remains and will invariably continue. That is precisely what is happening with databases. Go ask Tony Haller!
BOM (Oz) was tackled. It could not explain the alterations made to specific site data; too complex to explain. Heavens, I know what a thermometer T measure is and there is nothing complex. Imagine all hospital historical T records being changed every day just to satisfy Hansen methodology!! That should fix the patients!
Jennifer Marohassy seemed to lose her job because she questioned the BOM methodology.
Ditch the witchcraft and start again.
tony, that’s the best data available.
Do you have better?
All groups (including UAH) correct for biases.
How would you like to correct for those biases.
You can learn more here (great article):
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
PS: Jennifer Marohassy is an unscientific hack. I don’t know who fired her, or from what, but if it was regarding climate science she certainly deserved it.
David Appell:
I don’t have better data. But, I am not paid to have or to get it.
Thanks for your reference. I did point out that :
Specific adjustment for specific, understood reasons is justifiable of course.
But, no amount of rationalization will be persuasive given an end result that gives an R^2 = 0.98 correlation between adjustments and CO2 changes. Go see Tony Heller.
I tried to explain issues with algorithms involving new data inputs and iterative processes but it goes straight over your head. Your reference virtually confirms what I was saying.
In practice inexplicable step-changes or changes in linear slope involving past data confirms this problem specifically when it cannot be explained physically.
This is what Jennifer Marohassy was highlighting. Specific sites, like Rutherglen, were being turned upside down by this methodology. If there is no clear physical explanation then the past data should not be changed. End of story.
So whenever a scientist does not agree with your ideology then they clearly need to be denigrated as you have done with Marohassy.
Similarly with N&K even though they would run rings around you.
Now show us your prowess. How is your effort progressing to get that $10K prize? viz:
Accordingly, Peter Ward has issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion.
tonyM, which Perth sites were you referring to?
Here’s some stations:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/station-list/location/31.35S-114.97E
Perth combined estimate:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/31.35S-114.97E
Anybody who pays attention to Roy knows that for current temperature changes, he insists on using the satellite temperature record, rather than the ever-adjusted ground station record. He would presumably have a bone to pick with the BEST methodology right there. So would I. Use instrumentation that doesn’t need serious controversial adjustments in the first place. (I said Serious).
If that’s your starting point, temperature hasn’t significantly risen for nearly 20 years. Surely a genuine Red Team would take a stand on that, too.
Roberto
You may have noticed that UAH is on Version 6.0.
Dr Spencer has been adjusting his microwave based system since it started, trying to adjust for changes in sensors, slant angle and satellite altitude. Turning raw microwave data into a temperature estimate takes a complex and constantly updated algorithm.
If you think satellite datasets do not need adjustment you are deluding yourself
The satellite measurements are still superior to the ground measurements, because the ground measurements don’t even show warming unless you make hundreds of thousands of individual changes. Compare Hansen 1985 with Hansen 2015 (?). It looks just like scientific fraud to me.
Hive: How would you prefer to correct for biases?
.
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
Use instrumentation that doesnt need serious controversial adjustments in the first place. (I said Serious).
Satellite adjustments are as large and larger than surface record.
Satellite instrumentation doesn’t even measure temperature in the atmosphere. The data go through considerable processing.
What you would prefer doesn’t exist.
Roberto, the UAH model is far more heavily “adjusted” than the surface temperature model.
UAH is not having to extrapolate over something like 12 different satellites. Iffy.
* Should be, “UAH is *now* having to extrapolate….”
Sorry.
Visible line of convergence of cool and hot air on 18.06.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/18/0300Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-105.16,40.88,1806
Very high galactic radiation.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Great amounts of rain will fall in the east of North America.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=39.2;-90.9;3&l=rain-ac&t=20170624/00
There are currently no tropical cyclones in any ocean basin.
There are currently no invests in any ocean basin.
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/storminfo/
“But Barber said once out on the water the scientists realized this wasn’t the usual sea ice, which would be relatively easy for the icebreaker to plow through, but thicker ice from further north which had broken off because of climate change.”???
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/u-of-m-climate-change-study-postponed-due-to-climate-change-428030543.html
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00909/d1uvhcxoc1b2.png
If anybody thinks that CO2 absorbing IR shows anything other than the ability of all matter to be heated, they are mistaken.
Depending on pressure, CO2 absorbs between 750 and 2000 times better than O2 and N2.
For fun, replacing CO2 with a thin piece of wood results in even greater opacity. Nobody seriously proposes wood as having temperature raising properties (unless you burn it, I suppose). So where does the blocked radiation go? It heats the wood, of course, which proceeds to radiate at a lesser intensity in all directions. Just as CO2, or anything else.
A column of CO2 warmed from one end has a temperature gradient along it, as does any gas. It’s not simple, either. The specific heat of CO2 changes with density, and the concept of temperature fails at very low pressures, as “temperatures” in the thermosphere show. During the day, the atmospheric column is heated at one end by a 5500 K approx. distant heat source, and at the other end by a surface ranging from about -90 C to +90 C.
As the Earth rotates, the inputs at both ends are constantly changing, and this can result in low level inversions where temperature increases with altitude, and do on.
Still no GHE. Just a chaotic non-linear, unpredictable system. Unpredictable, that is, in any useful fashion better than a naive persistence prediction – day hotter than night, winter colder than summer, and so on.
Give the deleted GHE supporters a constant heat source, a thermometer at a distance, and some CO2. Just ask them to demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the heat source makes the the thermometer hotter. No analogies or thought experiments. No computer simulations.
Just a simple scientific reproducible experiment. How hard can it be?
Bah. Humbug!
Cheers.
You can find such experiments in classrooms worldwide and on youtube (which I’ve supplied before) and in the scientific literature.
It’s been done over and over. Your ignorance of this doesn’t change the fact.
Mike Flynn
The classic experiment to demonstrate the principle of the greenhouse effect is a long tube with a mirror lining.
At each end I am infra-red detector and at one end(A) is a 15 micrometre IR source.
Fill the tube with Nitrogen/Oxygen mix. All the IR entering at A leaves at the other end (B).
Add a trace of CO2. Most of the IR leave at B, while a small amount of reradiated IR leaves at A.
Increase the amount of CO2 and the proportion of IR leaving at A increases. Eventually 50% of the Incoming IR leaves at B and 50% at A.
Any friendly university physics department will set up this experiment for you.
Trivial. Everyone knows CO2 absorbs in the IR. It does not follow that increasing CO2 concentration will necessarily warm the Earth’s surface significantly, or even at all.
Surface temperatures are the result of a complex chain of various influences and reactions striving together for radiative-convective equilibrium. The process cannot be decoupled into non-interacting pieces and then reassembled with any substantial hope of getting the right answer.
Bart says:
“Surface temperatures are the result of a complex chain of various influences and reactions striving together for radiative-convective equilibrium. The process cannot be decoupled into non-interacting pieces and then reassembled with any substantial hope of getting the right answer.”
Actually it can. (That’s what physics does.) Manabe and Wetherald were the first to calculate the correct surface temperature of the planet, and the lapse rate.
“Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” J Atmo Sci, Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Published online on 1 May, 1967.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Mmm, no. That is not what physics does. People sometimes do it, and it sometimes works, but generally under controlled conditions as in a laboratory, where the influence of confounding variables is artificially restricted.
Getting a plausible agreement with observations is not a sufficient condition to establish a physical theory, only a necessary one. There is no physical principal which requires increasing surface temperature due to increasing CO2; it is only allowed, not required.
Wrong.
CO2 strongly absorbs IR. Therefore, it increases surface temperatures. Manabe & Wetherald calculated how much, and got the right answer.
It was a monumental paper. And very clearly written, too — well worth a read.
You obviously are a spectator, rather than a practitioner, of science.
I know how to read a scientific paper, and understand what it means.
No, you really don’t.
Sure I do. I’ve read far more of them than you have.
Apes reading Nietzsche.
Trivial. Everyone knows CO2 absorbs in the IR.
Do you think comments about this are apropos of nothing? Gordon Roberts tells us CO2 reflects radiation.
Where are you when people here deny the greenhouse effect? Kristian is a ‘skeptic’, but has no problem correcting the no-greenhouse people here. Is your need for messaging so strong that you can let the lunacy pass?
“Where are you when people here deny the greenhouse effect?”
Do they deny that CO2 absorbs in the IR? If they do, then they are wrong. Beyond that, it gets complicated. There are many layers of the onion to peel back, and I am loath to engage in the discussion, as the waters can get muddied very quickly.
The cartoon version of the GHE, in which IR absorbing molecules take in incoming radiation and spit it back out, roughly half back to the surface, is definitely wrong. However, that does not mean that the GHE does not exist, only that it is more complicated than that. Maybe someday, I will discuss with you the complications. But, that day is not this day.
Simple, yes. But a good description to first order.
No, not really at all.
Roy,
The last sentence of your article mentioned US energy policy.
Is the Red Team, then, purely US interests and not an international panel?
Would that mean they should limit their view to purely the US?
Or if they compass global warming, should they expand their scope/policy views to the wider world?
AGW is a global problem. Looks like Team Red, in your view, is to be a parochial review board.
I agree with your post, but would suggest (at least) adding review of the social impacts of the global warming prevention measures, which have caused serious harm to all the countries that have attempted them.
We don’t need either team. It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars. If 97% is a consensus, then the 97% natural emissions/yr are a consensus, too: we have nothing to do with it. 😉
Ion-induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles
Jasper Kirkby, Jonathan Duplissy, Kamalika Sengupta, Carla Frege, Hamish Gordon, Christina Williamson, Martin Heinritzi, Mario Simon, Chao Yan, João Almeida, Jasmin Tröstl, Tuomo Nieminen, Ismael K. Ortega, Robert Wagner, Alexey Adamov, Antonio Amorim, Anne-Kathrin Bernhammer, Federico Bianchi, Martin Breitenlechner, Sophia Brilke, Xuemeng Chen, Jill Craven, Antonio Dias, Sebastian Ehrhart, Richard C. Flagan et al.
Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are thought to be important for anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate, yet remain poorly understood1. Globally, around half of cloud condensation nuclei originate from nucleation of atmospheric vapours2. It is thought that sulfuric acid is essential to initiate most particle formation in the atmosphere3, 4, and that ions have a relatively minor role5. Some laboratory studies, however, have reported organic particle formation without the intentional addition of sulfuric acid, although contamination could not be excluded6, 7. Here we present evidence for the formation of aerosol particles from highly oxidized biogenic vapours in the absence of sulfuric acid in a large chamber under atmospheric conditions. The highly oxygenated molecules (HOMs) are produced by ozonolysis of α-pinene. We find that ions from Galactic cosmic rays increase the nucleation rate by one to two orders of magnitude compared with neutral nucleation. Our experimental findings are supported by quantum chemical calculations of the cluster binding energies of representative HOMs. Ion-induced nucleation of pure organic particles constitutes a potentially widespread source of aerosol particles in terrestrial environments with low sulfuric acid pollution.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
SO4 particle map.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/particulates/surface/level/overlay=suexttau/orthographic=-82.29,42.09,903
Air humidity – Eastern Pacific.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/bTPW/TPW_Animation.html?fromDate=20170614&fromHour=23&endDate=20170615&endHour=5&product=EAST_PACIFIC_TPW&interval=hourly
Hi Norman and tonyM,
I hope this post works, because I had my previous attempt still blocked.
I try to post it by blocks
s Norman link highlights, they had a bunch of energy emitted by the candle, too much indeed to view the tiny influence of the CO2 abs-orp-tion (at 4 microns). Without the filter trick, probably no one realized that CO2 have almost any effect on that radiation (which it has instead, of course).
I am absolutely aware of the IR activity of CO2 (and I suppose almost anyone here with a little of basic physic knowledge agree with that), what is still in discussion IMHO is how much (or if) the CO2 IR activity at 15 microns (not the one of that experiment) could effectively increase the temperature of a much warmer object that is facing the gas emissions and it is the source of the very same gas.emissions.
What Entropic man din’t realize is that a real (for example) red abs-orb-ing liquid, if placed at a concentration of 100% in volume in a cubic container, and enlightened on one face of the cube, is seen as light green (the complementary color of red) on the face opposite to the light source, and very light red on the other faces.
All the colored inks used are opaque instead, so they abs-orbs all
the radiation (converting it to heat) and reflects only the colour
they appear. To do a parallel with the tropospheric thermodynamics
those pigments behave more like particulates than CO2.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Dr. Spencer,
I could have discovered the issue, it seems there is a problem posting long lines without CR-LF sequences.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I think it would be a very good plan to have a Red Team do a serious evaluation of Five Points.
I think far too many posts on this blog are endless comments on what “heat” is and how it works. Or a couple people do not believe the physics of GHE and debate endlessly that there is no possible way CO2 could increase the equilibrium temperature of a heated surface. Or a trace gas cannot have any influence (even though it appears the trace gas Ozone warms the Stratosphere considerably by absorbing UV energy).
I would much rather spend time and research on trying to figure out the actual impact increased CO2 will have on average global temperature and all the other effects predicted. Rising sea level (how much), Droughts (will they increase in intensity and area?), rainfall (will there be more or less flooding?), tornadoes( more or less?) hurricanes (more or less and what about intensity).
This is where I was hoping a science blog might go. Work on using the combined mental abilities of many people to try and figure out the questions and evaluate the reality of the various problems associated with global warming.
I think the Red-Team approach would help greatly in getting at some to the tougher questions.
Norman,
The IPCC stated that future climate states are not predictable. Neither is weather.
Good luck with predicting either. Try a climatologist, or an astrologer if that doesn’t work.
Or pray for good luck.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
There are always trends to observe. You can predict future weather to a certain degree. Winter will be much colder than summer in many regions. In the tropics they have repeatable wet and dry periods. There are some cycles and predictability within some ranges.
Not exactly sure what the point of your post is.
Mike Flynn says:
“The IPCC stated that future climate states are not predictable.”
But, given a socio-economic scenario, the probability distribution of future climate states can be *projected*. These are almost all worrisome.
And there is still the possibility of a relatively sudden nonlinear change due to tipping points, chaos, etc. The chance of these grows as more energy is put into the climate system, and their possibility could wreck havoc if one or more happened.
Davie, you’re going to scare yourself so bad you’ll be hiding under your bed tonight!
David Appell,
You’re delusional. Assertions are not facts. Anything is possible, except the chance of a foolish Warmist accepting fact over fantasy.
Cheers.
“Anything is possible….”
No, only what physics allows is possible. For climate change, the most important law is conservation of energy. Any change must meet that requirement.
Norm, your “confirmation bias” is showing, again.
You state: “I would much rather spend time and research on trying to figure out the actual impact increased CO2 will have on average global temperature and all the other effects predicted.”
That would be a WASTE of time and research because the satellite anomalies already have shown the IPCC predictions to be way wrong. The worms in your head just won’t let you see reality.
g*e*r*a*n
I do not thing these “worms” you speak of are the problem at all. The flaw is in your ability to read and understand information. Some people are dyslexic and have problems reading. You seem to twist and distort things you read in some unpredictable and unstable pattern and have problems with your comprehension.
Why would satellite data and IPCC predictions have anything to do with the nature of my post?
If you had some ability to comprehend what you read you may understand I was exactly asking that the Red-Team could evaluate the IPCC predictions to see what reality is actually doing.
Norm denies his own words, again: “…actual impact increased CO2 will have on average global temperature…”
g*e*r*a*n
I am not denying anything at all you just have no ability to comprehend what you read and twist it to mean something else.
ME: “I would much rather spend time and research on trying to figure out the actual impact increased CO2 will have on average global temperature and all the other effects predicted.”
If you take out the first part and leave a segment you can make things appear anyway you want them to. My statement in full is about trying to “figure” out the impact, it is not declaring there is any or how much it will impact, it is a declaration to work on figuring out the actual impact.
Now is that clearer to you or will you continue twisting and distorting and being unable to comprehend what you read?
Norm, if you want to deny your own words, it is okay with me. Just don’t get mad if I laugh at you.
(Hilarious.)
g*e*r*a*n
You are perfectly fine to laugh at your own twisting of reality. I do not know what syndrome you have but it is interesting.
Dr. Roy warns: “Do NOT Strive for Consensus with the Blue Team.”
Well then, we don’t want Pielke, Curry, Christy, or any other Lukewarmer on the Red Team. The Lukewarmers can’t wait to join hands and claim CO2 is warming the planet! They seem to love pseudoscience as much as the Warmists.
Massimo Porzio
You are stretching this far too far. The video I linked was a simple demonstration that small amounts of material can have significant effects on the transparency of a fluid, in response to the “CO2 is a trace gas and can’t possibly have any effect” straw man. It is not a detailed simulation of the greenhouse effect.
I described a better experiment t to Mike Flynn, but got no reply.
“The classic experiment to demonstrate the principle of the greenhouse effect is a long tube with a mirror lining.
At each end is an infra-red detector and at one end(A) is a 15 micrometre IR source.
Fill the tube with Nitrogen/Oxygen mix. All the IR entering at A leaves at the other end (B).
Add a trace of CO2. Most of the IR leave at B, while a small amount of reradiated IR leaves at A.
Increase the amount of CO2 and the proportion of IR leaving at A increases. Eventually you get 50% emerging from B and 50% from A.
Any friendly university physics department could set this up for you.”
Comments?
Incidentally, to compare this experiment with the atmosphere, stand it on end.
A is the earth’s surface, emitting IR a d receiving reradiated IR from the atmosphere.
B is the top of the atmosphere, from which IR is lost to space.
One of the jobs of a legitimate Red team would be to explain how the atmosphere could reduce the amount of energy lost from the surface to space without increasing the equilibrium temperature of that surface.
Let me guess, IR coming back to “A” is the deadly “back-radiation” that is going to “blow-torch” everything in its path?
Did I guess right?
The IR coming back to A is indeed back-radiation.
The rest of your comment is denier bullshit.
Dang, I thought you would like “blow-torch”.
How about “CO2 laser”? How about “thermonuclear device”?
Let’s “trap” some real heat!
(I just love psilly pseudoscience.)
Entropic Man,
You wrote –
“Fill the tube with Nitrogen/Oxygen mix. All the IR entering at A leaves at the other end (B).”
Well no, it doesn’t. John Tyndall actually performed experiments, rather than just thinking about them. His results disagree with your assertion.
You are just talking nonsense. CO2 above absolute zero radiates in all directions, according to its temperature. Even with a perfectly reflective tube, or other other imaginary apparatus, there will be a temperature gradient within it. The CO2 will radiate more intensely at the hotter end, in accordance with the fourth power of the absolute temperature.
Even if CO2 absorbs 2000 times the IR that O2/N2 do (and it doesn’t), then 4 molecules of CO2 do not block as much IR as 9996 molecules of O2/N2.
You’re talking rubbish.
Cheers.
Neither O2 nor N2 absorb infrared radiation.
David Appell,
You wrote-
“Neither O2 nor N2 absorb infrared radiation.”
John Tyndall measured the relative IR abs.orb.tive qualities of O2 and N2 compared to CO2 over 150 years ago. However, if you want something more up to date, and peer reviewed, –
“Introduction
[2] It is a widespread notion that both main constituents of the atmosphere, molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2) exert almost no greenhouse effect [Le Treut et al., 2007]. Their contribution is mainly ascribed to indirect effects like the pressure-broadening of CO2-lines in the infrared [Lacis et al., 2010; Goldblatt et al., 2009]. Thus, N2 and O2 are sometimes not considered as natural greenhouse gases even in case of low water vapor conditions [Lacis et al., 2010].”
You’re full of delusional crap.
Still no GHE. Still no CO2 heating.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Roy’s site is again blocking replies that contain science.
Still can’t post a comment referencing Tyndall.
What a way to run a science blog.
JT measured oxygen and nitrogen’s infrared ab.sorp.tion — and found them to be zero.
See the table in Tyndall’s paper, pg 31:
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
With an understanding of quantum mechanics, it’s easy to see why two-atom molecules do not absorb IR but three-or-more-atom molecules do, via their rotational and vibrational bands.
David Appell,
From Tyndall’s experiments (real, not imaginary), relative IR opacity –
Dry air, oxygen, nitrogen – 1
Carbonic oxide, carbonic acid – 90
IR source approx 270 C
Pressure 30 in Hg
At 1 in Hg, same source –
Dry air, oxygen, nitrogen – 1
Carbonic oxide – 750
Carbonic acid – 972
Therefore, at atmospheric pressure of 30 in Hg, 4 molecules of CO2 intercept 4 x 90 = 360 IR rays. Air intercepts 9996 x 1 = 9996 IR rays, at 400 ppm CO2.
You’re still full of delusional crap. Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Or this one: “Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galv*anometer was
observed with all possible care.
“From Tyndalls experiments (real, not imaginary), relative IR opacity”
Where do these numbers appear in a Tyndall paper? (Link and page number).
Referring to your last paragraph, not really. The question is not warming or no warming due to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The questions are how much warming(immeasurable or some measurable figure)and the consequences thereof, whether beneficial or detrimental. You assume that the red team must adopt the position of there being zero effect from increased CO2 concentration in order to be an alternate voice to the blue team. Red teams role would be simply to attack the blue teams science.
It’s a pretty dumb experiment. Really no better than putting a piece of cardboard in front of the flame and proclaiming, “ya can’t see it now, can ya’?”
Someone doesn’t understand the nature of radiation.
Someone doesn’t understand the nature of cardboard.
Cardboard wasn’t put in front of the flame. Go learn.
It was in my thought experiment. And, it is the same principal – put an opaque substance in front of an object and, mirabile dictu! It disappears from view. Lame to the 10th power.
Exactly — enough CO2 makes the candle opaque in the IR.
You’re starting to see the light (!)
So what? Everyone knows that. Doesn’t change the fatuousness of the experiment. Doesn’t establish the necessity of AGW.
That demonstration shows that CO2 strongly absorbs IR.
That’s very irrelevant to the atmosphere.
No it doesn’t. I shows black ink is opaque to visible light. Just like cardboard.
Do you even know what experiment we are talking about? It is the one suggested by “Entropic Man” above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
I meant, obviously, the candle demonstration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Well then, we have been arguing past each other.
Your experiment is not particularly fatuous, simply misleading. The gas is still, much higher than 400 ppm, and there is no water vapor or convective overturning.
Bart,
David Appell said someone doesn’t understand the nature of radiation. He looked in the mirror, obviously.
Cheers.
Entropic man
You don’t even need an experiment to prove the GHE exists. Real world measurements already prove it. Only many do not accept the reality. Even the few that might, they believe the Earth’s surface cannot absorb the IR radiation coming from the sky.
Strange as these cultists seem to be, they believe a colder photon cannot be absorbed by a warmer object that emits photons of higher energy. Not sure where they get this from. The only person I have ever seen state this is Claes Johnson (a mathematician) who wrote some paper proposing this. I read the paper. He has no supporting evidence for his idea and no experimental evidence yet all the cultists on this blog accept this as God’s own Truth given to the Prophet Claes but reject textbook knowledge based upon empirical testing and derived from logical thought process. Weird bunch but cult minded people do not have to use logic to prove their ideas. They just assert them with authority and we are all just supposed to believe it. Notice the cultists (g*e*r*a*n, Mike Flynn, Gordon Robertson, etc, never validate any of their assertions but we are all just supposed to believe, the power of Faith).
Entropic man
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594347329a3ab.png
Real World measured downwelling IR which will be absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
The cultists do not accept this as valid data. It is similar to the experiment you describe. The Earth’s surface receives energy from the Sun. The energy warms the surface and it starts emitting IR which is absorbed by the GHG and is thermalized and is part of the process that warms the atmosphere to create emitting GHG that become part of the measured downwelling IR. (other atmospheric warming processes are convection, and evaporation which leads to condensation and warming aloft, and to a small degree conduction).
Norman,
Your sciency nonsense doesn’t seem to work at night, indoors, when it’s cloudy, raining, or foggy, does it?
Surface temperatures are measured with thermometers, not in W/m2, and vary between approximately + 90 C and – 90 C. Some effect!
Downwelling IR? Spare me the climatological garbage! Describe the GHE using terms that a real scientist would know, and you might get somewhere, I suppose.
Can you make a thermometer hotter by putting more CO2 between the Sun and the thermometer? If you can’t, you’re in the grip of a delusion, no matter how seductive your hypothesis seems to you.
No GHE. None.
Cheers.
Norm believes if he keeps spouting his pseudoscience over and over and over, it might someday become valid.
It’s not working out for him, but he’s hilarious to watch.
Mike Flynn
Yes the GHE does work 24/7 day and night, at the poles and at the tropics.
The net Watts/m*2 is what determines the temperature the thermometers read. Do you know what a watt is?
Since you act like you don’t have a clue it is joules/second. Joules is a unit of energy used in science to calculate things.
The meter^2 is an arbitrary surface size. Just makes it easier to keep the units similar.
What determines the temperature of an object is the amount of joules it has and its heat capacity.
The amount of watts a surface is losing minus the amount of watts it is gaining determine the number of joules it either is gaining or losing and what its temperature will end up being.
Norman,
How many W/m2 is 373 K if the object has an emissivity of 0.1? What if the emissivity is 0.9?
Foolish Warmist. You don’t really understand what you are saying, do you?
300 W/m2 is below freezing if you are measuring ice. It’s over 200 C if you’re measuring unoxidised aluminium.
That’s why scientists use thermometers rather than Wattmeters.
You’re spending too much time with those climatological fairies at the bottom of your garden.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are incorrect again. Scientists also now can use FLIR to measure temperatures of objects at a distance.
You can set emissivity with the instrument to get very accurate temperature readings for the IR watts detected by the sensor array.
http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/428_InfraredThermometerEmissivitytablesrev.pdf
http://www.flir.com/home/news/details/?ID=71720
Mike Flynn says:
“Thats why scientists use thermometers rather than Wattmeters”
Doctor’s offices now use an ear “Wattmeters” to measure the body’s temperature. It measures part of the radiation spectrum from inside your ear, assumes an emissivity (0.95, I think), and calculates temperature from part of the blackbody spectrum.
http://www.radiantek.com.tw/download/files/Advanced%20Materials_english_1009.pdf
David Appell,
Your link calls the instrument a “thermometer”. Not a “Wattmeter”.
The foolish Warmist redefinition apparatus at its finest?
Cheers.
“Thermometers” measure temperature. Ear “Wattometers,” to use your parlance, is how doctors do it now.
Call it a thermometer if you want. The principle is still the same — measuring temperatures via IR radiation spectra.
Now take away the tube and experience the campfire effect. Adding CO2 blocks radiant heat from reaching the campers, but convection above the fire intensifies.
Are you going for the “comedy” award, or the “pseudoscience” award. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.
The red and blue team are the problem. Let the scientists do their work independent of politics and religion. If u dig into where the funding for science comes from these days, the money is linked to political groups. That goes for both red and blue teams.
That’s true.
These adversarial approach gets us nowhere. All the blue team has to do is keep spouting nonsense and who’s supposed to call the winner? Someone from the red team? No, a politician.
Congress Should Break Up Hatebook into Multiple Independent Identity Facebooks
Just recently I wrote a post about being censored on Facebook for doing nothing more than being critical of the AGW theory. This following quote is my best guess at what got the article banned:
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/congress-should-break-up-hatebook-into-multiple-independent-identity-facebooks/
C02 you have the right to be an independent thinker and it’s none of Facebook’s business what your stand on AGW is
I doubt Facebook even looked at his post, let alone tried to delete it.
I agree that the choice of participants in the red team is crucial. They should also look at what new research is needed.
I would suggest specific points that need addressing:
1: Do radiative gasses really ‘trap’ heat or just delay radiative transmission – if the latter then quantify it. As far as I can tell this has never been done by IPCC science. My estimate is that the heating effect of this delay is less than 1Kº.
2: Our whole industrial era CO2 emissions have contributed just 1% to the carbon cycle. What specific scientific evidence is there to prove that this is a problem. At an annual level our emissions add less than 10% to fluxes which is less than measurement error. The value of ocean sinks, particularly the Antarctic Ocean, are poorly understood, and the IPCC admits that it doesn’t consider soils.
See: RadiativeDelay and IPCC-CO2 at brindabella.id.au/climarc
dai
“What specific scientific evidence is there to prove that this is a problem.”
What do you mean by “problem?” It’s not a scientific term, but one of values. Problem for whom? In what way? How significant? Etc.
80% of warming has happened since 1975. If someone told you then there’d be 0.8 C of warming by 2017, what would you have said to them?
David Appell,
You wrote-
“But, given a socio-economic scenario, the probability distribution of future climate states can be *projected*. These are almost all worrisome.”
What do mean by “worrisome “? Worrisome for whom? In what way? How significant?
If someone told you that you were living in a foolish Warmist fantasy, what would you say to them? Why would they believe you?
Cheers.
“80% of warming has happened since 1975.”
Lying by omission. 1975 was the low point after the peak in about 1945. Half the warming occurred in the era 1910-1945, and the other half in about 1970-2005. But, the first period was not induced by CO2. The second wasn’t, either.
“If someone told you then thered be 0.8 C of warming by 2017, what would you have said to them?”
I’d have said, that’s right on the long term trend line which has existed since the turn of the century, long before anyone even heard of an SUV, and well before the mid-century acceleration in CO2 content.
Bart says:
> 80% of warming has happened since 1975.
“Lying by omission.”
It’s a fact. Calculate it for yourself.
CO2 had a major role in that warming, as did a brighter sun and a clearing of volcanic aerosols.
Since 1975, it’s even more aGHGs.
> “If someone told you then thered be 0.8 C of warming by
> 2017, what would you have said to them?”
“Id have said, thats right on the long term trend line which has existed since the turn of the century,”
Physics fail. What is the trend due to?
It is sophistry. Only 50% since the previous peak in ~ 1945.
Wrong.
HC4.5 warming up to 1945 was 0.23 C.
Warming since then is 0.78 C.
Wrong. I calculated it directly.
So did I. And you’re not using the latest version of HC data, which is 4.5, not 4.
Obviously, you didn’t.
Do you need a link to the data?
Bart says:
“Half the warming occurred in the era 1910-1945, and the other half in about 1970-2005.”
Nope.
Here’s the average temperature anomaly (deg C) in each decade in the starting year indicated, according to GISS data:
1881 -0.22 C
1891 -0.21
1901 -0.34
1911 -0.28
1921 -0.21
1931 -0.10
1941 0.03
1951 -0.03
1961 -0.02
1971 0.05
1981 0.27
1991 0.40
2001 0.62
2011 0.76 (so far)
So 1910-1945 warming is about 0.3 C, and 1970-2005 warming is about 0.7 C.
data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Based on HC4 averages:
1910-1945: 0.52 degC
1970-2005: 0.57 degC
It’s statistically the same.
Wrong.
HC4.5 averages:
1910-1945: -0.20
1970-2005: 0.16
Wrong. I calculated it directly.
SO did I. And you’re wrong (and not using the latest data, which is v4.5, not v4).
Nope.
These are the data:
1910 -0.49
1945 0.03
1970 -0.03
2005 0.54
Yes. (And 2016 = 0.77 C).
And those data mean, for HC4.5 averages:
1910-1945: -0.20
1970-2005: 0.16
You won’t get away with cherry picking with me.
Do you have a tumor? We’re looking for the change.
Insults aren’t science.
Your numbers aren’t change.
Or if there are change of something, you didn’t say what.
Most people estimate change as slope*interval.
That gives the numbers I’ve been quoting.
But we can use decade-by-decade if you want. Anything else is cherry picking.
Yes they are: 0.03 in 1945 minus -0.49 in 1910 is 0.52. Do the same for 1970-2005, and you get 0.57, just as I said.
I am going to assume you are being willfully obtuse. Not worth my time.
You are simply cherry picking, which proves exactly nothing.
But it’s what deniers like you do all the time.
Odd how someone who claims they’re a mathematician would commit such obvious errors when analyzing the data.
But I won’t accuse you of having a tumor.
I think you’re just desperate for any argument you can find, whether it makes sense or now.
Stop digging.
Mike Flynn
Did you actually read Tyndall’s experiments before you posted?
It would not appear you did.
Here is his own words: “Hence the ab*sor*pt-ion by the above gases amounted to about 0-33 per cent.
I am finding the same problems posting quotes from the Tyndall 1861 paper.
I will try to paste parts of it to see if any go through.
Norman,
Yes. I quoted from his latest updated work, published 1905. Why do you persist in sticking to work that Tyndall later revised? Are you trying to deny, divert, and confuse, perhaps?
You’re as delusional as David Appell.
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Then why don’t you accept modern even better results with even more precise instrumentation?
Only you attempt to deny, divert and confuse. It is what you do.
You are a recruiter for the GHE denier religion. Not based upon any scientific study, just a lot of hot air opinions. You are not the only human who has read the BS on PSI web pages. The difference is I will look in textbooks to see the obvious errors in their thoughts. You, a true believer, come here looking for possible recruits to the religion you belong to.
Mike Flynn
Go here:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
I think once you open this page then you can see the graph I made using this tool. Or you could plot your own graph using this tool. It will present a problem for you. You will be confronted with evidence that opposes your religious view of reality so you will not be able to comprehend it or its meaning.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest61614423.png
Norman,
How does the transmittance of the atmosphere create the GHE? It doesn’t, of course.
I don’t believe that unicorns exist, either. I don’t need a scientific study to back up my disbelief. Do you?
You can’t even describe the so-called GHE, in anything remotely resembling a scientific fashion, can you? Just more Cargo Cult Scientism – claims that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, somehow.
Fantasy being presented as fact.
Still no GHE. None. CO2 heats nothing.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Again with the Unicorns! Is this the cult calling card you use to indoctrinate some unscientific types to your belief?
Why do you come here and post when you are not interested in the least with evidence, honest debate, rational thought?
You have been told several times what the GHE is and you ignore them all. Why? Ball4 is correct, you have an agenda. Hoping to lure some new people to the cult.
Anyway. GHE. The Solar energy that reaches the Earth has very little IR at the absorbing wavelength (or frequency) of Carbon Dioxide so the CO2 does not impede the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. However, after the solar energy is thermalized by the surface, the surface starts emitting IR that is at the same wavelength absorbed by CO2. The atmospheric CO2 thermalizes the IR and will then become an emitter which will direct some IR toward the surface leading to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface than if the carbon dioxide was not present.
Mike Flynn
The link is about your point that N2 and O2 can absorb and emit more than CO2 at atmospheric concentrations. Don’t change the goalposts. The graphs were not an attempt to prove GHE to you just that you are very wrong in your current belief that N2 and O2 will absrob/Emit more IR than CO2. GONG!
Mike Flynn
This chart which was obtained by actual tests done by Hottel is what will prove GHE.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
H2O and CO2 emit real energy when they have some temperature.
You can see this energy measured here in real world setting and real world values (not a global average).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594352b467e5d.png
You can use Hottel’s data to see how warm the atmosphere would have to be to be able to generate the measured energy values.
It is not hard to do.
Carbon Dioxide in air is 0.04%. Partial pressure of 0.0004 (if you use the graph and use a path length of 1000 meters) you get a pressure-length value of 0.4. If you follow the chart to the cooler gas temperatures it gives you an emissivity of around 0.18.
If you use the Stefan-Boltzmann law with an air temperature at the surface of around 30 C you get about 80 W/m^2 downwelling is because of carbon dioxide. The rest would be water vapor and a few other GHG.
Mike Flynn
Look here. Partial pressure of water vapor.
https://smartsite.ucdavis.edu/access/content/user/00002774/Sears-Coleman%20Text/Text/C16-20/17-5.html
If you look at the low number it is 0.002 multiply this by 1000 meters for a pressure-length number and you get 2. If you use Hottel’s chart for this value you get an emissivity of around 0.6.
Use 297 K for the temperature (due to cooling via lapse rate) to get a closer value to the air emission temperature of the entire 1000 meters. You get a value of 265 W/m^2. If you combine the two fluxes (there would be some overlap). You get around 345 W/m^2 which is very close to the Real World measured values.
Admit you do not like science, do not believe in empirical tested data, live in a reality bubble of your own making and will reject anyone who does not conform to your made up beliefs.
You do not validate your ideas, your conjectures or opinions. I offer real world data and evidence that you reject. Why do you do this? Why do you hate the scientific process so much? Did you do poorly in high school science and now have a chip on your shoulder for all who like science?
Norman,
You wrote –
“You have been told several times what the GHE is and you ignore them all.”
I’ve been told that the unicorn has a horn growing out of its head, and has a warm and sunny disposition. I don’t believe in unicorns.
Nobody has yet given a useful description of the supposed GHE. How may it be observed, or reproduced? I don’t believe in the non-existent GHE any more than I do in non-existent unicorns!
Maybe if you could demonstrate the existence of the GHE in reproducible terms for a start, it might help.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just more foolish Warmist cargo cult scientism.
Cheers.
When Norm gets beaten by facts and logic, he always resorts to endless rambling and irrelevant links. It’s like admitting he was wrong, only he can’t admit he was wrong.
It’s hilarious to watch.
Norm, here’s one of your continuing errors: “The atmospheric CO2 thermalizes the IR and will then become an emitter which will direct some IR toward the surface leading to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface than if the carbon dioxide was not present.”
There is no proof for the last part: “…leading to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface…” Not only is there no proof, your “belief” is invalidated by the laws of thermodynamics.
You keep spouting such nonsense because it is what you believe. You have great faith in your pseudoscience, but it’s all a big FAIL.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “There is no proof for the last part: leading to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface Not only is there no proof, your belief is invalidated by the laws of thermodynamics.”
Exactly what laws of thermodynamics invalidate this?
Evidence is all around you, you reject it.
A warmer average Earth surface than the Moon’s surface (when the Moon actually receives more solar energy than than the Earth’s surface) which you do not accept. If you do not accept real world measured values than it will not be possible to prove anything to you, you are unscientific and refuse evidence.
Sorry you are just flat out wrong as is Mike Flynn. Evidence is against you. You have provided no evidence in support of your claims.
There you go again! Blasting off to the Moon, because you can’t find evidence of your belief on this planet!
Norm, IR from the sky coming toward the surface, does NOT imply “heating”. You can NOT get that worm out of your head.
But, if you like your worms, you can keep them.
Norm inquires: “Exactly what laws of thermodynamics invalidate this?”
Norm, you don’t understand thermo, and you don’t want to, as “understanding” kills worms. But, just to answer your question, “2nd Law”.
Norm spouts: “Evidence is all around you, you reject it.”
Nope, there is NO evidence that nature violates the 2nd Law. You believe it, so you imagine it. Everything you “see” is “proof” of the GHE. That’s what worms do to your head.
I can provide a clear, easy to understand, example that falsifies your “IR is heat” belief.
A common house has walls, floors, ceilings, furniture, fixtures, etc. All items emit IR. If “IR is heat”, and it is always thermalized, then all parts of the house would get warmer and warmer. As they heated up, they would emit even more IR. And since, as you believe “IR is heat”, then all parts of the house would continue to rise in temperature until they reached ignition. All houses, buildings, and structures would be burned to the ground!
Now, you will refuse to consider that simple example, and your vastly unscientific reasoning will be hilarious!
“A common house has walls, floors, ceilings, furniture, fixtures, etc. All items emit IR. If IR is heat, and it is always thermalized, then all parts of the house would get warmer and warmer.”
Oh boy.
Clue: The house parts are both absorbing and emitting IR.
Q: Guess what the difference is when in equilibrium.
Link to Tyndall’s 1905 paper?
And if you can’t stop the personal insults, don’t expect future replies.
David Appell,
I don’t dance to your tune. Find it yourself, if you wish.
Feel free to stop replying. My care factor is precisely zero, one way or the other.
Cheers.
MF, I can always tell when you can’t answer a question — you get all huffy and then stick your fingers in your ears and write “No GHE.”
Your science is very weak.
Davie, how do I get on your list for no “future replies”?
Mike Flynn says:
“Yes. I quoted from his latest updated work, published 1905.”
Tyndall died in 1893.
Well, he voted in 1905 😉
That mess at the end is a winking emoticon.
David Appell,
6th edition. Published 1905. After his death. Just like others. Why do you think this is relevant? Are you dim?
Cheers.
David Appell is not “dim”.
He is willfully deaf dumb and blind to the truth.
6th edition of what? Link?
More to the point, show us the infrared ab.sorp.tion spectrum of O2 and N2. You could start looking in the HITRAN database.
But you won’t find any, because O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR. And if they did, Earth would have a massive greenhouse effect and life wouldn’t be here.
Gcamel: Have you found your missing 150 W/m2 yet? You’ve had a couple of years now to look….
These lecture notes give the IR and near-IR spectrums of the major atmospheric gases.
It shows no O2 ab.sorp.tion in the IR, but only in the near-IR (Table 6.3), 6329/cm and beyond, where the Earth emits essentially no radiation.
QED.
The notes:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
I am unable at the present moment to range with certainty oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen,
and atmospheric air in the order of their ab*sor-pt-ive powers, though I have made
several hundred experiments with the view of doing so.
“Their proper action is so small
that the slightest foreign impurity gives one a predominance over the other.”
Or this one: Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galv*anometer was
observed with all possible care.
Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not
detect the slightest change of position.
Oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, subjected to
the same test, gave the same negative result. T
The above are quotes from the Tyndall paper 1861
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
Check out page 4 of the paper.
Norman,
Are you trying to appear dim?
Tyndall made many revisions to his original work. Maybe you don’t like the later results, but they remain, regardless.
Are all foolish Warmists anti-knowledge?
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Where are you links to Tyndall’s later work that revised his IR ab.sorp.tion findings on O2 and N2?
You won’t have any.
Norm, one word, “FAIL”.
(Hilarious.)
David Appell wishes to be spoon fed, or possibly wants me to dance to his dissonant tune –
“Where do these numbers appear in a Tyndall paper? (Link and page number).”
Oh dear, David. He won’t make the slightest effort to find things out for himself, by the look of things. He doesn’t seem to like me all that much, but still expects me to do the things he can’t do himself!
Tut, tut!
Inconvenient facts. Still no GHE. Just more foolish Warmists demands.
Cheers.
Mike…”Oh dear, David. He wont make the slightest effort to find things out for himself…”
That’s not his function here, Mike, he’s a troll. His aim is to disrupt while offering himself as an authority. He really thinks people are stupid enough to believe him when he deems something a lie.
Did you hear about Appell’s joke about a candle flame disappearing when you held a container of CO2 in front of it? That’s as bad as the ink dropped in the jar of water to demonstrate how a tiny amount can cloud out EM.
Even on an extremely foggy day with the air saturated with water vapour and droplets you can see a candle flame if it’s close enough. According to Appell, when you take a shower so the mirrors get fogged up with WV you should not be able to see a candle flame.
Tell that to women who have really hot, steamy baths and use candles as their sole source of light. The water vapour in the air far exceeds the WV normally in the air in our atmosphere.
The rocket scientist who offered to demonstrate how a tiny amount if ink can cloud a beaker of water fails to understand the difference between ink in water and CO2 in the atmosphere. One is a gas, the other is a liquid.
Doh!!
Gordon Robertson says:
“Did you hear about Appells joke about a candle flame disappearing when you held a container of CO2 in front of it?”
Ha. You completely misunderstand how the demonstration was conducted, and then, to appear even more hilariously wrong, you try to use it against me.
Bravo.
MF: I knew you couldn’t support your O2 and N2 claims with a reference to any of Tyndall’s work — because O2 and N2 don’t absorb in the IR.
If they did, this would be a whole different planet.
Everyone knows this but you. (And, naturally, Gordon Robertson.)
Hi Entropic man,
you: “You are stretching this far too far. The video I linked was a simple demonstration that small amounts of material can have significant effects on the transparency of a fluid, in response to the CO2 is a trace gas and cant possibly have any effect straw man. It is not a detailed simulation of the greenhouse effect.”
Really am I “stretching this far too far”?
What he’s doing, the “experimenter” in that movie?
He is not just showing us a “simple demonstration that small amounts of material can have significant effects on the transparency of a fluid” as you wrote.
He use exactly the percentages of ink which compared to the whole liquid represent the current and the supposed pre-industrial concentrations of CO2.
You are the one who is stretching this video too far, trying to deceive some people who don’t know the concept of spectral density.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I don’t know why this message has posted here, it was in response to Entropic man @June 16, 2017 at 1:47 AM.
Sorry.
entropic man…”The video I linked was a simple demonstration that small amounts of material can have significant effects on the transparency of a fluid”
I got that. What I don’t get is the analogy to a trace gas mixed in a seriously huge concentration of gases.
People have claimed that 300 ppmv of arsenic in coffee will kill you. What the horsebleep does that have to do with gases in the atmosphere? The effect the arsenic has on human cells has absolutely nothing to do with a trace gas absorbing a trace amount of a huge IR flux field emitted by the surface.
To understand the effect of arsenic on cells we’d have to understand how cells work and how the arsenic affects them. It’s not about the quantity per se, it’s about the action of arsenic on human cells.
In the atmosphere, we can apply Dalton’s law of partial pressures to a degree. We can emulate the atmosphere as a relatively constant volume and constant mass. It gives us a ball park figure of what to expect. Out of the entire average pressure of the atmosphere we know that gases make up that average pressure based on their partial pressures.
Even though the atmosphere is chaotic, it is still made up basically of a constant volume and a constant mass. Weather perturbations will affect local pressures but the overall partial pressures should dominate in the long term.
Since total pressure with constant volume and constant mass varies directly with temperature, then the total average temperature should be comprised of partial temperatures per partial mass.
I think it’s pretty obvious based on the ideal gas law, P = (nR/V)T, that the contributions of CO2 with a partial pressure based on its partial mass, has to be a tiny fraction of a degree C.
That’s why a gas at 400 ppmv cannot significantly warm the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with arsenic in coffee, or ink in water, it’s about tried and true laws in chemistry.
Even if GHGs absorb IR and warm, they still have to pass that heat onto the 99%+ that is nitrogen and oxygen. Do you seriously think that GHGs accounting for about 0.3% of the entire atmosphere can actually warm it significantly?
The ideal gas law says it can’t.
Gordon Robertson
You did not answer my question on the other thread about Ozone. Ozone makes up even less % but if you look at temperature profiles of the atmosphere you will see the Stratosphere warms by about 50 C from the peak cold of the Tropopause. I know you can’t accept reality that the ozone absorbing the Sun’s UV is the responsible agent for this significant warming, so what is your explanation of why the Stratosphere warms up? Until you can provide an acceptable answer you should quit peddling your opinions on what a gas can and cannot do.
” Norman says:
June 16, 2017 at 2:33 PM
Gordon Robertson
You did not answer my question on the other thread about Ozone. Ozone makes up even less % but if you look at temperature profiles of the atmosphere you will see the Stratosphere warms by about 50 C from the peak cold of the Tropopause.”
Are you claiming ozone warms Stratosphere by 50 K?
And would it be correct to say this ozone is only heated by sunlight?
Or is there some other mechanism which you have in mind which is involved in your claim that 50 K warming of stratosphere is caused by ozone?
gbaikie
Since you are interested this describes the process of what Ozone is doing and how it is heating.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/hozon.htm
Without the ozone, the UV would reach the surface and really damage living systems. The absorbed UV is converted into kinetic energy which warms the Stratosphere.
The point I am making with Gordon Robertson is that a trace gas (much less than Carbon Dioxide) can and does absorb considerable EMR and convert it to kinetic energy which then creates the 50 C temperature increase that is observed.
Gordon has this belief that trace amounts of gas can have no effect. Where it comes from I do not know. Evidence is against his belief but so far no amount of evidence will change his view.
Gordon Robertson says:
“People have claimed that 300 ppmv of arsenic in coffee will kill you. What the horsebleep does that have to do with gases in the atmosphere?”
This from someone who routinely tries to argue that a gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere can have NO effect.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I think its pretty obvious based on the ideal gas law, P = (nR/V)T, that the contributions of CO2 with a partial pressure based on its partial mass, has to be a tiny fraction of a degree C.”
Since you ignore all physics discovered after about 1890, you can’t possibly understand or explain the atmosphere.
Nor could you explain modern electronics, integrated chips, computers, heat-seeking missiles, night vision scopes, television remote controls and lots else.
That’s the price you stay for being stuck in the 19th century.
I think you have to be wary about using Hottel’s data for the atmosphere. I tried that a while back and, like others, got tens of milliseconds for radiative transfer from surface to space.
My recent work uses energy balance data published by Martin Wild, not because I believe it but because it is relatively uncontroversial. You can derive real atmospheric emittance values from that.
When I found delays of hours I was disappointed that the values were so much larger until I calculated a temperature. Maximum upward flux is around 200 W/m^2, ignoring convection and latent heat transport, which is a big consession. Mass of a 1 M^2 column of air is 10 tonnes. We have the equivalent of a 200 W lightbulb heating the air in a gym, so intuitively, 1 K temp increase seems quite high.
I’m not saying I believe my calculations. That may come incrementally with confirmation from others. All I can say is that I’ve spent far more time looking at problems and evaluating limitations than I did with the original analysis.
dai
Dr. Spencer,
I’m not sure you are still reading this thread, anyways I just want to highlight you that (to me), it has become hard time posting here.
I don’t know why, but most of my tries to write something results in to an unexplained reject.
Hope you can do something to fix it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo,
I feel your pain, but almost all of mine are fine.
All part of the rich tapestry of life!
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
you are probably right.
Anyways, let me hope that someone behind the web-server will do something.
Have a great day.
Massimo
massimo…”Dr. Spencer,
Im not sure you are still reading this thread, anyways I just want to highlight you that (to me), it has become hard time posting here”.
I asked Roy about this problem and it’s not anything he is doing. It has something to do with WordPress where the blog is hosted.
My luck with it comes and goes. Right now, everything I post is getting through but other days it gets really finicky for some reason.
Have you tried other browsers. Sometimes the websites are set up for Internet Explorer (ugh!! arrgggh!!) and I had luck once using an old version of Opera (about version 12). The older version seems to confound the server and it becomes like text messaging.
Hi Gordon,
I use Chrome and Firefox but bith didn’t work sometime.
Thank you anyways for the advice.
Have a nice weekend.
Massimo
I would love some global warming. Most of May/June has been a washout in the UK.
Our carnival ride takes us up, then down, we know how high and how low but when depends on the maniac that runs the thing.
g*e*r*a*n
IN a post above. YOU: “Nope, there is NO evidence that nature violates the 2nd Law. You believe it, so you imagine it. Everything you see is proof of the GHE. Thats what worms do to your head.
I can provide a clear, easy to understand, example that falsifies your IR is heat belief.
A common house has walls, floors, ceilings, furniture, fixtures, etc. All items emit IR. If IR is heat, and it is always thermalized, then all parts of the house would get warmer and warmer. As they heated up, they would emit even more IR. And since, as you believe IR is heat, then all parts of the house would continue to rise in temperature until they reached ignition. All houses, buildings, and structures would be burned to the ground!”
I see you are still twisting reality and then thinking that is what I am claiming. You really can’t comprehend can you?
First of all, long ago I quit using the term “heat” for IR (as per Ball4 advice). I will say IR is energy. I leave the “heat” out.
Your example makes little sense and demonstrates your lack of understanding of physics. IR emitted by a wall to the opposite wall will not produce this “warming” you project upon reality with your lack of comprehension. I can explain it 1000 times to you and you will still distort it and not comprehend. Truly and amazing problem with thinking you have. Sorry I can’ help you with this condition.
Norm, you just “busted” the “CO2 heats the planet” myth.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, you just busted the CO2 heats the planet myth.”
I do not know anyone except GHE deniers who ever thought that way and used it as a Strawman argument against GHE.
Having GHG in the atmosphere will allow the Earth’s surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature with incoming solar energy than it would without the GHG. This is not conceptually the same as saying CO2 heats the planet.
Well, if you now deny that the “so-called” GHE “heats the planet”, welcome to reality.
g*e*r*a*n
I still do not know who is claiming GHE “heats the planet”. GHE leads to a warmer equilibrium temperature than on a surface with no GHE present. This is not conceptually the same as saying GHE “heats the planet”.
Do you have any links of a scientist making the claim that GHE “heats” the planet, or do they all say GHE will lead to a warmer equilibrium temperature, the GHG present are not adding “heat” to the surface (heat defined as NET energy, Energy surface emits minus energy the surface absorbs). GHG are adding energy to the surface but the surface is also losing energy.
Two processes with different sets of molecules involved in each process. Molecules excited to higher levels by internal energy will not then be absorbing incoming energy, until after they have emitted energy and returned to a lower energy state. Molecules that are in lower energy states will be able to absorb the incoming energy and thermalize it.
— Norman says:
June 16, 2017 at 4:27 PM
g*e*r*a*n
I still do not know who is claiming GHE heats the planet.–
Is Venus a planet? Is James Hansen a person?
Do you believe Venus had an ocean and was similar to Earth.
It seems to me if going to join a stupid and deranged religion, you should at least know the beliefs of “the father” of that religion.
gbaikie
James Hansen is considered the “Father of Climate Change Awareness”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
My discussion is not about climate change. It is only about the GHE.
The effect that GHG present in the atmosphere in enough quantity will absorb significant upwelling IR (thermalize most, reemit some). The discussion I am having is not even to the climate change debate, the deniers reject basic science, refuse to read textbook data I have several times linked them to.
Greenhouse effect is much different topic than climate change and much simpler. The reason it is termed greenhouse because at one point scientists believed a greenhouse warmed by radiative effects. Shortwave solar is transparent to glass but opaque to longwave IR. The GHG are mostly transparent to shortwave solar but considerably opaque to longwave IR. Only about 40 Watts/m^2 make it through and atmospheric window without being absorbed by GHG.
I have many questions about “climate change” and subscribe to no view. I want evidence and support before accepting any position.
GHE is a much different subject, one that is established, has no reason to be rejected. People’s incorrect understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes them closed minded. Also you have people like Gordon Robertson that continues to believe trace gases, with the long path length of our atmosphere, can absorb significant IR rejecting all empirical data in the process. There may be dishonest scientists in the climate change department but I think it is a huge stretch to think all data is fake and all are liars.
Even if they were he has not presented any evidence to support his views. He just makes claims and we a are just supposed to accept what he says.
— Norman says:
June 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM
gbaikie
James Hansen is considered the Father of Climate Change Awareness
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
My discussion is not about climate change. It is only about the GHE.
The effect that GHG present in the atmosphere in enough quantity will absorb significant upwelling IR (thermalize most, reemit some). The discussion I am having is not even to the climate change debate, the deniers reject basic science, refuse to read textbook data I have several times linked them to. —
Norman you are spinning.
Shall I spin too, how about: Hansen is the crazy single father of the crazies?
I would say as general note than Hansen was one of many derelict NASA directors, possible the worst one.
But that is just a hunch- as no one puts in the effort of ranking minor directors of the various bureaucracies.
As they do obsess over the numerous US Presidents.
And let’s replace “deniers” with “heretics” [to be more accurate].
As normal thing, I would advise believers to ignore the unbelievers and just focus on your belief. But the problem with all believers is they tend to be too lazy to do this.
Also being a believers, they have beliefs that other don’t have, and this makes think they know something, when they do not.
As for GHE.
The basic thing is that Earth is mostly covered by ocean. One could say the atmosphere covers all the surface of the planet, but an important aspect is our surface is heated by the sunlight, and heated surface is mostly water.
It’s was not too hard to determine Earth average temperature was about 15 C, all one needed to know is the vast tropical waters were quite warm. Or one had no need to go to the Antarctica and measure it’s temperature. Just look at a globe of the world.
Briefly I would say thing about greenhouses and what makes earth warmer than it should be. Is related to people living in England and Europe. Greenhouses were a fashion of the time, and why weren’t the English and Swedes not freezing to death. The sun does not explain why England is as warm as it is. One measures it and concludes we should be frozen.
Which is true, if not for the Gulf Stream. But they were idiots because Gulf stream has know about for quite some time. But maybe they thought the water seems too cold and how can something cold warm something.
Or the augments go on and on over the same stuff.
But do we really need to argue about Gulf Stream warming Europe? Doesn’t everyone agree about this?
So anyways, I think GHE is at best a secondary effect, and main focus should on the oceans being warmed by the sun.
Which is not weird or new, rather it’s the mainstream thought on the matter. It’s almost too obvious for some people.
It’s like, “yes, yes we know, but CO2 warms the thermometers”.
gbaikie
I must be honest. I am not following what the point of your post is.
YOU: “So anyways, I think GHE is at best a secondary effect, and main focus should on the oceans being warmed by the sun.”
I haven’t got a clue what you are trying to state there.
YOU: “As normal thing, I would advise believers to ignore the unbelievers and just focus on your belief. But the problem with all believers is they tend to be too lazy to do this.
Also being a believers, they have beliefs that other dont have, and this makes think they know something, when they do not.”
Not really sure what that whole thing is about. I would rather focus on science and not belief. Science is based upon logical thought process, math, experimental evidence, empirical measurements, tests.
Beliefs are what the science deniers use. Make declarative statements with no validation, no support, no experiments, no tests.
I do not know if you ever took a science course at elevated levels. In such courses you have to write science papers for grades. In order to get a satisfactory grade you have to research the topic you are writing about and include references from established sources to verify you points.
If you look at Gordon Robertson, g*e*r*a*n, Mike Flynn and a few others, they make statements with no source material. They make some declaration and we are all supposed to believe it. No links, no support, no experimental evidence. Do you see the difference.
A lot of posters have problems with David Appell but you will notice he often provides links to support his claims. This is much more than the “deniers” do. They provide nothing but their assertions and opinions.
— Norman says:
June 17, 2017 at 9:04 PM
gbaikie
I must be honest. I am not following what the point of your post is.
YOU: So anyways, I think GHE is at best a secondary effect, and main focus should on the oceans being warmed by the sun.
I havent got a clue what you are trying to state there.–
Greenhouse gases are said by some to delay the radiation of heat from the Earth surface.
It’s obvious to me that clouds can prevent nights from being colder than they would be without the clouds.
Or perhaps clouds delay the radiation of heat from the Earth surface
And it’s possible that greenhouse gases could do same as clouds- slow amount cooling.
Of course clouds are liquid and solid H20- or not H20 gas. Clouds are not gases but seem to be included as greenhouse gases or more plainly included in the greenhouse effect.
There also effect of humidity [greenhouse gas: H2O] and there is tendency from humid nights to remain warmer as compared to drier nights.
Of course another factor involved with clouds and humidity is latent heat of water- or a non-radiant transfer of heat.
But scientific question is how much?
In universe of greenhouse gases, it seems to me that H20 vapor is far more significant than CO2.
So not counting latent heat transfer nor water in liquid and solid form in clouds, but rather the radiant properties of H20 gas vs CO2 gas.
I don’t reference handy but there is paper which claims that clouds are responsible for about 50% of the greenhouse effect. I don’t know if this correct.
Let’s just search it.
Not paper I was thinking about, but first on list:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm
Again not it, but;
The cooling effect of clouds is partly offset, however, by a blanketing effect: cooler clouds reduce the amount of heat that radiates into space by absorbing the heat radiating from the surface and re-radiating some of it back down. The process traps heat like a blanket and slows the rate at which the surface can cool by radiation. The blanketing effect warms Earth’s surface by some 7C (13F). Thus, clouds can heat the surface by inhibiting radiative heat loss, much as they warm a winter’s night.”
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Even the idiots:
Elevator Statement
At night clouds trap infrared radiation emitted from the ground, similar to greenhouse gases, and re-emit some of the absorbed radiation back to the ground.
More nighttime cloud cover means more trapped heat, and warmer temperatures near the ground, just as more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, and warmer temperatures.
Because clouds are big and thick, their radiation-trapping effect is felt immediately, within a single night.
Because CO2 is diffuse, its effect is felt slowly, over many decades.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is like increasing the cloud cover at night: both warm the Earth by trapping infrared radiation.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_03_Greenhouse_Cloudy_Night.html
Again not it:
“With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%)and then CO2
with∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor role”
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/CO2%20role%20modern%20warming%202010.pdf
But anyhow, I didn’t find it, oh still not it:
“..The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. ” – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/#sthash.EIkrHxB9.dpuf
So when mean secondary, I mean all radiant effect- clouds, h20 vapor and CO2 [all other greenhouse gases].
And main factor is heating in tropics, and most heating of ocean waters in tropics, and heating ocean water outside the tropics.
Or say, all heating of ocean north and south 23 degrees [outside tropics] is comparable effect to radiant effect of clouds, H20 vapor, etc.
Or ocean heating can cause higher average global temperatures. Or reason global average temperature in the past was 20 C, is due to higher average ocean temperature. They always go together. Prove that assertion, wrong.
norman…” I will say IR is energy. I leave the heat out”.
Of course IR is energy, it’s electromagnetic energy. It is comprised of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field.
Electric fields tends to cause magnetic fields, they go hand in hand. However, IR, as is all EM, is defined by its intensity and frequency. Heat is also energy but it is not defined by frequency and it does not have an electric and magnetic field associated with it.
Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other. As you heat a pot of water on an electric stove, eventually the water begins to get violent. It bubbles and spits. That action is due to atoms and molecules at the atom level becoming more energized.
So what do you call that energy? Internal energy has no specific meaning nor does kinetic energy, both are relative to the type of energy. There is nothing else it can be other than thermal energy.
A battery has both potential energy and kinetic energy and it has internal energy as well. A battery requires energy to operate internally and that energy is not available to the external circuit. All those terms are with reference to electrical and chemical energy. We don’t abstract either so why are we abstracting heat?
It’s no coincidence that metal expands when heated by a flame. The atoms increase their mean free path length as they vibrate. If you heat a metal bar with an acetylene torch it expands and that expansion is due to heat.
You can measure the specific heat and the heat capacity of substances and 1 calorie is the amount of heat required to raise 1 cc of water by 1 C at something like 15 C.
Heat is not an abstraction it is a very real form of energy. You can’t simply call everything ‘energy’, you need to specify the kind of energy.
Gordon Robertson
I am not sure why you make this claim.
YOU: “So what do you call that energy? Internal energy has no specific meaning nor does kinetic energy, both are relative to the type of energy. There is nothing else it can be other than thermal energy.”
Why does internal or kinetic energy have no specific meaning?. The temperature of a gas is related to the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other.”
Does the Sun heat the Earth?
How?
The surface of Earth is largely covered with oceans, the energy of the sun, has it’s photons absorbed by the ocean waters.
Most of the energy of the sun, strikes the tropical zone of Earth and about 80% of surface area of the tropics is ocean area.
So mostly the sunlight heats the ocean of Earth. And the heated oceans can transport large amounts of heat to the rest of the world. And the tilt of Earth’s rotation, causes the heated portion of the tropics to move 23 degrees northward and southward, which in sense widen the tropics as compared to an axis tilt of zero degrees. Or by definition the tropic is marked by the furthest the sun goes poleward and has the sun at noon at Zenith [line of Cancer and Capricorn].
So this is major way that Earth is warmed by the sun. And currently, any other means of adding warmth to Earth’s surface is considered insignificant- so, say such as, geothermal heat or say, forest fires or other chemical reactions which generate heat.
You missed the whole point of my question.
–David Appell says:
June 17, 2017 at 3:28 PM
You missed the whole point of my question.–
How the sun warms earth is complicated if worried about small effect. The sunlight heating the ocean is a major effect, and quite simple.
Or if the sunlight was **somehow** prevented from reaching the tropics- Earth would become a frozen ball of ice.
Re: “if the sunlight was **somehow** prevented from reaching the tropics-”
Somehow, could be to eclipse that sunlight- put disk or sphere dust at Sun/Earth L-1. Very very big, btw. But if instead wanted to reduce the sunlight [cool by few degrees] quite cheap to do- or easily less than 1 trillion dollars. One probably get contract to do it for less than 100 billion dollars [and it could be very profitable to do it, if done correctly].
But no one wants or has any need to actually cool Earth.
You are still missing the point entirely.
David Appell wrote-
“You are still missing the point entirely.”
And you’re sure as Hell not going to help him out by telling him what the point is, are you?
In fact, your question is pointless, isn’t it? Purposely framed to be as ambiguous as possible, setting the stage for a “gotcha”, whether answered in the affirmative or negative. Typical foolish Warmist tactics. Haven’t you got anything better? Some facts, perhaps? I thought not.
Cheers.
He shouldn’t need help, if he can read.
Gordon Robertson wrote, “Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other.”
I asked him how the Sun heats the Earth, with a vacuum in-between.
As always, Gordon ignores inconvenient questions.
–David Appell says:
June 18, 2017 at 3:45 PM
He shouldnt need help, if he can read.
Gordon Robertson wrote, Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other.
I asked him how the Sun heats the Earth, with a vacuum in-between.
As always, Gordon ignores inconvenient questions.–
I think Gorden would say the electromagnetic energy of the sun heats the Earth.
Whereas I would say, the electromagnetic energy of the sun largely heats Earth’s oceans [because there is more ocean and 1 square meter the Earth’s ocean absorbs more of sun’s energy as compared 1 square meter of a land surface].
One can heat something with an electrical discharge- arc welder, lightning, etc – but electricity is not heat- it’s flow of electrons [which don’t have temperature- nor are warm or cold].
Gordon doesn’t think heat can be transported without a medium like atoms and molecules.
–David Appell says:
June 20, 2017 at 6:38 PM
Gordon doesnt think heat can be transported without a medium like atoms and molecules.–
Which is correct.
But any surface of a heated object does generate electromagnetic radiation and this radiation does transfer
the energy of a hot object thru a vacuum.
It’s not correct, which you just acknowledged in your response.
I think most people are aware that the Sun is an energy source. That any energy source can heat a body.
Can heat a body.
The zillions of stars are energy sources, but they aren’t warming Earth. But were Earth be close enough to any of these zillions of stars, those stars would warm Earth.
And related to this, our sun emits a vast amount of long wave IR, but such long wave IR from the Sun does not appear to warm Earth at all. But were planet closer to the sun, perhaps the Long wave IR radiation from the Sun could warm a planet by some measurable amount.
Any energy source can be used to heat something- if it can’t, it’s not an energy source. Or an energy source is something will can do work, any work done creates heat [even when you don’t want any heat created- or much effort is devoted to generating energy and reducing the amount waste heat [which regarded as “lost energy” for whatever purpose one needs the energy for. Or you could want heat, and can “lose this heat” you need- which also can be regarded as “waste heat”.
gbaikie: You’re STILL missing the point!
But never mind.
g*e*r*a*n
A wall emitting IR will be losing energy at the same time it is receiving energy. Why is this reality (which all textbooks on the topic confirm, which I have linked to you more than once), impossible for you to understand?
That is very simple reason that wall emitting and absorbing IR do not just keep warming up to ignition temperatures. The two walls are both emitting and receiving radiation from the other walls. If the insulation is very good on the walls facing the outside the temperature decline will be very slight and slow. One wall absorbs 390 Watts/m^2 from the opposing wall. It is also emitting 390 Watts/m^2.
Why in the name of science reality do you think this situation would cause this perpetual warming? How can you be so incredibly dense?
So, IR is now NOT “heat”! You interestingly catch on when presented with an example that busts your pseudoscience. A house does NOT burn itself up due to its own IR. A planet does NOT burn itself up due to its own IR.
You do NOT get to say one thing, and then say the opposite.
Oh, I forgot, you’re “Norm”. That’s what you do.
g*e*r*a*n
Others may still claim IR is heat. Depending on how you define heat. Because hundreds of posts go on about the definition of heat I just choose to use the term energy. Creates less confusion.
When do I say one thing and then the opposite?
“Energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system.”
g*e*r*a*n
That was already explained to you in depth but you could not follow it without a twist or two.
Norm, if you weren’t so confused by your own pseudoscience, you wouldn’t have to try to “spin” yourself away from your own words.
Hilarious.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/16/almost-300-graphs-undermine-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/#sthash.HrKnOVnG.dpbs
AGW myth ends before 2020.
Salvatore, you previously said warming ended in 2002. Now 2020?? Which is it?
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Please stop your pathetic whining.
Norman,
You wrote-
“I still do not know who is claiming GHE heats the planet. GHE leads to a warmer equilibrium temperature than on a surface with no GHE present. This is not conceptually the same as saying GHE heats the planet.
If you forget about weasel words such as “conceptually”, what does the self proclaimed scientist Gavin Schmidt”s breathless claim of “Hottest year EVAH!” mean?
Your statement that the GHE leads to higher temperatures is just nonsensical. Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter – conceptually or otherwise!
You can’t even describe the GHE in any useful form. Where and how may it be observed? How may it be reproduced? Complete nonsense, the product of foolish Warmist imagination!
Maybe a bit of real science, by real scientists, might help your cause. Unfortunately, all you have at the moment is non reproducible Cargo Cult Scientism, promoted by fake “climate scientists”.
Such is life.
Cheers.
Hello Mike,
I have a question about your favorite slogan: “Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter.”
As you know, right now our atmosphere has a little more than 400 ppm CO2. Do you think this level makes a thermometer on the surface hotter, but any additional CO2 won’t?
Snape,
You wrote –
“I have a question about your favorite slogan: “Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter. As you know, right now our atmosphere has a little more than 400 ppm CO2. Do you think this level makes a thermometer on the surface hotter, but any additional CO2 wont?”/
First, the first definition of “slogan” I found –
“a short and striking or memorable phrase used in advertising.”
I’m not advertising anything, but thanks for your interpretation.
Second, what part of my statement do you not comprehend? Even though you may have inadvertently asked two closed questions in one sentence, what part of my statement do you find unclear?
Do you have any facts to contradict what I said?
Your questions seem completely meaningless to me, but maybe I cannot properly comprehend your questions. If you wish, you might care to let me know where I have been less than clear (in your opinion).
Cheers.
I got question for snape:
From your reading of the greenhouse effect, hmm, idea; do you think clouds or more clouds “between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun” make the thermometer hotter?
And couple more:
1 Are clouds a greenhouse effect?
2 What difference in terms of a “warming effect” is there between clouds and CO2?
Or is there any greenhouse effect other than an actual greenhouse which can heat the ground and make it hotter?
[a actual greenhouse can reduce the convection heat loss of the ground and thereby make the ground hotter than compared to other ground which doesn’t have this convectional loss inhibited- as you may recalled, an actual greenhouse is not the greenhouse effect.
Gbaikie
My reading of the GHE? Lol!
I had a question for Flynn regarding the statement he makes over and over:
“Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter.”
–I had a question for Flynn regarding the statement he makes over and over:
Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter.–
He does it over and over because the
faithful are brainwashed and think CO2 can make earth hotter- can even make Earth be like Venus.
Roughly a thermometer warmed “naturally” by the sun, is heated by the sun’s direct sunlight [not indirect sunlight- such as diffused or re-radiated sunlight {btw, nothing to do with using mirrors which can reflect direct light}].
Anyhow CO2 doesn’t increase the power of sunlight to heat something up [make it hotter]. What does limit how warm a surface can become is convectional heat loss [what parked car with windows rolled up or actual greenhouse, does].
BUT I would say that Earth average temperature has little to do with direct sunlight. Or I believe the Earth is warmed by the ocean being heated, and ocean is heated by scatter sunlight as well as direct sunlight [so both direct and indirect sunlight.
Now if complaining about how hot it is on the land surface- then this is related to direct sunlight- but this has nothing to do with th actual average global temperature.
Or said differently no one cares what the average temperature is, but things like heatwaves or hot weather does “worry” them. So the propaganda talks about how hot it will get. Unfortunately, for the religious nuts, CO2 doesn’t make Earth hotter. Nor could it make more extreme and violent weather. Nor melt ice caps or rise global sea levels.
Gbaikie
I don’t have a problem with Mike’s statement. He thinks it disproves the GHE, though, and I do have a problem with that. The GHE is a metaphor, and metaphor’s aren’t meant to be taken literally. That’s what Mike does, and what I suspect you do as well. GHG’s in our atmosphere obviously don’t impede convection.
Snape,
I assume you are aiming for a “gotcha” by pretending you cannot understand what I wrote.
Your diversion attempt, by lurching off into irrelevant foolish Warmist analogies involving salt, doctors, sodium, and what you might or might not be wondering, supports my assumption.
If you feel my statement –
“Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter., is wrong, you could always produce some scientific basis to show that my statement is factually incorrect.
Of course you can’t, so all you are left with is attempts to deny, divert, and confuse.
Still no GHE. A figment of the foolish Warmist imagination – no more, no less.
Cheers.
Mike
I’ve never said your statement is wrong. Increasing CO2 levels might even cool the thermometer. I really don’t know.
Here’s the thing. You and I both refer to the GHE, but we are not talking about the same thing.
Snape,
Maybe you could specify where the GHE may be observed, how it may be reproduced, and the other things that describe a scientific effect.
If you can’t, then talking about the GHE is pointless. It doesn’t exist in any usable form.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could specify where the GHE may be observed….”
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Mike
Your statement starts with, “Increasing the amount of CO2….”.
From this, it’s unclear what you believe about an initial level of CO2.
Mike
Let’s say I wanted to know if I was eating too much salt, and my doctor said, “increasing the level of sodium in your diet would be unhealthy”.
I would still be wondering if my current level was too high.
Snape,
I wrote what I meant. It seems clear enough to me. I’m sorry you can’t understand. Increasing means increasing, or whatever synonym you wish to use.
Cheers.
Another dodge. No longer artful.
Mike Flynn
YOU make this assertion over and over (perhaps a 1000 times now): “Increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, does not make the thermometer hotter conceptually or otherwise!”
What evidence do you provide that it will not do this? What proof do you offer. You reject textbook valid science and think making the same claim a thousand times makes it true. What supportive evidence do you have for your claim, what science do you bring to the table to prove your opinion?
Scientists bring verifiable proof which you do not accept. The Earth’s average surface is considerably warmer than the Moon’s. This is real evidence. You reject it. If you reject measured values then what science do you peddle? Make a statement 1000 times with no proof, no evidence, goes against established physics and the world is supposed to just accept your opinion as fact? Why? Provide data and evidence that the thermometer will not have a higher temperature. Do a test and post your results!
Norman,
Maybe you don’t understand the scientific process as well as myself.
Without a well defined GHE, further scientific enquiry cannot be made.
As to my oft repeated statement, it happens to be true. Your demand for “proof” is just stupid, and demonstrates you do not understand how science proceeds.
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
So go ahead and prove me wrong with a single reproducible experiment, if you can. Or you can just keep blathering about “evidence”, “textbooks”, “valid science” and all the rest. It doesn’t matter.
Here’s a piece of silliness from the IPCC –
“The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earths greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.”
In other words, “You’ll have to take our word for it, because we have no explanation. We’ll just pretend it’s got something to to with a real greenhouse, and hope nobody will notice we can’t say how the GHE operates!” This is your idea of science? Not mine, I have to say!
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “As to my oft repeated statement, it happens to be true. Your demand for proof is just stupid, and demonstrates you do not understand how science proceeds.”
WHAT the hell are you trying to say here. It is stupid to demand proof and you do not believe that is how science works. Get off this blog and stop posting!
Why does your statement happen to be true? Because you repeat it thousands of times? That is how science works and truth is determined. Not with evidence, proof or facts just repetition??
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Mike Flynn is a Loon!
Based upon your really stupid and unfounded science how many times do I repeat this truth that you are a complete loon before it becomes verified truth?
The big phony that you are:
YOU: “In other words, Youll have to take our word for it, because we have no explanation. Well just pretend its got something to to with a real greenhouse, and hope nobody will notice we cant say how the GHE operates! This is your idea of science? Not mine, I have to say!”
Which is exactly how you proceed to post. You offer no evidence of anything you post. David Appell asks for the 1905 paper by John Tyndall so he can examine it and you will not provide a link. You pretend you have this intelligence and knowledge of science by quoting a few lines from some prominent scientist. You hope no one notices that you make the claim thousands of times that Carbon Dioxide between Sun and thermometer cannot warm it but you offer no evidence or proof of the claim. Lame!
Norman,
You wrote –
“Which is exactly how you proceed to post. You offer no evidence of anything you post. David Appell asks for the 1905 paper by John Tyndall so he can examine it and you will not provide a link. You pretend you have this intelligence and knowledge of science by quoting a few lines from some prominent scientist. You hope no one notices that you make the claim thousands of times that Carbon Dioxide between Sun and thermometer cannot warm it but you offer no evidence or proof of the claim. Lame!”
I’m not sure what your point is. I choose to let David Appell do a bit of work for himself, and you berate me for it! I pretend nothing, but you criticise me for “quoting a few lines from some prominent scientist”. Why should that indicate I’m pretending anything?
You make a bald assertion that I hope something or other. Oh dear, you must have wasted your money on the same sort of ESP course as David Appell did! You’re not even close!
Phlogiston, unicorns, the luminiferous ether, caloric, the GHE – I offer no evidence as to the non-existence of any or all. Believe in them if you wish. Foolish Warmists believe in at least one, and eminent scientists have believed in most of the others.
Maybe you might care to offer evidence or proof that unicorns don’t exist, If that’s what you believe! If you can’t offer evidence to the contrary, must we assume, therefore that the existence of unicorns is thereby proven?
Foolish Warmist. You refuse to even clearly state what this GHE phenomenon comprises. It’s hard to disprove something, if nobody knows what it is! Do you agree with David Appell, who said that the GHE was only a metaphor? Let me know if you work out how to disprove an unknown metaphor – a whole unwritten chapter of science is just waiting for your delineation! I wish you well.
Cheers.
MF wrote:
“Do you agree with David Appell, who said that the GHE was only a metaphor?”
You lie without compunction.
There is an important distinction between saying that the GHE (radiative gasses trapping heat in the atmosphere) warms the Earth and saying that radiative gasses warm the Earth.
The GHE is negligible, but RGs play an important role in increasing surface and atmospheric temperature through the thermal day-night buffering process that lifts mean surface temperatures from somewhere around those of the moon to our present levels.
The two-way surface-air radiative transfer is far greater than thermal conduction alone, and our atmosphere is a far better buffer than the rock or dust surface than lifts the lunar night surface above zero or thereabouts.
dai
dai davies says:
“The GHE is negligible”
No, it’s not — it’s about 33 K out of 288 K. It’s the second largest factor determining the Earth’s surface temperature.
Last time I caught Davie trying to imply that CO2 was a “heat source”, he admitted that it was not. Now, he’s trying it again, hoping no one will notice.
He reminds me of a drug addict, trying to hide his habit.
Good cop, bad cop routine?
Ger*: Evryone said ‘CO2 is a heat source’. Nope, actually noone said it.
MF: ‘Quote me exactly!’. I never said that thing you say I said.
David Appell plucks a figure out of his fantasy – and the winner is 33!
The temperature today was around 33 C. A lovely dry season day, here at 12 degrees South. The sun was shining, the sea was smooth, and if the temperature was 33 C lower, all would be ice, I suppose.
Thank goodness the GHE is a fable. Just a metaphor for the febrile imaginings of foolish Warmists, according to David Appell!
If I want low temperatures, I’ll move to Antarctica.
Cheers.
Davie,
How’s that earth heats the sun paper going. Any takers on publishing that?
SGW: No one would publish such a paper, because it’s something all physicists have known for well over a century.
Davie, any “physicist” that believes the Earth is warming the Sun is NOT a “physicist”, he is a “pharmacist” that had been consuming too many “happy” drugs.
The Earth emits radiation.
Radiation carries energy.
Some of this radiation reaches the Sun.
The Sun absorbs it.
Dear Dumbs***,
National Enquirer wants to publish your paper.
Two blackbody objects Ta and Tb. Temperature of Ta equals Tb. Ta emits radiation. Radiation carries energy. Some of this radiation reaches Tb. Tb absorbs it. However, Q = ZERO per radiative heat flow equation. NO increase in temperature.
Total BUMMER.
Dai
“The two-way surface-air radiative transfer is far greater than thermal conduction alone”
Isn’t this the GHE?
“…and our atmosphere is a far better buffer than the rock or dust surface than lifts the lunar night surface above zero or thereabouts.”
Yes, but ocean water absorbs more energy and is better buffer than our atmosphere.
Or without sunlight our atmosphere starts freezing out in few days. Or reaches below 0 C and freezes out the moisture of air. Or the 2.5 cm of water on average globally falls out. Whereas ocean surface would still remain liquid for months. So since most of earth covered by ocean, it would slow the atmosphere from ‘freezing out” as much. Or in middle of a continent, the air would get cold pretty fast- without the Sun warming Earth.
But the atmosphere is better than rock or lunar dust.
Though if you are mile below rock, it will keep warm- cause we live on massive molten ball of rock- and is very different than the Moon- which is close to dead- it’s molten ball is somewhere around thousand km away and small.
Oh, slightly different opinions:
“Within a week, the average global surface temperature would drop below 0F. In a year, it would dip to 100. The top layers of the oceans would freeze over, but in an apocalyptic irony, that ice would insulate the deep water below and prevent the oceans from freezing solid for hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years after that, our planet would reach a stable 400, the temperature at which the heat radiating from the planet’s core would equal the heat that the Earth radiates into space, explains David Stevenson, a professor of planetary science at the California Institute of Technology.”
hmm others:
“Probably commandeering a ship, any ship, and heading for the equator lasts longer than living underground. But, not by much.”
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=141200
[because freezing and blowing snow above, and no rain fall- so from lack of fresh water- if underground had enough food and had a underground lake- would be different]
As I have anticipated very heavy thunderstorms in the US Central.
http://en.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php?map=30
Magnetic storm and the flow of electricity in the atmosphere.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00910/yfpj72ny076b.gif
Cape > 5500 J/kg.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00910/hk0fvyw7tnpn.png
Snape
By GHE I refer to the erroneous IPCC consensus assumption that the Earth’s surface is heated by 33 K from a moon-like temperature with no atmosphere to the current roughly 288 K by radiative gasses trapping heat. I calculate this trapping, or more accurately delaying, to be less than 1 K. For that I use the label Radiative Delay Effect.
The heating to 288 K can be readily accounted for by Nikolov and Zellar’s Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE). It is a simple calculation. As I remember, Roy created a spreadsheet for it some time ago. I have a visualisation at brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html.
The radiative coupling I refered to is largely responsible for our ATE. The atmosphere absorbs heat from the surface during the day through radiative transfer and conduction, cooling it, and heats the surface at night. The net result is surface warming. There is a full description in my article RadiativeDelay.pdf in my archive brindabella.id.au/climarc/.
Wild’s surface energy diagram has 398 W/m^2 up from surface and 342 W/m^2 down, cf. the incident solar radiation of 160 W/m^2. It is a powerful coupling, and our ATE is almost saturated, so no chance of run-away heating.
dai
N&Z’s theory can’t account for this observation:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Hence it is wrong.
(It’s wrong for other reasons too, but this is the most obvious one.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
Dai,
Just as a matter of interest, I calculate a surface temperature for the Earth in the absence of the Sun, and based on admittedly sparse radiated energy measurements at, around 35 K.
This seems to fit with geophysical estimates, and if added to 255 K or so contributed by the Sun, seems borne out by current measurements. In many places, the Sun’s influence vanishes at about 20 m depth, but there don’t seem to be a lot of measurements at this depth.
The Earth being a big molten blob with a very thin crust would suggest its skin must be at least a little warm on the outside, even without sunlight. There’s a small insulating effect from the atmosphere, but that just slows the rate of cooling (and heating, if the Sun’s involved).
I can’t actually see a need for a GHE, an ATE, gravito thermal effects, or similar. Observations seem easily explained by simpler mechanisms. To each his own.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Just as a matter of interest, I calculate a surface temperature for the Earth in the absence of the Sun, and based on admittedly sparse radiated energy measurements at, around 35 K.”
Watts add.
Temperatures don’t.
‘around 35 K…..if added to 255 K or so contributed by the Sun, seems borne out by current measurements’
Once again, Mike proves his ignorance of actual science.
‘I cant actually see a need for a GHE, an ATE, gravito thermal effects, or similar. Observations seem easily explained by simpler mechanisms.
To each his own.’
Some prefer facts and science, others, like Mike, prefer to just make sh*t up.
Mike Flynn on this blog: a case study of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Mike Flynn says:
“The Earth being a big molten blob with a very thin crust….”
Actually, the Earth isn’t fluidic until the outer core, at a depth of about 2900 km.
The mantle is only fluidic over geologic time.
I’ll try those links again:
href=”http://brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html”>brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html
brindabella.id.au/climarc/
Hmm. Second one works but not first.
brindabella.id.au/OCM/OCM.html
Perseverance furthers.
David Appell asked –
“Does the Sun heat the Earth?
How?”
Another attempt at a foolish Warmist “gotcha”?
But what the heck! No, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, if “heat the Earth” means to raise its surface temperature. Or yes, if if “heat the Earth” means to raise the temperature of a thermometer on the surface after sunrise.
Now David will no doubt claim he meant something else entirely, as foolish Warmists are wont to do. Another example of a foolish Warmist trying to deny, divert, and confuse – not working as well as it used to.
Keep trying David.
Cheers.
I don’t know of any data that show the 4.5 Byr history of the Earth’s temperature.
Do you?
David Appell,
I don’t know of any data that show that David Appell is not mentally deranged.
Do you?
My assumption (restated for the benefit of slow learners) is that the Earth was created in a molten state.
What’s yours?
Still no GHE. None. Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer on the surface by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun.
Attempts by foolish Warmists to deny, divert, and confuse, cannot banish this somewhat inconvenient fact. Witless Warmist Wallies can’t even come up with any better description of the GHE than “It’s a metaphor”, can they?
Keep at it David. Maybe you’ll get the hang of this “science journalist” thing one day. It might help if you improve your knowledge of “science” and “journalism” a little.
What do you think?
Cheers.
So you don’t know of any such data — that’s exactly what I suspected.
David Appell,
If you say so, David, if you say so.
My care factor about the worth of your suspicions remains at zero.
Cheers.
MF: That’s another of your pitiful tactics — pretending not to care when you’re proven wrong.
You’re very easy to read.
Where is your link to Tyndall’s 1905 paper?
David Appell,
It’s a book, David The “Sixth Edition” and “1905” should have given a journalist such as yourself a bit of a clue. Not my fault if you leap to erroneous conclusions, is it?
I don’t dance to your tune. Find it yourself, pretend it doesn’t exist, have a tantrum and start blubbing like a baby, if you wish. It’s a free world.
Still no GHE. So sad, too bad. Just an inexplicable metaphor, as you said.
Cheers.
MF: Clearly you don’t have a link, and, when asked and expected to provide support for your claims, all you do is whine.
You have no game, and can’t man up.
David Appell
I did locate the 5th edition of John Tyndall’s work.
I think it must be very similar to the 6th edtion looking at Mike Flynn’s post:
MIKE FLYNN: “Dry air, oxygen, nitrogen 1
Carbonic oxide, carbonic acid 90
IR source approx 270 C
Pressure 30 in Hg”
https://tinyurl.com/y76rfcfd
Chapter 5 of the link; Pages 305-306
David Appell
From the book:
“The most powerful and delicate tests yet applied have not enabled me to establish a difference
between oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and air. The ab*sorp*tion
of these substances is exceedingly smallprobably
even smaller than I have assumed it. The more
perfectly the above-named gases are purified, the more
closely does their action approach to that of a vacuum.
And who can say that th best drying apparatus is perfect?”
I think Mike Flynn just looked at the numbers without reading any of the text. It appears impurities, which Tyndall was aware of, produced the slight motion of his galvanometer set-up.
Norman,
It seems you are at least capable of independent research. My edition doesn’t seem to agree with your page numbers.
Maybe there are extensive revisions and corrections between the 5th and 6th editions.
However, I point out that Tyndall calibrated his instruments very, very, thoroughly. He was unable to determine the absolute opacity of substances such as oxygen and nitrogen to his “invisible rays” but was certainly able to determine relative opacity.
This is why he stated –
“What extraordinary differences in the constitution and character of the molecules of various gases do the above results reveal ! For every ray intercepted by air, oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogenammonia intercepts . . . “
This is why he could state that the relative ab.sorp.tion of CO2 (compared with say, nitrogen,) varied between 90 and 750 at the pressures he used, and the wavelengths involved.
Your quote is correct, but you’ll notice he was talking about the differences in opacity between oxygen, nitrogen, dry air and so on, in absolute terms. He could, and did, measure CO2 for example, in proportion to those substances.
In relation to ammonia, he found great opacity to some IR radiation. He commented –
.“What does this prove? It proves that the ammonia which, within our glass tube, is as transparent to light as the air we breathe, is so opaque to the heat radiating from our source, that the addition of a plate of metal hardly augments its opacity.”
And so with other gases such as CO2. However, at 4 molecules of CO2 to 9996 molecules of nitrogen etc., even if CO2 is 750 times as opaque as nitrogen, the it could only absorb 3000 “rays” of IR to every 9996 of nitrogen etc.
Tyndall calculated the atmosphere prevented about 40% of the Sun’s energy from reaching the surface. I believe the current “measured” figures are only a little less. Not bad!
I believe you may be misinterpreting what Tyndall wrote, to some degree. I certainly have found nothing to contradict my thoughts as to CO2 heating. Quite the contrary!
I have read the whole book, and most (but not all) of Tyndall’s other writings
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Norman says:
“I think Mike Flynn just looked at the numbers without reading any of the text.”
Thanks Norman.
Yes, that’s very likely. He just copied something and pasted, without thinking.
Norman says:
“The most powerful and delicate tests yet applied have not enabled me to establish a difference
between oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and air. The ab*sorp*tion
of these substances is exceedingly smallprobably
even smaller than I have assumed it. The more
perfectly the above-named gases are purified, the more
closely does their action approach to that of a vacuum.
And who can say that th best drying apparatus is perfect?”
Thanks, Norman, for the link to the 5th edition, which is 1875, no where close to Flynn’s 1905.
And your quote, of course, shows that oxygen and nitrogen don’t absorb IR.
Which everyone already knew, and why MF can’t provide a link to anything that says otherwise.
David Appell
I am starting to wonder where the 1905 came from for John Tyndall’s sixth edition of Heat a Mode of Motion.
Here is a link to the actual copy of the 6th edition and it states it was published in 1885, about 20 years earlier than what Mike Flynn claims.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Heat-A-Mode-of-Motion-by-John-Tyndall-1885-6th-Edition-book-/152519654836
Thanks Norman.
Flynn is, of course, wrong as usual.
MF says: “Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer on the surface by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun.”
I don’t have the patience to responds EVERY TIME you post some version of this line, but …
The importance of an IR absorber (like CO2) is that it is between a heated surface (like the ground) and colder surroundings (like outer space). Not that the IR absorber is between the initial heat source (like the sun) and the heated surface (like the ground), as you state. The IR absorber limits how easily heat can leave a surface, not how well heat can get to the surface.
Why do you keep repeating this idea, even when this is not how anyone (who has even a passing understanding of heat transfer) explains the GHE? Even when this error has been pointed out to you? Can you find anyplace that presents the the GHE in the manner you are trying to claim? If not, this is once again an exposed red herring.
Now, I will grant you that many of the simple experiments presented on the internet do not really show the GHE. It is actually tricky to set up something convincing, especially if only CO2 is used ar the IR absorber. That does not mean it cannot or has not been done.
A quote from Feynmann comes to mind: Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry. The “threads” of thermodynamics and heat transfer are deeply woven into that fabric. For the theory to fail for the GHE would require the unraveling of large swaths of physics.
Theory demands the GHE. The earth demonstrates the GHE.
+1
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“The importance of an IR absorber (like CO2) is that it is between a heated surface (like the ground) and colder surroundings (like outer space).”
Indeed. You have described conditions in the absence of sunlight – at night, when the ground is cooling. No GHE to be seen. The surface is cooling. No amount of CO2 will prevent it.
Unfortunately, the mythical GHE apparently only works when the Sun is shining. The Sun’s photosphere, at around 5500 K, is vastly hotter than the Earth’s surface. The surface therefore gets hotter in sunlight, once again regardless of the amount of CO2 present. Still no GHE.
Foolish Warmists claim that reducing the amount of insolation by placing CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, somehow makes the thermometer hotter. No amount of sciency sounding appeals to the Gods of Thermodynamics can turn fantasy into fact.
You also wrote –
“Now, I will grant you that many of the simple experiments presented on the internet do not really show the GHE. It is actually tricky to set up something convincing, especially if only CO2 is used ar the IR absorber. That does not mean it cannot or has not been done.”
So far, precisely nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between a constant heat source and a thermometer distant from the heat source. Nobody. It is so tricky as to be impossible!
If the Earth was created in a molten state, then the surface has demonstrably cooled to date. No GHE, your plaintive cries of “But . . . but . . . Thermodynamics. . . ” notwithstanding.
Here’s another Feynman quote to make your day complete –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You can’t even find an experiment to support your odd GHE notion – whatever it’s supposed to be!
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
‘You cant even find an experiment to support your odd GHE notion’
Actually, every day an experiment is done, weather models are run to predict weather. These experiments test GHE, and they confirm its validity.
MF wrote:
“Foolish Warmists claim that reducing the amount of insolation by placing CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, somehow makes the thermometer hotter.”
{chuckle chuckle}
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
Mike, your reply is all strawmen. If I thought you actually wanted to discuss, I might follow up. But it has been made amply clear that mostly you just want to repeat over and over “foolish warmist” and “divert, deny, and confuse” without any real substance.
Tim Folkerts,
I can’t actually see where I used the phrase “divert, deny, and confuse” in my response.
Maybe you have created a “straw man” in an effort to deny, divert, and confuse, rather than trying to address the matters which I raised in answer to your assertions.
You have previously indicated that you were refusing to discuss anything with me unless I accepted your opinions. I don’t mind at all if you decide to practise what you preach.
Foolish Warmists (as opposed to realistic ones), often seem to be incapable of implementing their ill thought out undertakings.
Ignore me all you want. I don’t think I’ll be any the poorer for it.
The GHE still won’t exist, will it?
Maybe you, David Appell, and others of like mind, might decide to have nothing at all to do with me! That’d have me shaking in my boots with fear and trepidation – not! Give it a try Tim, if you wish. You might feel better, avoiding reality.
Cheers.
“You have previously indicated that you were refusing to discuss anything with me unless I accepted your opinions.”
Really where? Provide a quote.
If you want a quote for future reference, I am not interested in discussing science with you as long as you won’t address basic thermodynamics head-on, but that is a different issue.
I don’t suppose you have a blog. We could go there and discuss one issue at a time.
“I cant actually see where I used the phrase divert, deny, and confuse in my response.”
You have used that phrase (or one very similar) 5 times on this page, including once in this specific thread.
June 17, 2017 at 5:26 PM. Every discussion you are in, that is one of your main tactics — to avoid any real science by preemptively attacking. Everyone knows it well by now.
Tim Folkerts says, June 18, 2017 at 8:55 AM:
So why are you still wasting time and effort responding to him, Tim? Why don’t you just ignore him?
We enjoy showing MF’s lies and inconsistencies.
And showing noncommenting readers here that he is dishonest and full of it.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you, David Appell, and others of like mind, might decide to have nothing at all to do with me”
We like showing what an ignoramus you are.
For the sake of others reading all this.
David Appell,
Your NASA link is broken and your second one is a red herring. I’m not discussing N&Z’s recent work to do with atmospheric pressure but their earlier ATE work which has stood for years now without contradiction. The Diviner moon measurements show the basic idea to be valid.
dai
This link isn’t broken:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie believes that link “proves” the atmosphere is “trapping heat”. Further, he believes that “trapped heat” is warming the planet!
Lacking an understanding of physics, Davie gets to believe whatever psilly pseudoscience he chooses.
Dai: N&Z’s earlier work certainly *never* stood “for years without contradiction.”
They couldn’t even calculate the average temperature of the Moon along its equator.
But it’s trivial to do this via standard radiative physics, as I showed here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
My calculation gives exactly the right answer.
David Appell –
Easy to calculate any answer you want, if you adopt your procedure –
“Radiative considerations alone cant fix the nightside temperature thermal conductance of the regolith must be included, so I’ll just take that as a constant Tn.”
So your trivial standard radiative physics calculation, while sounding very sciency, turns out to be based on a series of assumptions and estimates – or guesses, if you wish. You even say that “Radiative considerations alone can’t . . . “. Maybe not so trivial after all?
Unconvincing, David. Unconvincing and irrelevant, even.
Still no GHE. Calculate away, you still can’t make a thermometer on the surface hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the Sun, can you?
Cheers.
It’s certainly not a calculation you could do. You don’t even understand it.
Keep denying. Keep refusing to answer questions. Keep whining when challenged.
That’s all you have — nothing. Very weak.
David,
Your much vaunted mind reading powers have come up short – yet again.
You have no idea of what I can or cannot calculate. You might even be unhappy if I pointed out some physical parameters relating to the Moon which you managed to ignore, in coming up with your desired answer.
And still no GHE.
Cheers,
MF: I know that you can’t ever provide support for any of your claims, and bitch and whine whenever someone asks you for it.
I know you have many mistaken ideas on climate science that you troll with, repeating them ad nauseum.
And I know there’s no way you could ever have done the calculation I did.
You just don’t have what it takes.
Davie has “what it takes”! His favorite “scientist” believes the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K!
g*e*r*a*n,
Excuse my ignorance, what was wrong the 800 000K figure?
What is your calculation?
“Svante says:
June 27, 2017 at 3:01 PM
g*e*r*a*n,
Excuse my ignorance, what was wrong the 800 000K figure?
What is your calculation?”
I say around 80 C due to Sun heat. Though the nuclear reaction occurring in Earth interior [without heat loss over enough time could increase the earth temperature higher than 80 C.
Other things which could make the temperature of Earth hotter than 80 C from the sun energy, could include chemical reaction [if heat not lost to space].
But issue was sun alone, and it’s about 80 K.
The moon could be heated to about 120 C- from the sun assuming the silly assumption that there not heat lost.
Another form of heating could from impactors, impactors if large enough could boil Earth oceans- something the Sun can’t do. And given enough time, and no heat lost, small impactor can amount to same energy as a very large impactor.
But issue was sun alone, and its about 80 K.
{ I mean: But issue was sun alone, and its about 80 C
[or 353 K].
David Appell,
You wrote –
“MF: Clearly you dont have a link, and, when asked and expected to provide support for your claims, all you do is whine.”
Tut, tut, David. I don’t dance to your tune. I choose not to provide you with a “link”. Nor will I provide with a copy of the book itself. Maybe if you tried, you could locate a copy for yourself. I have quoted Tyndall, and if you don’t like it – tough.
Ask and expect all you want. I do as I wish, not as you wish. In this case, my wish is not to do any work for you that you can do for yourself. Why should I? Am I supposed to care about your opinion?
Still not GHE. Maybe you could ask Gavin Schmidt for support.
Cheers
Troll. You hunger for respectability, but time and time again you show you just don’t have what it takes on the scientific issues.
David,
And yet Norman managed to locate at least the 5th edition.
Maybe you could demand a link from him. Or are Norman and myself superior beings who manage to locate that which you cannot?
As to calculations, any number of foolish Warmists can waste their time doing innumerable calculations using supercomputer time at vast expense, producing endless meaningless results. Even the IPCC accepts that the atmosphere behaves in a non linear chaotic fashion. Probability distribution functions are a waste of time, and cannot be shown to be any more accurate than the naive persistence forecasts that a reasonably bright 12 year old could do.
I don’t need to “have” anything. Facts are facts, and the GHE is not one.
Still no GHE. Nature still doesn’t care what you or I think, either.
Cheers.
You never did have a link to Tyndall 1905, and just made numbers up out of thin air.
And your opinion on the GHE doesn’t matter in any way at all.
If you say so, David. If you say so. Did you shell out good money for your ESP course?
I’ll support your application for a refund, if you think you’ve been gypped. It’s not working too well, I can tell you.
Cheers.
For anyone who’s interested (and haven’t already heard it), I have an idea that warmth in the atmosphere can be likened to water in lake, where there’s an inlet and outlet. The longer it takes the incoming water to move to the outlet, the more water will accumulate in the lake.
So if my analogy has any truth, the longer it takes IR to move from surface to space, the more warmth will accumulate in the atmosphere.
GHG’s absorb and reemit a portion of IR. This certainly slows it’s movement from surface to space.
This same idea can be understood in terms of velocity. The slower the overall velocity at which water moves from inlet to outlet, the more water will accumulate in the lake.
From this, it follows that the slower the overall velocity at which warmth moves from surface to space, the more warmth will accumulate in the atmosphere.
Snape,
I don’t think you need an analogy. It seems fairly obvious (and supported by observation), that the more insulation you pile on the Earth’s surface at night, the more slowly the surface will cool, and an r (insulating) value for the atmosphere has been calculated.
Conversely, during the day, the more insulation you pile on the surface, the more slowly the surface temperature will rise. The medieval ice house, with its thick walls and straw, prevented much melting of ice during the day, for quite long periods. Basic physics.
But no heating of the Earth’s surface due to insulation, I’m afraid. That’s why your hot soup at 70 C doesn’t get any hotter in your vacuum flask, regardless of all the internal back radiation emitted from the silvered surfaces, even if you leave it in direct sunlight!
Still no GHE. Not even a good description of the GHE. Doesn’t exist.
Cheers.
Mike, you wrote,
“Conversely, during the day, the more insulation you pile on the surface, the more slowly the surface temperature will rise.”
C02 is mostly transparent to solar radiation. Why do you compare it to other forms of insulation that block sunlight (like thick straw walls)?
Water vapor, which is a GHG, also enhances convection. This means it’s very effective at moving warmth away from a surface being heated. Convection is why a thermometer in direct sun actually gets cooler in the presence of an atmosphere and GHG’s. The heat gets moved to other locations.
Regarding your vacuum flask, again, it’s opaque and blocks sunlight from reaching the soup. Find a thermos made of a transparent material, and then put it in the hot sun. Do you still think it won’t warm up?
Snape,
The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2. Insulators are insulators. The majority of solar radiation is not visible light.
When there is little convection, as at night, temperatures still fall. What’s your point?
A transparent properly constructed insulating vacuum vacuum flask? Only in a foolish Warmist’s fantasy!
Soup at 70 C in a transparent flask will not increase its temperature if placed in the Sun. More foolish Warmist fantasy.
If you put as much effort into comprehension as you do into attempting “gotchas” or irrelevant analogies, you might advance your cause more effectively.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I said, or just trying to be disagreeable? You don’t seem to have produced anything I didn’t already know, so you give me no reason to change my mind.
If your intent was to emulate a foolish Warmist, you have succeeded.
Cheers.
Mike
Convection is why a thermometer in direct sun actually gets cooler in the presence of an atmosphere and GHGs. Surface heat gets transported to other locations.
At night, when there is less convection, the suface cools because the sun is no longer present. It cools more slowly, however, because of GHG’s.
But of course, we’ve been through all this before.
Oh yeah, I spaced out the 70 C soup. Was thinking 70 F.
Mike Flynn says:
“CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
There you go again, admitting the greenhouse effect. Third time now.
–David Appell says:
June 18, 2017 at 3:15 PM
Mike Flynn says:
CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.
There you go again, admitting the greenhouse effect. Third time now.–
Isn’t there about 2000 to 500 times more N2 and O2 as compared to CO2?
gbaikie says:
June 17, 2017 at 12:32 AM
and our atmosphere is a far better buffer than the rock or dust surface than lifts the lunar night surface above zero or thereabouts.
Yes, but ocean water absorbs more energy and is better buffer than our atmosphere.
Yes, far far more heat capacity which is why ocean cycles effect air and surface temperatures on the scale of decades to centuries. Not so sure about day-night transfer that the ATE relies on.
Mike Flynn says:
June 17, 2017 at 9:23 PM
Dai,
Just as a matter of interest, I calculate a surface temperature for the Earth in the absence of the Sun, and based on admittedly sparse radiated energy measurements at, around 35 K.
I haven’t looked at this. I’ve read that upward conduction from the interior was negligible, though some have suggested that deep ocean heating is significant. I gather that we have no real knowledge beyond guesswork how many deep sea volcanos there are.
David Appell says:
June 17, 2017 at 6:45 PM
Dai: N&Zs earlier work certainly *never* stood for years without contradiction.
I was talking about the ATE from day-night buffering, which you acknowledge as valid in your link. The Earth’s atmosphere has a far higher buffering effect than the moon’s regolith, so our ATE is near saturated and large enough to give our present temperatures. I have provided calculations in my archive. Show me where I’m wrong.
The NASA link still doesn’t work for me. I usually ignore links when the person providing it doesn’t bother to say what is pointed to, but I have tried here. You don’t seem to have bothered with mine. You seem intent on repeating “I’ve proved you wrong” or such words, so a casual observer might get the impression that you were right. If I stop responding, it’s because I see nothing worth responding to.
dai
In my link I did not acknowledge anything N&Z did was right.
They couldn’t even calculate the temperature of the Moon. I could.
dai: Stop it. Of course that NASA link works.
I realize you find the results there inconvenient, but lying about it doesn’t help your case.
Snape says:
June 17, 2017 at 11:05 PM
… the longer it takes IR to move from surface to space, the more warmth will accumulate in the atmosphere.
GHGs absorb and reemit a portion of IR. This certainly slows its movement from surface to space.
That much I agree with and is what I’ve calculated. The accumulation causes 1 K increase in the atmosphere. With the lake analogy the amount of water is fixed by the size of the lake, and total flow is determined by input rate, which is roughly the same with the atmosphere. But the analogy is not quite right.
The rate of movement of energy through our atmosphere is determined by the infrared emissivity of water molecules and their density. Almost all of the delay is in the lower troposphere. This means that since CO2 is only a significant absorber/emitter at high altitudes where the mean free path of an IR photon is large (ranging from kms to infinity) its contribution to delay is negligible.
dai
dai
Why do you say, “… CO2 is only a significant absorber/emitter at high altitudes…”? Do you have a evidence to back this up?
Also, you wrote, ” With the lake analogy the amount of water is fixed by the size of the lake, and total flow is determined by input rate…”
Hypothetically, a lake doesn’t need to be a fixed size. Think of a river running down onto a vast, flat expanse.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say total flow is determined by input rate.
dai
Notice that a lake’s inlet could be a raging river, and yet the overall velocity at which water moves towards the outlet can be so slow it’s almost imperceptible.
Snape, trying to “model” the atmosphere as a “lake” just indicates you have no understanding of how the atmosphere works, or heat transfer, or thermodynamics, or radiative physics.
But, we enjoy you humor.
g*e*r
Yes, my understanding of climate science and physics is seriously lacking.
Regarding the lake. I was confused how the atmosphere seemed to trap heat even though I knew this is not really possible. When I thought about a lake, and it’s vast accumulation of water despite a constant inflow/ outflow, it was clear the word “trapped” was being used figuratively.
dai davies says:
“This means that since CO2 is only a significant absorber/emitter at high altitudes”
Completely wrong.
Hence dai can’t prove it.
“Infrared systems, among other techniques, have been considered by Goddard Space Flight Center for detecting and tracking the Apollo spacecraft during re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere (Reference 1). Although no present plans exist for utilizing this method of tracking, investigations have shown that infrared tracking on the heated spacecraft (6000″R – 7000″R surface temperatures) would be possible during the communications blackout period and for most of the re-entry trajectory, nominally 2000 nautical miles.”
Surprise, surprise!
The atmosphere is nearly transparent to most IR in the wavelengths studied here!
The point many foolish Warmists seem to miss, is that the other wavelengths absorbed by matter, are re-emitted almost immediately, if not completely converted to momentum, either at the same energy level, or, more likely, at a longer wavelength with the remaining absorbed energy being converted to momentum. Hence the “heating” of gases which absorb energy – greater molecular velocity on average.
In any case, all of the absorbed energy will be emitted at longer and longer wavelengths, all the way to absolute zero if no external energy source is present. The limit will be just above absolute zero, with thermodynamic equilibrium and maximum entropy, at the “heat death” of the universe.
CO2, like any other matter, can absorb and emit energy of any wavelength, but not absorb energy of a longer wavelength than which it is presently emitting. This can be demonstrated by trying to heat a ml. of water using the IR radiated by any amount of frozen CO2 (dry ice). It is apparently possible in the fevered imaginations of foolish Warmists, but not in reality.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
This is even sillier than most of what you post!
* 2-5 um IR from very hot re-entering spacecraft in the study you reference is NOT the range important for the much cooler ground, atmosphere, etc.
* the energy of photons cannot “be converted to momentum”. energy is energy and momentum is momentum.
* CO2 absorbs and emits effectively only at specific wavelengths. This is quantum mechanics.
* No one (who understands basic science) thinks you can heat (add net thermal energy) from cooler to warmer, as you repeatly try to claim. (if you think otherwise, please show a link and/or quote). Everyone (who understands basic science) know you can slow the heat loss by warming the surroundings. Unheated water will cool slower surrounded by dry ice than surrounded by outer space around. And heated water will reach a higher steady-state temperature surrounded by dry ice than surrounded by outer space around.
You keep repeating unfounded, unsupported, unscientific claims.
Tim Folkerts
Everything you posted is verifiable truth from textbook data.
The group (not sure how many) that does not think GHE is possible all seem to think a cooler body will warm a hot one in a direct fashion. g*e*r*a*n takes it to the extreme and thinks if the GHE is correct than everything will start on fire.
Not one of the group can understand how GHE works no matter how many times it is explained to them or linked to actual textbooks on heat transfer.
I think they just distract from the main point of this thread. It uses so much effort debating GHE with nonthinking, illogical “Slayers” and we miss the real debate on how much effect will additional CO2 produce on global warming and the potential for climate change.
Climate models are vastly complex mathematical tools that can easily be wrong with their outputs. It is not a solid science that can be verified with experiments or observations. I would not declare that the models serve no purpose or are completely wrong, but I would rather the debate was on reality instead of endless discussion (99.9% repetition, I can go back to Roy Spencer’s threads of a few years ago and the arguments are identical, no new learning taking place, just an endless rehash of worn out points).
Norm, just keep convincing yourself with your illogical logic: “Energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system.”
g*e*r*a*n
I guess you might as well convince yourself you completely understand the Greenhouse effect and radiation physics. Even though you understand neither and get them wrong 100% of your posts about them. I guess if you convince yourself long enough then reality no longer matters, your bubble of pure knowledge will guide you along the way.
Now where again did you state that you studied physics. You like to attack my credentials but I am of strong opinion you did not even study physics in High School. I am not sure you ever opened a textbook on the subject but you seem to know all about it. The blog Universe is great, just read the blogs that agree with you and ignore the textbook data.
Norm, we’ve been here before. I challenged you to put up some cash. But, you backed down.
Are you now ready to wager some significant cash about your version of my physics “background”?
You know where the backdoor is….
Tim desperately expounds: “Unheated water will cool slower surrounded by dry ice than surrounded by outer space around.”
Tim, where does this occur on Earth?
You are desperate, as when you tried to compare atmospheric CO2 to a CO2 laser.
Why do you do this to yourself?
Tim Folkerts says, June 18, 2017 at 8:09 AM:
Ok. So when you add “net thermal energy” to an object, I guess you mean that its U and thus its T will go up as a result. It GAINS energy during some thermal process, some thermal interaction with its surroundings, making its temperature higher at t_f than it was at t_i (except in the case of a phase change).
So at stage 1 we let the Earth’s global surface equilibrate with the solar input only:
Q_in = Q_out, 165 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
Which will give a maximum average T_s of 232 K.
We then, at stage 2, include the atmosphere:
Q_in + DWLWIR – Q_cond+evap = UWLWIR, 165+345-112 = 398 (W/m^2)
Which will raise the T_s to 289 K.
Through stage 2 we have thereby effectuated an absolute GAIN in the U and T of the global surface of the Earth. And that gain derives DIRECTLY and ONLY from the “additional input of energy” from the cooler atmosphere, the DWLWIR. There is no ‘net LW’ (Q_out(LW)) in the budget above, only a separate INPUT of radiant energy from the atmosphere right next to the solar heat, and a separate OUTPUT of radiant energy from the surface as a result (an effect) of its temperature rise, caused by the separate input from the atmosphere:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
Can we finally agree, Tim, that arranging the budget in the above fashion is highly misleading and confusing as to cause and effect, as to what actually happens? That the DWLWIR is effectively TREATED as if it were an additional radiative heat flux to the surface, fully equivalent to the solar heat flux, and that the UWLWIR is correspondingly treated as the resultant radiative heat loss? Never called heat, but treated as …
When you split the two LW ‘hemifluxes’ and place them on opposite sides of the IN/OUT budget, then you are basically treating them as separate, independent thermodynamic fluxes with individual thermodynamic powers.
In the particular budget above, we are NOT raising T_s from 232 to 289 K by reducing the radiant heat loss from the surface, Tim. (There is no radiant heat loss there!) We are doing it by ADDING an extra incoming flux of radiant energy right next to the solar heat flux, from the cooler atmosphere.
Can we please agree that the budget should rather look like this in order for it to be consistent with physical reality?
Q_in = Q_out => Q_rad(SW) = Q_rad(LW) + Q_cond + Q_evap =>
165 W/m^2 = [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
I would of course drop the UWLWIR-DWLWIR bracket even, while you would probably insist on keeping it. Doesn’t matter. One-way or two-way transfer, the end result is the same. AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THE TWO TOGETHER AT ALL TIMES! THEY BOTH BELONG ON THE HEAT LOSS SIDE OF THE BUDGET! They cannot and must not be separated! They’re integrated into ONE transfer/exchange!
There are no separate LW fluxes adding and removing energy at the surface. There is only an instantaneous exchange leading to a NET change in energy content and temperature. First (t_i) you had two dimes, then (t_f) you had one. And that’s it. You exchanged one for another, and you lost a second one (no compensation). Net result: you lost one. You didn’t gain one and lose two. You never had three and you never had zero in your hand. No, first you had two and then you had one. So you lost one. We don’t label individual photons to track them specifically. We account for the energy associated with them and equivalent to them.
Kristian
YOU: “There are no separate LW fluxes adding and removing energy at the surface.”
You are still wrong. There are two separate fluxes of IR, one moving to the surface and one away and instruments easily detect the two separate macroscopic flows of energy. You can repeat it over and over but you still have failed to prove it or validate it. FLIR testing I have done already proves your assertions wrong despite how strongly you believe them.
+1, Norman.
Kristian: “So at stage 1 we let the Earth’s global surface equilibrate with the solar input only:
Q_in = Q_out, 165 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
Which will give a maximum average T_s of 232 K.
We then, at stage 2, include the atmosphere:”
Oops, with no atm. in stage 1 Kristian forgot to include the ~75 solar W/m^2 which is absorb-ed by the atm. when present in stage 2. For stage 1 T_s not 232K but T_s of about 255K with (165+75 total insolation already net of albedo) in stage 1.
-1, Kristian.
Mike Flynn says:
“CO2, like any other matter, can absorb and emit energy of any wavelength,”
Laughably, clownishly wrong.
Clearly you sleep through high school chemistry and physics.
Davie, maybe you could explain “your” physics, such as the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
(And you even have a “paper” to support such nonsense, huh?)
David Appell,
You didn’t take up the opportunity to demonstrate your awesome knowledge previously, when I posted –
“An atom of rest mass m is at rest in a laboratory and absorbs a photon of frequency ν. Find the velocity and mass of the recoiling particle.”
Maybe you might care to show that carbon and oxygen are specifically exempt from the normal operations of quantum physics.
While you’re at it, you might care to calculate the wavelength of a photon emitted by a CO2 molecule at 0.001 K.
Have fun. By the way, many general physics textbooks contain quite serious errors of fact. They are written by people.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“An atom of rest mass m is at rest in a laboratory and absorbs a photon of frequency ν. Find the velocity and mass of the recoiling particle.”
Trivial.
Do you have a point?
See “Scattering, Compton.”
David Appell,
As far as I know, neither oxygen or carbon are exempted from Compton scattering.
Are you claiming that CO2 cannot be heated by compression, for example?
Cheers.
Compression has nothing to do with any of this.
You asked a question, and it was answered by Compton a century ago.
If you knew physics you would have know that.
David Appell,
Maybe you are mistaken. You said I asked a question that was answered by Compton a century ago.
What was that question, and what was the answer?
Or are you just attempting another foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse?
Your statement that “Compression has nothing to do with any of this.” seems like another David Appell assertion. What data do you have to support your statement, or are you just blathering, hoping nobody will notice that you don’t actually understand why I asked you that particular question? Maybe you’re worried it’s a “gotcha”?
Keep at it David. You could always post a few more irrelevant links. That might work!
Cheers.
MF: Ha.
Now you don’t even know what question you asked.
Hilarious.
Mike Flynn says:
“The atmosphere is nearly transparent to most IR in the wavelengths studied here!”
That’s not what the data show:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David Appell,
You have a choice. Either believe research done for the US Government by the Goddard Space Flight Centre, using real instruments, calibrated and operated by real scientists, or the fantasies of an undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a scientist.
Who would you rather have defend your country in time of wsr?
Gavin Schmidt, or someone else?
Cheers.
I’d use a fake name too if I wrote the vomit that you do.
Davie, how many fake names do you have?
‘if not completely converted to momentum, either at the same energy level, or, more likely, at a longer wavelength with the remaining absorbed energy being converted to momentum. ‘
I see why MF avoids direct back and forth discussion of science. Because, as this quote shows, he is utterly confused. He thinks energy converts into momentum and vice-versa.
David Appell says:
June 17, 2017 at 3:24 PM
N&Zs theory cant account for this observation:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Hence it is wrong.
(Its wrong for other reasons too, but this is the most obvious one.)
OK, I was wrong about the link. It worked with another browser. But my guess that the info would be irrelevant was right.
I have had years of experience researching gas phase molecular spectroscopy and can’t see a connection between that spectral curve and anything that I’ve said, or any of N&Z’s work that I’ve seen. I’m talking about the rate that energy is moved about in the atmosphere by IR. Yes, that will vary with wavelength. I have used a measured aggregate value. TOA flux gives no information on transfer rate from surface to satellite.
If you do an ATE calculation for the Earth and can show convincingly that it can’t be large enough to account for present temperatures, that would be relevant. You can use my OCM package if you want and I will be pleased to help by adapting it to your needs if you show me you are serious.
dai
dai davies…”I have had years of experience researching gas phase molecular spectroscopy and cant see a connection between that spectral curve and anything that Ive said…”
That’s because the curve is by Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, climate modeler, and a specialist at pulling irrelevant data out of a hat.
True, and in this instance DA was adding another layer of irrelevance.
dai
Gordon, you wrote that “Heat is the energy of motion of atoms, either in a solid lattice where the atoms vibrate, or in liquids, or in gases, where the atoms/molecules collide with each other.”
Again, so how does the Sun heat the Earth?
Radiation transferred to heat.
Yes, but Gordon thinks heat can only be transferred by a medium — atoms and molecules.
Which is why he’s avoiding this question.
Dai: N&Z’s model obviously cannot account for the Earth’s TOA outgoing spectrum, because they ignore greenhouse gas warming.
Their is model is wrong, and not just for this reason.
The IPCC predictions rely on the GHE warming. That’s why the predictions have been consistently WRONG.
Maybe the IPCC is only seeking consistency?
David Appell:
Their observations do not need TOA outgoing as it will always equal TOA net incoming over a climate period of time.
You don’t understand their study; it relates solely to the surface.
The TOA outgoing spectrum has a certain magnitude and shape.
N&Z cannot explain it if they ignore GHGs. Their theory does not predict it — it predicts a smooth blackbody spectrum.
Hence their theory is theory is wrong.
And not just for this reason.
You don’t understand their study. There is no need to know the TOA spectrum.
But, if you still believe they do then spell out your reasons in their terminology.
Snape says:
June 18, 2017 at 12:48 AM
dai
Why do you say, CO2 is only a significant absorber/emitter at high altitudes? Do you have a evidence to back this up?
The evidence is the well known vapour pressure of water and atmospheric measurements. It’s very low at the TOA, but CO2 is relatively well mixed.
Hypothetically, a lake doesnt need to be a fixed size. Think of a river running down onto a vast, flat expanse.
That works better. Better still is the common example of a tank with a tap at the bottom and a steady input flow. Water level rises to the point where the pressure at the bottom forces the egress to match the inflow. Open the tap a bit and water level drops and vv. Likewise, vary the input rate and the level will vary accordingly.
dai
dai
Yes, I just learned about the water tank/water pressure scenario in a previous thread (I was initially very confused and ended up embarrassing myself).
Anyway, my idea about velocity can be illustrated here as well. Given a constant input, more water will accumulate in a larger, broader tank than a smaller one (same size of drain). This is because the overall velocity at which water moves from faucet to drain will be slower.
In our atmosphere, the accumulation of warmth is not constrained by the size of a container or the pressure above a hole in the ground. This is why I’ve chosen the analogy of a broad lake instead.
Snape,
Have you considered abandoning analogies, and aiming to understand what happens in reality?
It’s fairly simple, and doesn’t involve a GHE at all.
Night follows day, winter follows summer, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years
No GHE required. Why invent something which is not needed to explain observed reality?
I suppose you have a reason, but you manage to hide it well.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Night follows day, winter follows summer, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years”
MF has previously admitted he has no data to support this claim.
Davie, you have previously demonstrated that your “data” do not support your claim.
dai
I tried to apply my velocity idea to the water tank scenario. I was tired and did a lousy job. Several problems with it. Please disregard and maybe I’ll try again later.
Dai
Sorry, increasing rate of flow in a larger water tank, more water will be able to move horizontally where it does not affect water pressure. This is different than my lake scenario.
CO2 and water vapor have some overlap, but it is not 100%:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/Images/greenhouse_gas_absorb_rt.gif
And at altitude, and in the polar regions, there is very little water vapor but the same amount of CO2.
This is science figured out decades ago.
Forecasted ice extent in Arctic in June. The temperature at the North Pole is still below the 1958-2002 average.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-06_en.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
In the Central Arctic ice extent is increasing again.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
As an electric current flows to the Arctic Circle during the geomagnetic storm.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2017/03/upward_and_downward_current_sheets/16872091-1-eng-GB/Upward_and_downward_current_sheets_node_full_image_2.jpg
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Supersonic_plasma_jets_discovered
Dr. Roy Spencer storms in the US will move southeast.
http://virga.sfsu.edu/gif/17061800_jetstream_h36.gif
In southern Arizona and California now gets a very high temperature, even above 45 C.
“Heck, even *I* believe we will continue to see modest warming, and that it might well be at least 50% due to CO2.”
Dr Spencer, your Satellite data provide all the evidence you need to determine the impact of CO2. Use the areas that isolate the impact of CO2. There is no urban heat island effect over the oceans or Antarctica. Antarctica air is very dry and emits IR near the ideal 15 microns absorbed by CO2.
I used your data to examine those areas, and here is what I found:
CO2 Cant Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/co2-cant-cause-the-warming-alarmists-claim-it-does/
Climate Debate Should Focus on Public Policy and Priorities, Not Science
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/climate-debate-should-focus-on-public-policy-and-priorities-not-science/
There is no urban heat island effect in the satellite data. Satellite data are lower tropospheric data.
You’ve focussed on Antarctica. The Arctic, on the other hand, has warmed more than twice as fast as the rest of the world (UAH data).
In fact, most large regions have warmed. Odd that you should focus on Antarctica.
Antarctica has warmed over the satellite period, by the way. You probably meant to train your focus on the Antarctic oceans.
http://tinyurl.com/jrx6wcn
Is it really?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
Ren, those are temps over three days. The red shading at bottom is suggestive of long-term warming, but without knowing what the baseline is it’s a poor reference.
I can’t even post a link to UAH’s own data page — blocked.
Roy, this is a lousy way to run a blog.
Davie fumes: “Roy, this is a lousy way to run a blog.”
Davie, maybe Dr. Roy is trying to discourage envious trolls.
Way to miss the point, barry.
Do UAH global results support the IPCC/CO2/GHE/AGW nonsense, or not?
Barry, my calculation finds a trend of zero (0.00 +/- 0.05 C/decade) for the SoPol in UAH’s v6 data.
UAH defines “SoPol” as 90S-60S.
It says 90S to 60s on the data page, but is in fact, 87.5S to 60S.
CO2 was talking about Antarctica – which is the continent. For Antarctica check again under the heading “land” immediately to the right of SoPol. SoPol. That’s the Antarctic continent. At the UAH link above it gives the decadal trend at 0.08C.
Barry, how do you know that (about the different upper latitude limit of 87.5 S)?
And in any case, it doesn’t change the conclusion.
The “0.08” number on UAH’s page is for SoPol land, not the SoPol itself.
Just download the data and calculate the trend for yourself. I have. It comes to 0.
David, CO2 was talking about Antarctica. The data set for that is SoPol “land”.
I had the 87.5S figure from memory. It may be 85S. But it’s not complete global coverage to 90S.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu
(RSS have slightly different coverage)
Barry, the UAH LT v6.0 data page says SoPol is 90S-60S
I know that. I said so above. It’s not accurate. Which I’ve also said before.
I gather that the latitude values for the poles are rounded. The information I linked above also comes from UAH.
This tidbit is fairly (but obviously not universally) well-known in climate circles. WUWT, Tisdale, SkS and others have mentioned it.
Eg,
The UAH lower troposphere temperature product is for the latitudes of 85S to 85N…
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/december-2016-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update-with-a-look-at-the-year-end-annual-results/
barry, I trust UAH’s own files far, far, far more than anything Bob Tisdale has ever had to say.
But it doesn’t matter. None of the data anywhere shows any Antarctic warming anywhere.
And you haven’t provided any.
You can also find mention of the ‘pole holes’ from Dr Spencer himself.
While the satellite data record is shorter than the surface thermometer record, it has several strengths. It has the greatest global coverage: With 96 percent coverage of the globe (except for small areas around the north and south poles)…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/November/Nov2011GTR.pdf
I’m not sure what the problem is, David. Could you answer 2 questions to discover where we’re at odds?
CO2islife mentioned Antarctica (no warming).
1) Are we agreed that Antarctica refers only to the continent?
2) Are we agreed that the proper subset of UAH data for Antarctica is the “land” portion of SoPol?
In the terminology I am familiar with, if one wishes to include oceans, one speaks of “the Antarctic” region.
Reading back, CO2islife said Antarctica, but you said Antarctic. I think this is where the confusion lies.
Not the first time I’ve run into this confusion, I have to say.
Barry, that’s NOT where any confusion lies.
The southern polar region hasn’t warmed during the satellite era.
Denying that makes you as ridiculous as the many other deniers of basic climate data here.
Why are you talking about the “Southern Polar region?”
That is precisely where you have misunderstood. I will quote CO2islife in the initial post.
There is no urban heat island effect over the oceans or Antarctica. Antarctica air is very dry..
That’s what I responded to. That is NOT the “Southern Polar region,” (SoPol) which, in the UAH, comprises both and land South of 60S to 85S.
The UAH regional decadal trends are, according to the UAH link above (and my own trend analysis):
SoPol: 0.0 C/decade
SoPol Land: 0.08 C/decade
SoPol ocean: -0.03 C/decade
SoPol land is Antarctica.
If you wish to help out, please give your own decadal trend for the area CO2islife mentoned. Antarctica. The continent. Not the oceans.
By the way if you have trouble posting links, use tinyurls, and you will never have a problem. Here is the link to the UAH data you were unable to post in tiny url form.
http://tinyurl.com/jrx6wcn
Here is the link to the tinyurl page – it’s very easy…
http://tinyurl.com/
Paste any link into the box on that page, copy the resulting tinyurl and post it here. Works every time.
Typo:
That is NOT the Southern Polar region, (SoPol) which, in the UAH dataset, comprises both ocean and land South of 60S to 85S.
SoPol is NOT Antarctica. I am talking about Antarctica. Get it?
Barry wrote:
“SoPol is NOT Antarctica. I am talking about Antarctica. Get it?”
UAH defines “SoPol” as 60-90 S.
That’s a pretty good cover of Antarctica.
And UAH LT v6.0 data show no warming there since they started taking data.
Admitting that doesn’t ruin the case for AGW.
Barry says:
“Thats what I responded to. That is NOT the Southern Polar region, (SoPol) which, in the UAH, comprises both and land South of 60S to 85S.
The UAH regional decadal trends are, according to the UAH link above (and my own trend analysis):
SoPol: 0.0 C/decade
SoPol Land: 0.08 C/decade
SoPol ocean: -0.03 C/decade”
Hmm, now I’m starting to think you are right and I am wrong — that is, that “SoPol land” is the best measure of Antarctica as a continent.
PS: Barry, my calculations agree with the trends you gave.
David,
Yes, you’ve got it now.
The area of the Antarctic ocean South of 60S is larger than the area of the Antarctic continent.
Antarctic Ocean – 26 million sq/km
Antarctica – 14 million sq/km
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/14southernssta.png
Once again, Antarctica – the continent – is brought up and someone supplies a graph of the Southern Oceans temp profile.
How hard is it to stay on point?
The study of solar minima suggests that during the solar minimum, the distribution of earthquakes can change.
http://earthquake-report.com/2017/06/18/tsunami-waves-damage-some-villages-on-the-greenland-coast/
http://earthquake-report.com/2017/06/16/moderate-earthquake-west-yellowstone-montana-on-june-16-2017/
“…because that is the only way to determine if we should change energy policy in a direction different from that which the free market would carry it naturally.”
If Earth were rapidly becoming like Venus due to CO2 emission,
why would want stop the only thing which works and replace it with whatever doesn’t work?
Any government is a lesson is how to be incompetent.
If want something done, why give to a government to do?
How stupid is it, for politician to vote on something that they admit they don’t even understand.
Would hand over your dog to the government, to care for?
How about your baby?
Only people in government have the massive delusion that they can get anything done.
Everyone else knows they can’t do anything right.
gbaikie states: “Would hand over your dog to the government, to care for?
How about your baby?
Only people in government have the massive delusion that they can get anything done.
Everyone else knows they cant do anything right.”
gbaikie, if we ever meet up someday, I owe you a beer.
gbaikie says:
“If Earth were rapidly becoming like Venus due to CO2 emission….”
It isn’t. The Earth doesn’t currently receive enough sunlight to experience runaway, Venus-like warming — it’s orbit is about 0.05 AU too high. (See the work of Jim Kasting and his group at Penn State.)
This will change as the Sun continues to get brighter (+1% every 110 Myrs, currently), but won’t reach a runaway stage for many hundreds of millions of years.
Davie will have a clue in “hundreds of millions of years”.
Okay, maybe I’m an optimist….
David Appell,
Show us the data to support your claim that the Sun will continue to get brighter!!!! Only joking. You can no more look into the future successfully, than I.
Can you show any data to prove the Earth wasn’t created in a molten state?
Have you any data to prove you are not completely clueless?
Cheap shot, I know. Oh well, nobody’s perfect.
Cheers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_diagram
Davie, in your world of pseudoscience, you love irrelevant links. You will love this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe
— David Appell says:
June 18, 2017 at 3:33 PM
gbaikie says:
If Earth were rapidly becoming like Venus due to CO2 emission.
It isnt. The Earth doesnt currently receive enough sunlight to experience runaway, Venus-like warming its orbit is about 0.05 AU too high. (See the work of Jim Kasting and his group at Penn State.)–
Obviously. More interesting question, would Venus change much if the planet was at Earth orbital distance?
[[Would Earth change as much if Earth/Moon system was at Venus distance from the Sun.
Which planet would “dramatically” change the fastest?
[If switching their orbits]]]
gbaikie says:
“More interesting question, would Venus change much if the planet was at Earth orbital distance?”
Stupid question, already answered.
gbaikie says:
“Only people in government have the massive delusion that they can get anything done.”
WW2.
Death of Osama bin Laden.
Interstate highway system.
Internet.
Funding of basic research of many essential pharmaceuticals.
Moon landing.
Public education.
Weather satellites.
Social Security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Farm subsidies.
Land giveaways.
Resource leases at very low rates.
Public sanitation measures.
Clean water.
Cleaner air.
Public transportation.
and on and on and on….
Davie, even you could do “something” constructive for billions of dollars.
Okay, maybe not you…
“Land giveaways.”
I love it.
Are you really unaware of the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889??
Are you really unaware that you can get free land today?
Snape wrote –
“Convection is why a thermometer in direct sun actually gets cooler in the presence of an atmosphere and GHGs. Surface heat gets transported to other locations.”
Rubbish. About as vague as the GHE making thermometers hotter.
Surface temperatures range from about -90 C to +90 C. Which ones are lowered by convection, and by how much?
All a bit vague. Maybe you might care to expand a bit?
Cheers.
IR photons emitted from Earth’s surface are absorbed by atmospheric CO2.
Even pseudoscience types will agree to this.
But, the IR emission from the surface acts to cool the surface.
Pseudoscience types will admit this, only kicking and screaming.
Then, atmospheric CO2 re-emits IR photons, with only one-sixth returning to the surface.
Quantum physics tells us that not all of the “one-sixth photons” will be absorbed, but even it they are, the surface has been cooled.
The pseudoscience types believe CO2 “produces warming”!
Hilarious.
Cartoon physics, not better than the Roadrunner halting in mid-air before he plunges downward off a cliff.
David Appell,
And rational people should accord you credence because . . .?
Cheers.
Davie, at least you know there are cartoons involving a roadrunner.
Just like you know, thanks to spellcheck, how to spell “physics”.
But, as with physics, you do not understand the “plot”. The roadrunner always wins. The stupid coyote always gets caught in his own pseudoscience.
Ring a bell?
Bart, I wonder if you might correct this misapprehension. gerry might listen to you.
It’s not entirely wrong. It’s just not entirely right either.
The idea of re-radiation is a misconception, though. Easily explained, but basically wrong. Most of the outgoing energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is not re-radiated directly. It is passed on to other atmospheric molecules (thermalization), as the mean time to collision is much shorter than the mean time to relaxation.
Re-radiation is the short-cut explanation. More is going on in the atmosphere, including collisional thermal transfer between all types of molecules.
I’ve sometimes said that a perfectly accurate explanation would be purely mathematical, and that pretty much no one in blogs like this would understand it expressed thus (I wouldn’t).
If you haven’t seen it, this post at Curry’s blog is a nice set of synopses re the greenhouse effect.
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/
It’s a short cut along the lines of storks bringing babies – a fairy tale to satisfy children’s curiosity.
… and keep them for asking inconvenient or uncomfortable questions.
What did you think of the explanations at Curry’s link?
Wanting…
What’s missing in your opinion?
Empirical proof.
Goalpost shift.
You said that molecular collision/relaxation was missing from explanations of the greenhouse effect. That is included in the descriptions at Curry’s blog.
1) What processes have been ignored in those descriptions of the greenhouse effect?
2) With your comment on empirical observations, are you now denying the greenhouse effect? (I think you’ve shifted to a different topic with that remark)
“You said that molecular collision/relaxation was missing from explanations of the greenhouse effect.”
No, I didn’t. I said it was missing from the cartoon physics explanation of the GHE in terms of backradiation. It is. Your source backs me up on that.
“What processes have been ignored in those descriptions of the greenhouse effect?”
Recursion. Godel, Escher, and Bach. The descriptions follow a forward path from cause to effect, but they neglect that the effects are also causes, and fail to follow up on what happens next in infinite recursion.
For example, CO2 captures photons from the surface acquiring energy, some of which then radiates to space, but most of which is passed to other atmospheric molecules in collisions. But, it’s not a one-way street. Other atmospheric particles also collide with CO2 molecules, and thermalize them in return. When the CO2 molecules so excited then emit photons, they are actually cooling the atmosphere. Ditto, and more so, for all the H2O molecules.
So, IR emitting and absorbing gases act both to heat and to cool the atmosphere. Which activity dominates? It depends upon the state of the atmosphere. Does additional CO2 tip the balance one way or the other? Again, it depends upon the state of the system.
Nobody knows which dominates at this time*. But, the majority of the bets placed thus far are on heating. That is increasingly looking like a bad bet. Global mean temperature has not increased significantly in the past 20 or so years, and the GCMs are almost all running way hot.
If you thought the theory was all cut and dried at this point, and we are just waiting for the agreed upon formulas to assert their invincible will upon the ultimate outcome, well, you were just mistaken in that viewpoint. Science is hard. Nature has all sorts of surprises lurking for the unwary. And, Nature doesn’t give a fig for any consensus of “experts”.
* Actually, I do, because of the other big thing neglected – the fact that CO2 concentration is temperature dependent, and thereby cannot produce significant temperature increase in turn without producing a runaway condition.
Well, I mostly agree with what Nullius in Verba says from link:
“…But almost universally, when they try to explain it, they all use the purely radiative approach, which is incorrect, misleading, contrary to observation, and results in a variety of inconsistencies when people try to plug real atmospheric physics into a bad model. It is actually internally consistent, and it would happen like that if convection could somehow be prevented, but it isnt how the real atmosphere works.”
It’s not how our real atmosphere works or any atmosphere works.
Nullius in Verba does seem to have faith in the models which incorporates convection- and I would say I have less faith in them.
The models might seem to work, but that doesn’t mean they can predict. Or models for future stock prices might seem to work, but they actually don’t.
It was interesting about the ideas they had about it.
“The models might seem to work, but that doesnt mean they can predict.”
Indeed. It is a given that any model with an extensive functional basis can fit just about any outcome to some degree of reasonability with the right selection of fundamental parameters. Basically, it’s just a glorified curve fit.
That’s why it is so damning that the “pause” was not predicted, and the GCM models with high sensitivity to CO2 all run way too hot. The curve fit failed to confer predictability, as they so often do.
The models are clearly deficient in some manner. Not ready for prime time, and certainly not a sound basis upon which to uproot the entire world’s economy, subject vast swaths of people to energy poverty, poison our rivers with silicon tetrachloride and heavy metal mining runoff, and kill off all the raptors, carrion fowl, and bats.
g*r*n*
How would you describe the effect of putting on a thick coat? Would you you insult someone who said the coat made them warmer or “produced warming”?
Snape,
Yet more foolish Warmist inappropriate and irrelevant analogies. What has a coat to do with the fairly obvious fact that the Earth’s surface cools when it emits photons?
Do you think it might be worthwhile to actually address the physics? Nobody has to feel insulted or offended if they choose not to, so your comment about “insult” seems a bit pointless.
It might even be seen as another foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, ands confuse, rather than discussing facts.
If you wish to feel insulted or offended, be my guest.
Cheers.
How does putting on a coat keepy you warm?
Davie, if you can find a cartoon version of “heat transfer”, look up “conduction” and “convection”. A coat manages both. Radiative heat transfer to space involves neither.
Someday, maybe you can get a basic physics book.
David Appell says upthread
A universe: Object A and Object B, at blackbody temperatures Ta and Tb respectively.
A obviously emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.
To understand why a colder object does not heat a warmer object lets follow your logic and show that its false and that this can be tested by a simple experiment.
Let A be at a higher temperature than B
Let A be in an adiabatically isolated box.
Something like a polystyrene box with perfectly reflecting inner surface will do for this experiment.
The object A radiates but the radiation is perfectly reflected and so its temperature stays the same.
Now place object B in the box.
Object B also radiates but with a lower intensity than A.
After some time measurements will show that object A will drop in temperature and object B will rise in temperature.
So placing a colder object has not heated the warmer object in fact the opposite has happened.
byran,
Why does my skin get warmer when I put on a sweater on a cold day?
The jumper is cooler than my skin.
But my skin warms up.
Do jumpers break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Here’s another – my car engine overheats more readily on hot days than cold.
The ambient air is always cooler than the engine, even on hot days.
Is the 2nd law violated here?
Barry
I notice that you did not deal with object A and object B in their
‘universe’ isolated from any other object.
This allows you to focus on what is really going on
The hotter object loses heat and the colder object gains heat.
Coats jumpers and so on are examples of insulation
“The hotter object loses heat…”
Clauisus wrote an object never contains heat so, Bryan, how did the object A actually lose the heat it never contained?
Object A actually reduced in total constituent particle KE.
Dr. Spencer has actually performed your experiment on the real atm., bryan. His data showed a different conclusion than you simply make up. You need to actually perform the experiment and take data & use rough, simple calculations to support the data you measured just as he did.
Coats jumpers and so on are examples of insulation
And a metaphor for the greenhouse effect.
Do you think that the Earth makes the sun cooler?
Ball2 says
“Clauisus wrote an object never contains heat so, Bryan”
Please give me a link to this statement
I know that you cannot so stop making things up!
Ball4 and Barry
I have given you the most simple example I could think of to try to let you understand how a heat transfer works.
Two objects one hotter than the other isolated from any other heat source or sink in the universe.
The hotter objects internal thermal energy drops by radiation.
The colder objects temperature rises because it emits less radiation than it absorbs.
This is the simplest example of a heat transfer I could think of.
Heat transfer always spontaneously occurs from a higher to a lower temperature.
Since neither of you can find anything wrong with my example I hope you will study its consequences and end your confusion on this topic
bryan 1:40am, see Clausius 1st memoir p. 18 for his definition of heat being the KE of constituent particles in an object, the 7th memoir that “heat is not a substance” that can transfer. Along with the “quantity of heat in the whole mass could neither increase nor diminish since matter can be neither created nor destroyed”. Check out a modern thermo. text book of your choice, all will teach you heat does not exist in an object.
2:32am: “Since neither of you can find anything wrong with my example”
Dr. Spencer did find something wrong with your example by actual experiment. You have not done the experiment & presented data to replicate hence there is no confidence in your writing.
As I wrote your view is wrong by actual atm. experimental data, that is the trouble with thought experiments, you can easily be misled as you show in your writing. You need to do the experiment, done properly it will replicate Dr. Spencer’s findings & you will learn to write more accurate atm. physics.
bryan,
I wan’t following the conversation and assumed you were speaking of ‘greenhouse’ effect. I don’t have any particular issue with your description of heat transfer per se.
Two objects one hotter than the other isolated from any other heat source or sink in the universe…
Yep, definitely not a thought experiment for the greenhouse effect on Earth, which does have a heat source.
Sorry I misunderstood what you were trying to do.
Ball4 you are very confused and tend to contradict yourself.
For example you say
“Clausius 1st memoir p. 18 for his definition of heat being the KE of constituent particles in an object”
So a reasonable interpretation of this statement is that an object contains particles and the sum total of their individual KE’s is ‘heat’
Then you say
“Clauisus wrote an object never contains heat”
Which contradicts your previous statement
The correct modern interpretation of ‘heat’ is that it is a transfer of energy from a higher to a lower temperature because of the temperature difference.
The transfer spontaneously is always from a higher to a lower temperature.
The modern use of the word ‘heat’ therefore would describe a net transfer of energy .
This approach was favoured particularly by by Zemansky and is accepted in all modern thermodynamic textbooks.
Zemanskys approach is much later than the Clausius formulation.
bryan 8:36am, it appears you did not look up Clausius’ memoir statement. Heat as he defined is a measure of an object’s constituent particle KE NOT the particle KE. Zemansky’s approach exactly follows Clausius.
It is your 5:01am comment that follows neither Clausius nor Zemansky which I am pointing out.
Ball 4
You are so hopelessly confused that it is pointless replying to you.
bryan, please show me experimental data you must have that confirms your: “The object A radiates but the radiation is perfectly reflected and so its temperature stays the same.” Dr. Spencer has performed an experiment on the atm. that shows YOU are confused.
While you are at it, please show by experiment that heat is NOT just a measure of constituent particle KE, that an object can actually contain and lose heat by your “hotter object loses heat” thereby heat is not just a measure of constituent particle KE as Clausius wrote p. 18 1st memoir.
Snape, you must be in junior high school. (That’s not meant to be an insult, I was once in junior high school.)
When you try to apply the “thick coat” analogy to the atmosphere, you are implying that the atmosphere is a “blanket”.
If you believe the atmosphere is a “blanket”, then you have a lot more studying to do.
g*e*r*a*n
Wonderful! You are getting close to understanding the Greenhouse effect. Just about there, a little more thinking and you will know what is actually being said by the scientists.
YOU: “IR photons emitted from Earths surface are absorbed by atmospheric CO2.
ME: Check. That is accepted physics.
But, the IR emission from the surface acts to cool the surface.
ME: Check. That is accepted physics.
Then, atmospheric CO2 re-emits IR photons, with only one-sixth returning to the surface.
Quantum physics tells us that not all of the one-sixth photons will be absorbed, but even it they are, the surface has been cooled.
ME: Check, most will be absorbed by the surface with a high absorbitivity of around 0.96 for IR.
But the missing part, you have a constant solar input. The solar input without CO2 will lead to a cooler equilibrium temperature than one with CO2 present.
Very good work!
Norm, you can’t wait to blast into pseudoscience.
My example was WITH solar input! The Sun always shines on the planet. CO2 will NOT lead to a “hotter equilibrium temperature”.
CO2 is NOT a “heat source”.
You still have that worm in your head.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU CLAIM: “CO2 will NOT lead to a hotter equilibrium temperature
A declarative statement not based upon anything stronger than a belief in our own opinion.
Evidence does show your statement to be a false one. The Moon and Earth are in the same region of space and receive close to the same amount of solar input. The Moon’s average temperature is much colder than the Earth’s average temperature. Reality proves your declaration a false and unsupported notion.
Norman,
There is no “equilibrium temperature “. This is a climatological fantasy. The Earth is no longer molten. It has cooled. No equilibrium there.
Look at a thermometer on the surface. It gets hotter, it gets colder. No equilibrium there, either.
You have believe some self appointed “climate scientist” sprouting unsubstantiated nonsense, to accept an “equilibrium temperature”.
You haven’t the faintest idea of the Moon’s average temperature, nor that of the Earth. You seem to totally ignore the fact the Earth is more than 99% molten, with a congealed crust around 10 km thick, whilst the Moon’s core is some 800 km distant from the surface. The Moon also continues to cool. No equilibrium there.
Climatologists and other foolish Warmists ignore inconvenient facts.
Still no GHE. Nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source. A delusion – no more, no less.
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n
Here is a measurement from the real world.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594730326ca3e.png
The Nevada desert area will receive around 725 W/m^2 solar energy to surface at high noon. If the Earth rotation was like the Moon’s the same area would be exposed to this level of flux for several days allowing an equilibrium temperature to be established with radiant energy in and out.
In this scenario no clouds will form so we have the full solar input during this time. The atmospheric window will allow about 17% to directly leave, the rest will be absorbed, thermalized and then emitted in all directions.
If there were no lapse rate the TOA would rise in temperature until it was emitting 725 W/m^2 to space. Of this 725 17% is from surface straight to space, the remaining amount is absorbed.
The atmosphere would then warm until it was emitting 602 W/m^2 (602 from emission 123 directly from surface). It will emit this 602 Up and out and also the same back to Earth’s surface.
The Earth’s surface will continue to warm until it radiates at the same rate it is receiving energy of 725 plus 602 so the surface would raise to about 118 C. Close to the Moon even with a much higher albedo. The Earth’s surface would actually reach a higher peak temperature than the Moon if the albedo’s were the same and the only difference was GHG so this would prove Mike Flynn wrong.
Norm blasts off to the Moon again! What a clown.
He continually illustrates his lack of understanding. The Moon has NO oceans! Simpletons cannot compare energy budgets of the Moon and Earth. There is no comparison.
Norm, driven by the worms in his head, and little knowledge of science, seeks to prove CO2 is warming the planet. He has tried to prove that ice can warm a hotter surface. He has stated that the only reason he can’t bake a turkey with ice is because the IR from the ice is “diffuse”.
But, he maintains that the “diffuse” IR form CO2 is warming the planet! What a clown.
Hilarious.
Mike Flynn
I get you already. You can’t comprehend averages, you do not understand sine waves or periodic behavior. You have way too much physics to learn than I can educate you on this blog. You claim textbooks have these serious errors.
YOU: “By the way, many general physics textbooks contain quite serious errors of fact. They are written by people.”
Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion? You do it a lot, assert with no proof to support your claim.
Mike Flynn, since you jumped into my conversation it might help you to grasp what is being discussed. We are talking about the surface of the Moon and Earth, not the entire body.
The surface of the Earth has not continued to cool for 4.5 billion years. In much more recent geological time, Hawaii was molten and very hot. It cooled and now you have an equilibrium surface temperature that has a periodic wave function fluctuating between night and day cycle. Within the cycle you can calculate a mean temperature, and at other locations you can calculate yearly means.
Why would you assume that in a discussion of Earth and Moon we are talking about the temperature of the entire body? Then go off on a tangent about it?
Mike Flynn
YOU CLAIM “There is no equilibrium temperature . This is a climatological fantasy.”
An equilibrium temperature is achieved when the Energy IN Equals the Energy OUT. With a rotating body you will have periodic fluctuations so you can’t achieve a rigid steady state. But you can have a Mean equilibrium temperature for a region based upon the Energy IN minus the Energy Out.
The Earth as a whole can achieve and equilibrium temperature when you have the Energy into the Earth System equal to the Energy Out.
The local fluctuations your obsess over are not a condition of the global condition. The Earth’s SURFACE does have a global equilibrium temperature when the Energy IN and Out are equal. There will not be an equilibrium temperature for the Earth’s global surface if the Energy IN minus Energy Out are not in balance.
You might want to stretch your thoughts away from local (night/day, summer/winter) conditions and move to global conditions. When you are experiencing night some other area is day, when you experience winter it is summer in the opposing hemisphere. You try to use local thinking on a global scale and then you deny (GHE), divert (waste everyone’s time talking about local states while the concern is over global states), confuse (by bringing up unicorns in at least 50% of your posts).
g*e*r*a*n
You were getting close to understanding but went off on an incorrect tangent again.
YOU: “He has tried to prove that ice can warm a hotter surface. He has stated that the only reason he cant bake a turkey with ice is because the IR from the ice is diffuse.
But, he maintains that the diffuse IR form CO2 is warming the planet! What a clown.”
Not what I claim. It is how you twist and distort my claims.
Again. Ice will not warm a hotter surface, it will lead to a warmer equilibrium temperature of the hot surface than a surface exposed to colder surroundings than ice. Warm is a relative term not an absolute. The hotter surface does not have a magic fixed number. It has so many joules being added to it, the surroundings will determine its actual equilibrium temperature.
I do not claim CO2 is warming the planet. That is your distortion and twist of what I actually state (maybe with you this might be the 500th time, I have lost count since you constantly distort and twist it). CO2 will allow the Earth’s surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than in a similar state with no CO2.
You are close, I think you could easily understand it if you quit distorting what I say or claim and just read it as it is stated.
Norman
g*r*n* wrote, “Then, atmospheric CO2 re-emits IR photons, with only one-sixth returning to the surface.”
Are you ok with the 1/6 part? Seems very incorrect to me.
Norman
A commentator from an earlier blog thought only 1/6 of the photons emitted by atmospheric CO2 reach the earth’s surface, because “down” is one of six basic directions. A simple diagram seems to demonstrate this is not true. Maybe I’m missing something?
Norm, you keep backing away from your own pseudoscience! You can’t stand by your own words.
You state: “I do not claim CO2 is warming the planet.”
Then, you state: “CO2 will allow the Earths surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than in a similar state with no CO2.”
“Warming”, no. “Higher equilibrium temperature”, yes.
Pseudoscience at its best!
Hilarious.
Norman,
IMHO you are a good one, but when you use the ice to demonstrate the GHGe you miss the point that that ice should be there because of the surface cooling, which it cant.
When the surface cools, something other should warm because of it at some degrees (the degree of universe warming is of curse negligible).
For this reason that ice cant be there if not because someone placed it at a specific time, that is someone added energy to the system.
This has nothing to do with the GHGe as I know it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“of course negligible” not “of curse negligible”… Of course!
: – (
” Norman says:
June 18, 2017 at 8:20 PM
g*e*r*a*n
Here is a measurement from the real world.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_594730326ca3e.png
The Nevada desert area will receive around 725 W/m^2 solar energy to surface at high noon.”
It says net solar.
The amount of solar energy at noon on clear skies [the smooth graph indicates clear skies] which reaches the surface is about 1000 watts per square of direct sunlight and about 1100 watts of direct + indirect sunlight. Because it’s July, in Nevada, the sun would be near zenith when at noon.
“If the Earth rotation was like the Moons the same area would be exposed to this level of flux for several days allowing an equilibrium temperature to be established with radiant energy in and out.”
The curve in graph is from sun going closer to zenith and then going further from zenith.
Or with solar panels pointed at the sun, one has about 6 hours of a 12 hour day, in which one gets the most amount of sunlight- 3 hours before noon and 3 hours after noon, before and after this middle of the day the energy the sun diminishes [as indicated on the graph- except it’s ‘net solar”. So at dawn or sun setting one has light but energy of sunlight is greatly reduced [say less than 100 watts per square meter]. So in terms of solar energy production, one only get 1/2 of daylight which makes significant amounts of power. Or we need electrical power for 24 hours a day, and solar gives at best 1/4 of this time- hence why it’s not viable. Or storing electrical power is costly- regardless of whatever “bright scheme” one can think of [lots of them have used and failed].
As for this idea of yours of equilibrium temperature, if had rotation of 24 days being one earth days. You replace hours with 1 earth day [or 24 hours], it would have same curve. Because at said it’s because the sun rises and sets.
Though on the moon and tracking the sun, one gets the full power sunlight that you get when sun is at zenith- because the moon has no atmosphere which blocks the sunlight.
Or when the sun is at Zenith, it’s only going thru 1 atm, and when sun is at 30 degrees above horizon, the sun is going thru 2 atm of atmosphere, and when at 20 degrees, it’s something like 5 atm worth of atmosphere it’s going thru.
Or everyday one can see what sunlight looks like when going to 1 atm to about 20 atm of atmosphere.
“Or everyday one can see what sunlight looks like when going to 1 atm to about 20 atm of atmosphere.”
Correction if live in tropics you see this all the time.
If it’s near summertime, and you are below say 50 degree latitude, you see this every day. Or if in polar regions the sunlight always goes thru more than 1 atm of atmosphere.
But if want to see sunlight going thru say 10 atms, generally one simply needs the sun to be in the sky. [not during polar winter, obviously].
–Snape says:
June 18, 2017 at 10:36 PM
Norman
g*r*n* wrote, Then, atmospheric CO2 re-emits IR photons, with only one-sixth returning to the surface.
Are you ok with the 1/6 part? Seems very incorrect to me.–
Basically, you have to think 3 d.
Get a globe. The photon can go any direction. Have ground be Antarctica, and space be north pole.
Hope that helps.
Snape and gbaikie
I may have misread g*e*r*a*n when I agreed with the 1/6. It depends on how you look at it. CO2 only emits in specific bands of IR.
The contribution of CO2 is around 17% (depending upon the overlap with H2O). In humid areas is is around 10% of the effect and in drier areas it is much more responsible.
If you take the average Downwelling flux of 345 W/m^2 and give CO2 around 60 W/m^2 of that flux (based upon Hotell’s work) you get 17.4%. 1/6 gives you 16.6% which is close give or take.
The amount of IR the CO2 actually would emit toward the surface would be 50% of the total. 50% up and 50% down. I think it depends on how you look at it. So I could be wrong on this one.
Norman
I wasn’t asking about the contribution of CO2, I was wondering why you or g*r*n* believe 1/6 of the photons re-emitted my atmospheric CO2 return to the surface. How did you come up with 1/6, or for that matter 50%?
Norman
Is it an estimate of the percentage of photons emitted in the direction of earth vs. space?
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm, you keep backing away from your own pseudoscience! You cant stand by your own words.
You state: I do not claim CO2 is warming the planet.
Then, you state: CO2 will allow the Earths surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than in a similar state with no CO2.
Warming, no. Higher equilibrium temperature, yes.”
The two are different concepts.
If you had a planet with not GHG (Moon) the surface would reach some equilibrium temperature (globally not locally) with the incoming solar flux. That temperature would only be determined by Energy In- Energy out.
Do you agree surrounding change the temperature of an object with a set amount of energy input? Would a surface temperature with the same input energy not depend at all on the surroundings? Is that what you claim?
If you add significant CO2 to the planet, this gas will warm and start emitting back to the surface. The planet will warm until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature and it will no longer warm. The CO2 will not then be warming the surface. Warming is only a temporary condition that exists until a new equilibrium state is reached. So CO2 will not continue to warm this surface but it will allow it to reach a warmer equilibrium temperature than it had been at in the first state.
Norm claims CO2 warms the planet, but CO2 does NOT warm the planet!
(The worms have ate 97% of his brain.)
— Norman says:
June 19, 2017 at 4:49 AM
Snape and gbaikie
I may have misread g*e*r*a*n when I agreed with the 1/6. It depends on how you look at it. CO2 only emits in specific bands of IR.–
I did not mention it- just giving general idea- it matter greatly depending on the elevation. At low elevation, roughly half radiated IR heads towards ground, and only small amount goes towards space, but higher elevations, it’s the opposite.
Or let’s imagine something we can call the middle, well most would go sideways- 1/2 or more. Or about 1/4 goes down and 1/4 goes up.
But I have not put a number on low, middle or high.
I tend to think “warming” from CO2 would mostly occur somewhere around 100 meter or lower.
But since CO2 sort of competes with H2O gas, and H20 gas is stronger in lower elevation, it seems most climatologists, like to think CO2’s warming occurs at higher elevation [what I would count as very high- or why I wouldn’t argue against idea of 1/6th [or less].
g*e*r*a*n,
You’re right, of course.
It seems that foolish Warmists never take into account that when the surface emits IR, its temperature must fall as a result. They then double count the emitted IR, creating something from nothing.
Unfortunately, their initial basic misunderstanding of physics led them to believe that a greenhouse operated in accordance with their imaginary principles.
They are now stuck with a GHE that they cannot even usefully describe, which forces them to resort to all sorts of inappropriate and irrelevant analogies to avoid addressing the physical impossibility of their assertion.
They’ll never change their thinking – just as Lord Kelvin went to his deathbed firmly believing he had accurately calculated the age of the Earth, knowing nothing about radiogenic heat.
Hopefully, a new generation of scientists will avoid the brainwashing of the current generation. As the current crop of foolish Warmists wither and die, real physics will rear its head again, until the next scientific delusion appears.
I live in hope.
Cheers.
You yourself described the GHE.
What was wrong with that description?
David Appell,
I don’t think so. A direct quote might help. I don’t believe the GHE exists. Maybe you’re confused. I recollect describing a unicorn – horn, sunny disposition, etc. Unicorns don’t exist either.
Cheers.
I’ve quoted you many times on your description of the GHE.
You ignore all of them.
All from MF:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
—-
May 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM
Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247260
—-
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
—-
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
David Appell,
I can’t actually see a description of the GHE. Maybe there’s one in your fantasy. Are you somehow trying to dispute anything I wrote, or maybe trying to give the erroneous impression that you can actually describe the GHE?
Others might reach the conclusion that you really are as hopelessly deluded as you appear.
Keep it up, if it gives you solace.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“I cant actually see a description of the GHE.”
: – )
Appreciate the support, Mike.
Cheers!
☺
g*e*r*a*n,
You’re most welcome. Whether it makes the slightest impact on true believers, I have no idea. Just look at Lysenkoism, or any number of other scientific delusions. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but proved to be wrong, as new facts emerged.
More power to your elbow! Have an extra one for me.
Cheers.
Mike
Convection is chaotic. Warm air moves up, down and sideways. Cold air does the same. Water vapor from tropical oceans, carrying with it enormous amounts of heat, is transported all over the world. You expect me to quantify exactly how much and where?
Have you ever checked out climatereanalyzer? The turmoil in amazing.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/
Snape,
You wrote –
“You expect me to quantify exactly how much and where?”
Well, yes – if you can. That’s how science works. If your hypothesis is not experimentally disprovable, it remains a fantasy, doesn’t it? If you can’t quantify your supposition, what use is it?
It’s about as much use as saying “The GHE makes the surface warmer!”.
As to your link, I’m not sure why you think I should look at it. Even the IPCC accepts that the atmosphere is a non linear chaotic system, making future climate states not predictable. I assume your link would tell me nothing I don’t know already, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Maybe you could quote something relevant from your link. Foolish Warmists tend to try to waste peoples’ time by providing links – which are usually devoid of appropriate information presented in a worthwhile fashion.
Cheers.
As if MF ever quantifies anything.
He balks and whines at each and any question anyone asks him. That tells you where he’s coming from.
Hey Davie, “quantify” this: How does the Sun heat the Earth to 800,000K?
David Appell,
If you say so, David. If you say so.
I choose not to respond to foolish Warmist “gotchas”.
You may characterise my response as you wish. My care factor about your opinion remains firmly settled on zero.
Cheers.
Anytime you’re asked to support your claims you whine about “gotchas.”
You can’t defend your claims. That’s all we need to know.
Mike
Taking a look at my link would be a waste of your time? Well, duh. You’ve got an important blog to attend to! My bad.
Snape,
If you can’t provide a reason to look at your link, why should I waste my time? I don’t dance to your tune either!
Does your link contain any information that I don’t already have?
Foolish Warmist. If you have any new facts, maybe you could present them. The only things I have on my side appear to be facts, physics, and Nature.
And to support you – David Appell and Gavin Schmidt? Good luck. You’ll need it.
Cheers.
Snape: MF flees anytime anyone asks him a question he can’t answer.
Somehow he finds this amusing.
David Appell,
I choose not to answer questions which I judge are not asked in good faith.
Almost all “questions” posed by foolish Warmists fall into this category. I don’t believe you can produce one that doesn’t, but feel free to surprise everybody, if you can dig one up!
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
David
Yes, it’s amazing how many simple questions g*r*n* and Mike refuse to answer, but I’ve come to expect nothing less. They are cowardly bloggers.
Yes. Even worse, they find their replies amusing.
Snape, when you get your high school diploma, ask me a question.
😪
Norman,
You wrote –
“I do not claim CO2 is warming the planet.”
It must be something else then, that made Gavin Schmidt proclaim “The hottest year EVAH!”
Maybe he meant an undefined metaphor? That’s what David Appell says the GHE is – apparently nought to do with greenhouses, and of no effect.
I assume you think that replenishing the CO2 to previous levels is somehow evil. Maybe you might care to explain what this evil is. Is it heating something else, possibly?
It’s very hard to have a rational discussion about the supposed GHE, when even its supporters cannot say what it is, or what it does. Maybe you can help.
Cheers.
Here’s an interesting comment I recently came across on a different blog:
“The tropics warmed during May while the arctic cooled. That may explain the relative warmth in the satellite measures. Per WxBell the tropics continue to warm and now have a larger positive temp anomaly than the global average, quite a change vs Jan-Apr when the tropics were much cooler than the global average. The satellites were also relatively cool in this period. Expect the satellites to continue relatively warm vs ST in June due to relative warmth in the tropics.”
Snape,
The atmosphere behaves chaotically. Hotter here, colder there, hot spells, cold snaps.
Unpredictable in any useful sense – that is, any better than you or I could do. Just when you think you’ve got it all worked out, along comes an earthquake, volcano, influenza outbreak, or a plane falling out of the sky!
Don’t worry. Be happy!
Cheers.
Mike
The comment suggests satellites are extra sensitive to tropical measurements. That’s what I found interesting.
snape…”The tropics warmed during May while the arctic cooled”.
Part of the Tropics warmed while part of the Arctic cooled.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/may/MAY_2017_map.png
Mike…”It must be something else then, that made Gavin Schmidt proclaim The hottest year EVAH!”
Gavin Schmidt gets fudged data from NOAA AND they offer their hottest years ever with lowered confidence levels. In 2014, they proclaimed it the hottest year ever based on a 48% confidence level.
Tell me something. Why do you need a confidence level with real data? You don’t, you only need them with fudged statistically adjusted data.
Gordon, I remember this event well. Obama needed some “alarmism” for his State of the Union address. Both NASA and NOAA came out with the “warmest year ever” crap. Then the very next week, both agencies published the probabilities, 48% for one, and 38% for the other. Of course, the probabilities did not make the headlines.
It’s called “propaganda”. They fooled the masses.
g*r…”Its called propaganda. They fooled the masses.”
Of course it’s propaganda but why are scientific organizations getting away with propaganda?
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm claims CO2 warms the planet, but CO2 does NOT warm the planet!”
It is a complex issue that you do not want to understand, I explain it in detail but you do not grasp the ideas.
Temporary warming is not the same as warms the planet. I think rigorous terms are needed to help you understand, you are close but not there yet.
The term warms is a plural, in my use of it I clearly state it is a temporary condition from one state to another, the transition. CO2 does not warm (singular) in a way that it would keep adding heat to the surface and continuously cause warming condition. I am trying to find the right terms and words but with your arrogant attitude it becomes a difficult hurdle. Instead of being so caught up in the word choice try to understand the concepts explained by the words.
No, Norm. Your problem is not your choice of words. Your problem is you do not understand science or logic. You can NOT say opposite things, like you continually try:
“Energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system.”
“CO2 warms the planet, but CO2 does NOT warm the planet.”
Here’s a “word choice” to match your hilarious pseudoscience: “confused”.
PS Your lack of education is revealed once again: “The term ‘warms’ is a plural…”
Maybe you meant “worms”, Norm. “Worms” IS a plural.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
It is word choice problem and your lack of desire to even attempt to understand the concept. You pounce on all the word choices but miss the bigger picture of the concept discussed.
More rigor is needed when communicating with you. I do not mind that you demand it, people get sloppy when there is no pressure to get better.
Here would, maybe, be a more correct wording.
A planet with no GHG would reach a certain equilibrium temperature (global not local) with the incoming solar flux.
If you add significant amounts of carbon dioxide to this planet, the surface IR will be absorbed by this added carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide atmosphere will begin to warm as the absorbed IR is thermalized.
The carbon dioxide downward energy flux (which will be less than the upward IR flux from the surface) will not ALONE warm the surface. In conjunction with the solar flux (together with) the carbon dioxide emitting atmosphere will begin to warm the surface until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature that is higher than the initial surface temperature. Once a new equilibrium is established, Incoming Energy equals outgoing energy, the surface will no longer warm. The carbon dioxide atmosphere will not lead to any increase in the surface temperature of the planet. If you add more carbon dioxide the surface will be warmed again by the conjunction of both solar flux and downwelling IR from the emitting CO2. The scale is logarithmic so at some point, additional CO2 will lead to very little increase in surface temperature.
Now that should be better for you. I do not think even you can twist this to say something I am not claiming.
“In conjunction with the solar flux (together with) the carbon dioxide emitting atmosphere will begin to warm the surface until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature that is higher than the initial surface temperature.”
Norm, I don’t have to twist your words to reveal your pseudoscience. IR is NOT heat! You’re still hung up on adding solar and atmospheric IR. FAIL!
(That “back-radiation worm” is hard to get rid of.)
Don’t you realize that if what you are saying were true, the surface would continue to warm? What would stop the temperature from rising above the “equilibrium” temperature? Solar is constant, but the IR continues to increase as the surface temp increases. Then, the atmosphere temperature increases. Then the surface increases, then the atmosphere increases, then…. If your beliefs were valid, the oceans would soon be boiling. (Oh, I guess that’s what alarmists claim!)
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Don’t you realize that if what you are saying were true, the surface would continue to warm? What would stop the temperature from rising above the “equilibrium” temperature? Solar is constant, but the IR continues to increase as the surface temp increases. Then, the atmosphere temperature increases. Then the surface increases, then the atmosphere increases, then…. If your beliefs were valid, the oceans would soon be boiling. (Oh, I guess that’s what alarmists claim!)”
This is where the flaw in your thinking comes in. The surface only increases to a point where it establishes a new equilibrium temperature. It is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The Earth system is absorbing 240 W/m^2 of the incoming solar flux (30% is lost from reflection and is not absorbed). The surface will continue to increase in temperature until the outgoing flux equals the incoming of 240 W/m^2. The atmosphere will warm to the point where at the TOA it is emitting 240 W/m^2. It will not warm past that point.
Norm, the “flaw” is in YOUR belief. You still want to have it both ways. You want CO2 to act as a “heat source” until it gets to the temperature that fits you belief, then it stops “adding” to solar!
And, as if that already isn’t silly enough, you say that adding more CO2 then makes a NEW temperature “target”. The CO2 once again becomes a “heat source” until your new target is reached!
That’s not how it works, Norm!
But, it is hilarious.
norman…”If you add significant amounts of carbon dioxide to this planet, the surface IR will be absorbed by this added carbon dioxide”.
norman…think this through. You make it sound as if CO2 can absorb all IR emitted from the surface. Where are your figures? How much IR flux is emitted and how much of it can CO2 absorb?
You also said significant amounts of CO2. How much is that? Do you consider 0.04% significant?
Before the alleged anthropogenic warming claimed by the IPCC from the Industrial era onward, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was close to what it is now. Given that it has increased 100 ppmv, which I think has never been proved adequately, it’s still in the ballpark of 0.03 to 0.04%. There was no significant warming with 0.03% why should there be any significant warming with 0.04%?
Gordon Robetson
Look at this link, it will answer all your questions.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf