Home/BlogNOTE: In fairness to Lord Monckton, I have accepted his request to respond to my post where I criticized his claim than an “elementary error of physics” could be demonstrated on the part of climate modelers. While Christopher & I are in agreement that the models produce too much warming, we disagree on the reasons why. From what I can tell, Christopher claims that climatologists have assumed the theoretical 255K average global surface temperature in the absence of the greenhouse effect would actually induce a feedback response; I disagree… 255K is the theoretical, global average temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gases but assuming the same solar insolation and albedo. It has no feedback response because it is a pure radiative equilibrium calculation. Besides, the climate models do not depend upon that theoretical construct anyway; it has little practical value — and virtually no quantitative value –other than in conceptual discussions (how could one have clouds without water vapor? How could a much colder Earth have no more ice cover than today?). But I will let the reader decide whether his arguments have merit. I do think the common assumption that the climate system was in equilibrium in the mid-1800s is a dubious one, and I wish we could attack that, instead, because if some of the warming since the 1800s was natural (which I believe is likely) it would reduce estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide even further.
Of ZOD and NOGs
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Roy Spencer has very kindly allowed me to post up this reply to his interesting posting about my team’s discussion of a large error we say we have found in climatological physics.
The error arises from the fact that climate models are calibrated by reference to past climate. They have to explain why the world in, say, 1850, was 32 K warmer than the 255 K that would have prevailed that year (assuming today’s insolation and an albedo of about 0.3), in the absence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases (NOGS).
Till now, it has generally been assumed that between a third and a quarter of that 32 K warming is directly forced by the presence of the NOGS, and that between two-thirds and three-quarters is a feedback response to the directly-forced warming from the NOGS.
That gives a feedback fraction of 2/3 to 3/4, or 0.67 to 0.75. The feedback fraction is simply the fraction of final or equilibrium temperature that constitutes the feedback response to the directly-forced warming.
Roy is quite right to point out that the general-circulation models do not use the concept of feedback directly. However, there is a handy equation, with the clunky name zero-dimensional-model equation (lets call it ZOD) that allows us to diagnose what equilibrium temperature the models would predict.
All we need to know to diagnose the equilibrium temperature the models would be expected to predict is the reference temperature, here the 255 K emission temperature, and the feedback fraction.
ZOD works also for changes in temperature rather than entire temperatures. The reason is that a temperature feedback is a temperature response induced by a temperature or temperature change.
If a feedback is present in a dynamical system (that’s a mathematically-describable object that changes its state over time, such as the climate), that feedback does not distinguish between the initial entire temperature (known to feedback-analysis geeks as the input signal) and any change in that temperature (the direct gain), such as a directly-forced increase owing to the presence of NOGS.
We say that climatology errs in assuming that the input signal (the 255 K emission temperature that would prevail at the surface in the absence of greenhouse gases) does not induce a feedback response, but that the additional 8 Kelvin of warming directly forced by the presence of the NOGS somehow, as if by magic, induces a feedback response and not just any old feedback response, but a temperature of 24 K, three times the direct warming that induced it.
Now, here’s the question for anyone who thinks climatology has gotten this right. By what magical process waving a wand, scattering stardust, casting runes, reading tea-leaves, pick a card, any card do the temperature feedbacks in the climate distinguish between the input signal of 255 K and the direct gain of 8 K in deciding whether to respond?
Do the feedbacks gather around, have a beer and take a vote? OK, boys, lets go on strike until the surface temperature exceeds 255 K, and lets go to work in a big way then, but only in response to the extra 8 K of temperature from our good mates the NOGs?
Of course not. If a feedback process subsists in a dynamical object, it will respond not only to what the feedback geeks call the direct gain but also to the input signal. Why on Earth would feedbacks refuse to deliver any response at all to 255 K of emission temperature but then suddenly deliver a whopper of a 24 K response to just 8 K of further temperature?
Roy’s difficulty in accepting that the emission temperature induces a feedback response is that it is not a forcing. Of course it isn’t. Emission temperature, as its name suggests, is a temperature, denominated in Kelvin, not a forcing (a change in radiative flux density denominated in Watts per square meter).
But what is a temperature feedback? The clue is in the name on the tin. A temperature feedback is a feedback to temperature, not to a forcing. It is itself a forcing, this time denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature (or temperature change) that induced it.
A temperature feedback just doesn’t care whether it is responding to an initial temperature, or to a subsequent change in temperature driven by a forcing such as that from the presence of the NOGs.
Take the Earth in 1850, but without greenhouse gases, and yet preserving today’s insolation and albedo. The reason for this rather artificial construct is that that’s the way climatology determines the influence of feedbacks, by comparing like with like. The ice, clouds and sea have much the same extents as today, so the thought experiment says.
And that means there are feedbacks. Specifically, the water-vapor feedback somewhat offset by the lapse-rate feedback, the surface albedo feedback, and the cloud feedbacks.
Those feedbacks respond to temperature. Is there one? Yes. There is a temperature of 255 K. At this stage in the calculation, we don’t have much of an idea of how much the feedback response to 255 K of temperature would be.
Lets press ahead and bring on the NOGS. Up goes the temperature by a directly-forced 8 K, from 255 K to 263 K, or thereabouts.
What’s the equilibrium temperature in this experiment? Its simply the actual, measured temperature in 1850: namely, around 287 K. The climate is presumed to have been in equilibrium then.
Now we have all we need to deploy the ZOD to diagnose approximately what the feedback fraction would be in the models, provided that, as in this experiment, they took account of the fact that the emission temperature as well as well as the NOGs induces a feedback response.
The ZOD is a really simple equation. If, as here, we have some idea of the reference temperature (in this case, 263 K) and the equilibrium temperature (287 K), the feedback fraction is simply 1 minus the ratio of emission temperature to equilibrium temperature, thus: 1 – 263/287. That works out at 0.08, and not, as now, 0.67 or 0.75.
Armed with the approximate value of the feedback fraction, we can use the ZOD to work out the Charney sensitivity (i.e., equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2) if the models were to take account of the fact that feedbacks will respond just as enthusiastically to the emission temperature as to the small change in that temperature forced by the presence of the NOGS.
The models current estimate of reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 is 1.1 K. Using their current estimate of the feedback fraction, 0.67, the ZOD tells us Charney sensitivity would be 1.1/(1 – 0.67), or a heftyish 3.3 K. That’s the official mid-range estimate.
But with our corrected approximation to the feedback fraction, Charney sensitivity would be 1.1/(1 – 0.08), or only 1.2 K. End of global warming problem.
What of Roy’s point that the models don’t explicitly use the ZOD? The models have been tuned to assume that two-thirds to three-quarters of the 32 K difference between emission temperature and real-world temperature in 1850 is accounted for by feedback responses to the 8 K directly forced warming from the NOGs.
The models are also told that there is no feedback response to the 255 K emission temperature, even though it is 32 times bigger than the 8 K warming from the NOGs.
So they imagine, incorrectly, that Charney sensitivity is almost three times the value that they would find if the processes by which they represent what we are here calling feedbacks had been adjusted to take account of the fact that feedbacks respond to any temperature, whether it be the entire original temperature or some small addition to it.
Mainstream climate science thus appeared to us to be inconsistent with mainstream science. So we went to a government laboratory and said, Build us an electronic model of the climate, and do the following experiment. Assume that the input signal is 255 K. Assume that there are no greenhouse gases, so that the value of the direct-gain factor in the gain block is unity [feedback geek-speak, but they knew what we meant]. Assume that the feedback fraction is 0.1. And tell us what the output signal would be.
Now, climatology would say that, in the absence of any forcings from the greenhouse gases, the output signal would be exactly the same as the input signal: 255 K. But we said to the government lab, We think the answer will be 283 K.
So the lab built the test circuit, fed in the numbers, and simply measured the output, and behold, it was 283 K. They weren’t at all surprised, and nor were we. For ZOD said 255/(1 – 0.1) = 283.
That’s it, really. But our paper is 7500 words long, because we have had to work so hard to nail shut the various rat-holes by which climatologists will be likely to try to scurry away.
Will it pass peer review? Time will tell. But we have the world’s foremost expert in optical physics and the world’s foremost expert in the application of feedback math to climate on our side.
Above all, we have ZOD on our side. ZOD gives us a very simple way of working out what warming the models would predict if they did things right. We calibrated ZOD by feeding in the official CMIP5 models values of the reference temperature and of the feedback fraction, and we obtained the official interval of Charney sensitivities that the current models actually predict. ZOD works.
We went one better. We took IPCC’s mid-range estimate of the net forcing from all anthropogenic sources from 1850-2011 and worked out that that implied a reference sensitivity over that period of 0.72 K. But the actual warming was 0.76 K, and that’s near enough the equilibrium warming (it might be a little higher, owing to delays caused by the vast heat-sink that is the ocean).
And ZOD said that the industrial-era feedback fraction was 1 – 0.72/0.76, or 0.05. That was very close to the pre-industrial feedback fraction 0.08, but an order of magnitude smaller than the official estimates, 0.67-0.75.
Or ZOD can do it the other way about. If the feedback fraction is really 0.67, as the CMIP5 models think, then the equilibrium warming from 1850-2011 would not be the measured 0.76 K: it would be 0.72/(1 – 0.67) = 2.2 K, almost thrice what was observed.
Does ocean overturning explain that discrepancy? Well, we know from the pre-industrial experiment, in which ocean overturning is inapplicable, that the feedback fraction is about 0.08. And there’s not likely to be all that much difference between the pre-industrial and industrial-era values of the feedback fraction.
ZOD, therefore, works as a diagnostic tool. And ZOD tells us Charney sensitivity to doubled CO2 will be only 1.2 K, plus or minus not a lot. Game over.
Or so we say.
Guys, look at what the SF Judge looked at. Don’t get lost in the weeds. KISS. These arguments are way too esoteric to ever win in the court of public opinion. Science only needs one experiment to change the status quo. Look for the obvious smoking guns that everyone will understand. Arguing over the minutia may be enjoyable intellectual exercises, but don’t forget the big picture.
San Francisco Judge Demonstrated a Real Understanding of Science; Vindicates CO2isLife
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/san-francisco-judge-demonstrated-a-real-understanding-of-science-vindicates-co2islife/
Oh, I agree that the arguments have to be kept VERY simple to win in the court of public opinion. That’s why I say it’s how clouds and water vapor will respond to the weak direct effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere that will determine how much climate change we will see. So far, we really don’t know… but the evidence suggests very little, and the severe weather response alarmists claim will result has so far not occurred. The climate models are endlessly “tuned” to produce the amount of climate change the modelers think “looks about right”. Most of the warming the models produce is NOT based upon “physical first principles”, as some claim.
No lab experiment by electrical engineers, no matter how gifted, can answer the climate sensitivity question. For example, the processes controlling how cloud cover changes with warming, including microphysics, atmospheric stability, precipitation efficiency, etc., cannot be answered with analogies to simple electric circuits.
The 255 K radiative equilibrium temperature Christopher speaks of is physically impossible anyway (if there is no greenhouse effect, then there is no water vapor, thus no clouds, thus the Earth’s albedo will be different from that assumed when calculating the 255 K value). It’s an extremely simplified construct, based upon grossly simplified assumptions, of no value for computing climate sensitivity.
Another reason that 288K-minus-255K doesn’t measure the strength of today’s greenhouse effect is that 288 K is AFTER moist and dry convection have cooled the surface by about 40 deg. C from the extremely hot surface the greenhouse effect would caused without convective heat transport.
Yes, the models are wrong. But the reasons why cannot be deduced from unrealistic assumptions input into electrical circuit calculations.
Seems to be a pretty good reasonableness test for the output of the models using Modtran to input the CO2 element. Evaporation is not linear but neither is the greenhouse effect in the opposite direction. Assuming a linear response seems to be a good reasonableness test that produces a result that calls for a much closer look at model assumptions.
Modtran is a mathematical model which has the equations and actual mechanism of heat transfer (which is a chemical engineering subject, and includes convection and phase change or evaporation) wrong. The output of that Modtran model can not be regarded as reasonable. Mass transfer (also a chemical engineering subject) often is associated with heat transfer. So there is nothing linear about processes.
“So there is nothing linear about processes.”
I agree and I think thats what I was saying. However, I have yet to see a paper that establishes the higher feedback sensitivities giving full consideration to water vapor greenhouse temperature feedbacks of solar forcing.
Short of that it seems Monckton’s simplistic and transparent model would be the best science available.
First and foremost, I’m most grateful to Roy Spencer for his fair-mindedness in allowing me to reply above to his original posting raising questions about our recent result.
His introduction to my piece suggests we are saying that climatologists have assumed the presence of the 255 K emission temperature induces a tempeature feedback.
With respect, the opposite is in fact the case. Climatologists have assumed, erroneously, that the first 255 K of global temperature (real global temperature) induces no feedback at all, and that by some mystical process the addition of another 8 K of temperature from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases adds 24 K of feedback response, bringing the temperature up to what it was in 1850.
In reply to CO2islife, therefore, we are making a very simple point indeed. We are saying that in mainstream feedback theory any temperature or temperature change present in the feedback loop will contribute to the output signal, which is equilibrium sensitivity, but climate science does not realize that this is the case.
That is why we took the trouble to commission a government lab to conduct experiments demonstrating that mainstream feedback theory is correct. It works.
As explained in the head posting, the consequence is that Charney sensitivity, or equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentration, is only 1.2 K, and not the 3.3 K that is the models’ current mid-range estimate. That’s all.
I disagree with the Lord. He claims 255 K temperature causes 24 K feedback. It cannot in reality because 255 K is in radiative equilibrium. What is the heat energy source to increase temperature by 24 K? If the 24 K temperature feedback were true, Earths climate system would be a perpetual motion machine of the 1st kind.
You don’t need a “heat energy source” to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss.
That’s why the core of the sun only produces a fraction of the heat energy the human body does (per kg of mass), yet has an estimated temperature of millions of degrees.
Yet, there can never be “runaway” warming, even of the sun, because the radiative loss of energy increases by the 4th power of the temperature.
“the sun only produces a fraction of the heat energy the human body does (per kg of mass)”
Great fun fact!
Tots!
Gives meaning to the encomium
” the Sun shines out of his …”
I would say you need a heat source and it’s the ocean.
In our icebox climate which is an ice age, the average ocean temperature is in the range of about 1 to 5 C and currently it’s about 3.5 C.
For millions of years our heat source has had a low temperature (1 to 5 C).
Most of the energy from the sun is absorbed by the ocean.
How the energy absorbed by the ocean is eventually radiated back into space is related to the average global temperature and if ocean is 1 or 2 C, our earth will be in a glacial period and if ocean is 5 C or more Earth will be leaving it’s
Icebox climate and needs ocean to be around 15 C to enter a hothouse climate.
Or hothouse climate has a warmer ocean (or heat source).
“You dont need a ‘heat energy source’ to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss.”
Unfortunately, a statement like that is innocently misleading.
Of course you need a heat source to raise temperature. Consider a harmless bowl of fruit. The bowl of fruit is at room temperature. Now put it in a perfect enclosure, so that no energy can be radiated away. Would the bowl of fruit increase in temperature?
NO!
Now, add another identical bowl of fruit to the enclosure, also at room temperature. The amount of energy being radiated inside the enclosure has doubled. Would the combined fruit now increase in temperature?
NO!
What if you could add 100 bowls of fruit to the enclosure, all at room temperature. The IR being emitted is now 100 times the original scenario. Would the temperature increase?
NO!
“Fruit” is a good analogy to CO2. It’s “carbon-based”! ☺
This is the problem I run into with people like g*e*r*a*n… if you don’t explicitly list every assumption (things which most of us pick up on as being necessary inferences) in making a simple point, they jump all over you.
Ugh. Here we go again…
We are talking about HEATED systems that are warmer than their surroundings. Like a car engine. A pot on the stove. The Sun. The human body. Your house in the winter…
…the CLIMATE SYSTEM.
This is why g*e*r*a*n has asterisks in his name…he’s been banned before, and continues to obfuscate.
C’mon dude. You are only fooling the ignorant.
Dr. Roy, it looked as if you were saying a heat energy source is not needed to raise the temperature.
“You don’t need a ‘heat energy source’ to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss.”
Now it appears you agree a heat source is needed.
Thanks for clearing that up.
As Reagan used to say, “There you go again….”
The original statement I was responding to was, “What is the heat energy source to increase temperature by 24 K?”. Clearly, the question refers to our climate system, which has the sun as the energy source. The question put more precisely, I’m quite sure, would have been “what is the ADDITIONAL” heat energy source?”. That seems pretty obvious from the context. My point was that you don’t need an *additional* energy source to raise temperature… you can also reduce the rate of energy loss.
But thanks for supporting my diagnosis of your modus operandi.
-Roy
I was content with your first explanation, Dr. Roy.
So thanks for the additional clarification. Much appreciated.
“It is NOT the atmospheres IR-active gases trapping solar energy. Its the NON-radiative gases!”
All gases in the atmosphere are radiating. If not, its temperature would be absolute zero. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit LW infrared. Other gases gain energy by convective heat transfer and emit as a gray body radiator based on its emissivity.
g*r…”You dont need a heat energy source to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss.
Unfortunately, a statement like that is innocently misleading”.
**********
I think what Roy was getting at is an increase in temperature due to restricting heat dissipation. A body will get hotter if you stifle its dissipation.
It won’t get hotter than it’s natural ambient temperature, however. If you have a body naturally radiating at 50C and you increase the convection around it, the body will cool. Stifle the dissipation and it will return to a hotter temperature but not beyond 50C. You’d have to supply heat to take it beyond that.
Where I disagree with Roy is in his assertion that simply inserting something between the body and it’s radiation environment will slow the radiation. He seems to imply that GHGs act like that and I think that is wrong.
The only way that could work was demonstrated in swannie’s experiment. If the inserted object interferes with convective cooling, the body will warm. GHGs cannot do that.
The only thing that can affect heat dissipation is changing the temperature of the environment immediately adjacent to the body. In the case of air, that environment would be 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
dr. s…”All gases in the atmosphere are radiating”.
They are absorbing as well if you take the entire EM spectrum into account. O2 in the atmosphere absorbs ultraviolet in the stratosphere.
Boltzmann estimated that 1/3rd of solar energy reaching the atmosphere is absorbed by atmospheric gases. That was the basis of his equation with Stefan.
Gordon says: “It wont get hotter than its natural ambient temperature, however. If you have a body naturally radiating at 50C …”
Gordon — a couple serious questions:
1) how are you defining a an object’s “natural ambient temperature”?
2) how are you defining “naturally radiating at 50C”.
This sort of “natural” value seems misleading and counterproductive in this discussion. It would be useful to have your definition for a meaningful discussion.
Here is how I see it. To have a “natural ambient temperature” implies a thermostat. For example, my body’s “natural ambient temperature” is 37 C and it would be “naturally radiating” at 37 C. Moving from a room at 10 C to a room at 30 C will not change that temperature. But that is because there is a biological thermostat that actively adjusts my metabolism to produce enough power to maintain the set-point. Similarly, my house has a ‘natural ambient temperature’ of 21 C because that is where I set the thermostat.
But this is NOT like the earth (or like a pot of water on a stove). The sun does not adjust to keep the earth at 15 C. The heating element on the stove does not adjust to keep a frying pan at 150 C.
For situations of interest here, we are typically more interested in a ‘natural ambient POWER OUTPUT’. This value would be equal to the power input. If I supply 100W to a pan, it will adjust its temperature until it can shed 100W (by some combination of radiation, convection and conduction). Suppose that temperature is 150C. If I reduce the conduction by raising the temperature of the air around the pan, the temperature will rise above 150 C until convection and/or radiation increases enough to make up the difference.
Dr. Spencer
The heat energy source of Earth is the sun. Without the sun, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 3 K (average geothermal energy flux is less than 1 W/m^2)
255 K is the radiative equilibrium temperature. You can’t raise temperature beyond that without “trapping” more solar energy by greenhouse gases or allowing more solar energy by reducing Earth’s albedo.
Yes, we agree on that.
255K is a theoretical minimum temperature achieved by assuming that the Earth radiates as freely as a perfect radiator would. As the Earth is not a perfect radiator its physical temperature has to be higher than this fictional minimum.
Given a reasonable guess at some average emissivities of the effective surfaces that answer to space the temperature is more like 260 to 270K rather than 255K. This is partly why we experience higher temperatures than 255K would suggest.
Dr. Strangelove says, March 23, 2018 at 7:53 PM:
It is NOT the atmosphere’s IR-active gases “trapping” solar energy. It’s the NON-radiative gases! The IR-active gases specifically let heat escape the atmosphere to space. The non-radiative ones won’t.
An atmosphere’s IR activity won’t make it warmer, and so cannot be the cause of surface warming either:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/an-atmospheres-ir-activity-wont-make-it-warmer-and-so-cannot-be-the-cause-of-surface-warming-either/
It is NOT the atmospheres IR-active gases trapping solar energy. Its the NON-radiative gases!
All gases in the atmosphere are radiating. If not, its temperature would be absolute zero. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit LW infrared. Other gases gain energy by convective heat transfer and emit as a gray body radiator based on its emissivity.
The argument is very simple:
# The presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface forces the steady-state temperature of that surface to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there, because it acts like a layer of thermal INSULATION interposed between the surface and its ultimate heat sink – space. The surface heat loss will simply always be lower – at any given surface temperature – with an atmosphere on top than without.
# Even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldn’t, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of space itself.
# In other words, it is an absolute requirement for the atmosphere in question to be capable of producing an insulating effect on the solar-heated surface at all that it be WARMER than space. What sets an atmosphere apart from the vacuum of space, after all, is its (thermal) mass, making it able to be HEATED by the surface on which it rests, thus naturally allowing it to gain a temperature much higher than that of space and therefore much closer to that of the surface itself.
# So for any physical property of an atmosphere, if it – on balance – helps in making it warmer than space, if it contributes positively to its net heating, then it effectively acts to promote the atmosphere’s insulating effect on the solar-heated surface below.
# Which leads us to the crux of this argument: An atmosphere’s RADIATIVE properties, specifically, will not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of that atmosphere; which is to say that an atmosphere containing IR-active constituents will end up COOLER on average than an atmosphere not containing such IR-active constituents. The radiative properties of an atmosphere’s IR-active constituents simply – and quite naturally – help cool the atmosphere to a much greater extent than they help in heating it …
# And so, insofar as an atmosphere’s radiative properties are not contributing positively to the net heating of that atmosphere, they also cannot be CAUSING the atmosphere to exert an insulating effect on the planetary surface.
“The presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface forces the steady-state temperature of that surface to be higher than if the atmosphere werent there”
Not always true. If the atmosphere is transparent to LW infrared but reflective to light and SW infrared due to aerosols, it would cool the surface.
“insofar as an atmospheres radiative properties are not contributing positively to the net heating of that atmosphere, they also cannot be CAUSING the atmosphere to exert an insulating effect on the planetary surface”
Nope. Reduce the cooling rate and the surface heats up. A car’s radiator is not contributing to the net heating of the engine but remove the radiator and the engine overheats.
Dr. Strangelove says, March 25, 2018 at 6:56 AM:
And where exactly in the universe have you observed such an atmosphere, doctor?
The presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface forces the steady-state temperature of that surface to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there because that atmosphere will always be WARMER THAN SPACE. That’s the whole point here. It can’t make the steady-state temperature of the planetary surface any higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there if the atmosphere’s own temperature isn’t higher than that of space …
But you’re not reducing the cooling rate if you’re not making the atmosphere any warmer than space.
Again, the whole point I’m making is that an atmosphere needs to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to force the steady-state temperature of the solar-heated surface beneath it any higher. The radiative properties of an atmosphere do not in themselves contribute positively to making the atmosphere warmer than space. Because they – on balance – cool it much more effectively than they heat it.
Kristian says,
“The IR-active gases specifically let heat escape the atmosphere to space. The non-radiative ones wont.”
Kristian, You’ve made the opposite argument in the past…… providing evidence that the humid Congo radiates much less to space than the Sahara – Sahel…..both receiving similar solar input. Infact, the very arid Sahara has a net energy deficit at the TOA (radiates more to space than it receives from the sun), whereas the Congo has a net surplus.
This is from NASA (Click on the animation option):
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=CERES_NETFLUX_M
Kris, after much rambling and confusion, you finally stumble upon some actual science: “What sets an atmosphere apart from the vacuum of space, after all, is its (thermal) mass, making it able to be HEATED by the surface on which it rests, thus naturally allowing it to gain a temperature much higher than that of space and therefore much closer to that of the surface itself.”
Yes, the surface is heating the atmosphere, not the other way around. The declining temperatures, to tropopause, represent the heat transfer gradient.
Snape says, March 25, 2018 at 10:32 PM:
Uhm, no. Then you clearly haven’t understood what I’ve said. Sorry.
The atmosphere can only – on average – shed its heat via radiation to space. And only its IR-active constituents are able to do this to any meaningful degree. I’ve NEVER said otherwise.
Kristian
The IR-active gases specifically let heat escape the atmosphere to space. The non-radiative ones wont.
From this, it would be easy to infer that more IR-active gasses would let heat escape to space more efficiently.
Is that your argument?
Climate scientists tell us the opposite is true, and the animation I linked to, especially looking at the Sahara, is a bit of supporting evidence.
Snape says, March 26, 2018 at 10:19 AM:
No. I’m not talking about the “ENHANCED GHE” here. I’m talking about the “GHE” itself.
Once you’ve got stable atmospheric circulation going, it will have no relevance what level of “IR activity” the atmosphere in question is at. Meaning, you can’t just put more IR-active constituents into it and expect it to warm. OR cool. It would make no difference to temperatures.
Uggh,
The physics of the atmosphere has been measured and modeled for many decades, but now Kristian says its all wrong. Right.
What is the atmospheric window? The surface can shed IR straight thru this part of the spectrum to space. If their were no IR active gases, the IR window would be very wide, the WHOLE spectrum.
Nate says, March 26, 2018 at 3:21 PM:
I’m saying the physics of the atmosphere is all wrong!!???
As always, Nate, you’re not reading what I actually write. You’re responding rather to what you feel I should be writing – being nothing but your average dumb denier, after all.
No, Nate. I’m saying the physics of the atmosphere is all CORRECT. That’s my whole point. But of course no one cares to take note.
Would you for once consider to actually READ WHAT I WRITE instead of just building your own straw men out of it and go “Uggh” over them every single time …?
What am I saying?
Nate,
As a special service to you, here’s my argument laid out for you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-294026
Where exactly in those six simple points do I claim or imply that “the physics of the atmosphere” is all wrong?
As you will notice, I am only ever talking about the temperature, the physical properties and the heat budget of the ATMOSPHERE itself here, NOT of the surface.
“you cant just put more IR-active constituents into it and expect it to warm.”
Uggh………of course you can.
Nonsense Kristian, you cannot toss out the method by which heat passes from the surface to space thru the atmosphere, and keep all else we understand about the atmosphere the same. You cannot pick and choose the physics you like, just as weather models cannot, else they get the forecast wrong.
You didnt address the ir window.
“Which is to say that an atmosphere containing IR-active constituents will end up COOLER on average than an atmosphere not containing ”
An unproven assertion. Lets see a basic simulation.
Whatvwill be the lapse rate without ir active elements?
‘Again, the whole point Im making is that an atmosphere needs to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to force the steady-state temperature of the solar-heated surface beneath it any higher. The radiative properties of an atmosphere do not in themselves contribute positively to making the atmosphere warmer than space.’
This just ignores the lapse rate. It is the near-surface temperature that needs to be warmer than space in order for it to force the surface temp higher. It is, because of the radiative properties of the upper atmosphere.
Kristian,
Yes, it is true that even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldnt, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of space itself.
It is ALSO true that even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldnt, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of the surfce.
The key is that the radiating part of the atmosphere must be intermediate between the temperature of the surface and the temperature of space. Then the atmosphere can make a difference.
The bulk of the atmosphere is what allows this intermediate temperature to exist.
When the green plate was first introduced, it was the same temperature as space and therefore emitted no radiation.
Kristian states the obvious: if the green plate failed to warm up, despite being IR-active and receiving a constant stream of radiation from the blue, it would not be a useful insulator.
Snape says:
March 27, 2018 at 2:02 AM
you cant just put more IR-active constituents into it and expect it to warm.
Ugghof course you can.
Hehe, yeah, sorry. I’m sure you’d EXPECT that to happen, Snape. What I meant to say is that it WON’T warm from putting more IR-active constituents into it. For the simple reason that the radiative properties of the IR-active constituents already there specifically contribute to its COOLING much more than they contribute to its heating:
Atmosphere’s HEAT IN [Q_in]
Q_sw + Q_lw + Q_cond* + Q_lhov** →
(*conductive heat transfer; **transfer by the freeing of latent heat of vaporisation)
75 W/m^2 + 32.4 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 →
107.4 W/m^2 (Q_rad) + 112 W/m^2 (Q_non-rad) =
219.4 W/m^2
Atmosphere’s HEAT OUT [Q_out]
Q_rad(lw) →
220 W/m^2
So the radiative properties of the atmosphere all in all and on average “capture” 107.4 W/m^2 worth of heat for the atmosphere (~49% of the total input), but at the same time they release 220 W/m^2 worth of heat from the atmosphere (100% of the total output).
That’s a net COOLING contribution, Snape. And a relatively strong one at that …
I’ll try again:
Snape says, March 27, 2018 at 2:02 AM:
Hehe, yeah, sorry. I’m sure you’d EXPECT that to happen, Snape. What I meant to say is that it WON’T warm from putting more IR-active constituents into it. For the simple reason that the radiative properties of the IR-active constituents already there specifically contribute to its COOLING much more than they contribute to its heating:
Atmosphere’s HEAT IN [Q_in]
Q_sw + Q_lw + Q_cond* + Q_lhov** →
(*conductive heat transfer; **transfer by the freeing of latent heat of vaporisation)
75 W/m^2 + 32.4 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 →
107.4 W/m^2 (Q_rad) + 112 W/m^2 (Q_non-rad) =
219.4 W/m^2
Atmosphere’s HEAT OUT [Q_out]
Q_rad(lw) →
220 W/m^2
So the radiative properties of the atmosphere all in all and on average “capture” 107.4 W/m^2 worth of heat for the atmosphere (~49% of the total input), but at the same time they release 220 W/m^2 worth of heat from the atmosphere (100% of the total output).
That’s a net COOLING contribution, Snape. And a relatively strong one at that …
Kristian
This is what I think has happened. You’ve looked at the atmosphere’s energy budget and noticed GHG’s contribute more to cooling than warming, “Thats a net COOLING contribution, Snape. And a relatively strong one at that ”
From this, you make a perfectly logical assumption – the atmosphere “WON’T warm from putting more IR-active constituents into it.”
It’s not that simple! (If you don’t trust the consensus of climate scientists, read some of Dr. Spencer’s recent posts.)
***************
A person might discover the human body is 60% water. The logical inference: drink less to lose weight.
Of course, it’s not that simple!
Tim Folkerts says, March 27, 2018 at 12:09 PM:
Uhm, so what are you trying to say, Tim?
Snape says, March 28, 2018 at 12:18 PM:
Problem is, Snape, that’s not quite my argument. If you’d only cared to actually READ IT, then you would’ve most likely got that.
Again: I am not talking about the “ENHANCED GHE” here. I’m talking about the “GHE” itself. Putting more IR-active gases into an atmosphere won’t warm it. But it won’t cool it either. The DEGREE of an atmosphere’s IR activity is irrelevant when it comes to steady-state temperatures. Got it?
It IS that simple, Snape. That’s how heat budgets work. Read what Spencer says about this. A system temperature is set at the balance between the INCOMING and the OUTGOING heats to/from that system.
I know you desperately don’t WANT it to be that simple, but that’s entirely a different story, one called cognitive dissonance.
“A system temperature is set at the balance between the INCOMING and the OUTGOING heats to/from that system.”
Don’t play games, Kristian. You know very well I AGREE with that. Where we differ, and where you lose Dr. Spencer and nearly every climate scientist in the world is here:
“Putting more IR-active gases into an atmosphere wont warm it.”
That viewpoint puts you squarely in the camp of Flynn, Salvatore, Gordon and g*
Kristian says:
“Which leads us to the crux of this argument: An atmospheres RADIATIVE properties, specifically, will not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of that atmosphere; which is to say that an atmosphere containing IR-active constituents will end up COOLER on average than an atmosphere not containing such IR-active constituents.
I am not sure I can say this is a simple way, but here goes one such effort to point out the error (which comes after the semicolon). Consider a blackbody planet with a uniform power input of 240 W/m^2 and an atmosphere that is initially transparent to thermal IR. The surface will stabilize at 255 K. There will be no energy into or out from the atmosphere once it has stablized, so it will also stabilize at 255 K.
Now suddenly make the atmosphere highly IR active — able to absorb all thermal IR within relatively short distances. What will the result look like now? Well, the TOP of the atmosphere will stabilize such that it radiates 240 W/m^2 @ 255 K. The BOTTOM will be warmer than 255 K because a lapse rate will necessarily form.
At the bottom of the atmosphere, 240 W/m^2 will be transferred from the surface to the bottom of the atmosphere (the stable surface is still absorbing 240 W/m^2 so it must be losing 240 W/m^2 and it can only lose that energy to the atmosphere in this scenario).
HERE is the crux. The 240 W/m^2 in at the bottom of the atmosphere will be transferred to the atmosphere via some combination IR, conduction, convection and evaporative transport. This mean the IR input to the bottom of the atmosphere — being one part of the 240 W/m^2 — will certainly be less than 240 W/m^2. Since there is still 240 W of IR leaving, we can be very confident that the IR properties — considered by themselves — contribute negatively to the dynamic energy balance of the atmosphere.
Let me restate: this atmospheres RADIATIVE properties, specifically, do not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of this atmosphere. Which is to say, this atmosphere containing IR-active constituents did end up WARMER on average than an atmosphere not containing such IR-active constituents. [In case anyone missed it — this is the OPPOSITE conclusion that Kristian reached.]
Tim Folkerts says, March 28, 2018 at 2:20 PM:
Tim, you’re looking at this the wrong way. A tropospheric lapse rate will NEVER result purely from an atmosphere’s ability to absorb and emit IR. The ONLY way an atmosphere’s radiative properties, specifically, help in developing and maintaining a negative tropospheric temperature gradient is by letting it COOL from aloft, that is, through the atmosphere’s ability to EMIT IR. The IR absorp.tion part is really irrelevant to this whole process. Because there are OTHER (non-radiative) processes performing the exact same task (of “capturing heat” for the atmosphere).
Listen. Those particular physical properties of an atmosphere that actually help in making and keeping it warmer than space can only be the ones that contribute positively to its dynamic net heat budget. The ability to absorb IR photons is NOT such a property, Tim. Because an ability to absorb IR photons is always accompanied by an equal ability to emit IR photons. And so it takes something else, something more, to turn that inherently dual process into a non-zero-sum game and have energy starting to accumulate. Because that’s what we want, that’s what we need. The capacity for holding on to energy, storing it internally over time. Not just the catch-and-release part.
The point I’m making here is that an atmosphere is good at both catching and releasing energy in the form of radiative heat, but only good at catching energy in the form of conductive heat and evaporative heat (latent heat of vaporisation). Which means that the two latter modes of heat transfer dynamically promote the accumulation of energy within the atmosphere, while the former mode does the opposite.
In short, an atmosphere’s IR-active constituents are capable of ridding the atmosphere of excess energy in the form of heat, while its non-IR-active constituents aren’t; they are capable of capturing heat coming in, but not capable of releasing it again. For that, they need their IR-active siblings.
So, moving on, what I’m saying is that even when you connect the surface and the atmosphere thermodynamically by making the latter radiatively active, its radiative properties are STILL NOT what warms the atmosphere. They are STILL what COOLS it. OTHER physical properties and processes, NON-radiative ones, are doing the warming.
For the umpteenth time, my argument is NOT that our planet’s global surface would be as well off, or even better off, without an IR-active atmosphere on top. I’m saying that the atmosphere’s IR activity isn’t (and can’t be) the CAUSE of the steady-state surface temps being higher with than without.
The IR-active constituents are simply there to ENABLE causation to occur, even in the steady state, by allowing the atmospheric TEMPERATURE to actually influence the surface heat loss, and thus its steady state temperature. They are simply a TOOL, effectively connecting the two systems thermodynamically, even in a steady state of dynamic equilibrium. But it’s an on/off switch. They’re either connected, or they’re not. There is no ‘DEGREE of connection’. Their function is basically that of a’clutch’ connecting engine power and mechanical work output. Engaged (with IR-active constituents present), thermal causation may happen even after the steady state has been achieved. Disengaged (withoutthe presence of IR-active constituents), that same causal link breaks down once this state is reached. In this sense, the atmospheric temperature is the engine, the IR-active constituents are the clutch, and the atmospheric insulating effect on the surface, reducing its heat loss at any given surface temperature, is the drill or the wheels or whatever, at the end of the shaft, spinning round.
The clutchisn’t what CAUSES the drill/wheels to spin. The engine is. However, if you disengage the clutch (remove all IR-active constituents from the atmosphere), you break the causal link, the fundamental connection between cause and effect …
Are we on the same page here …?
Kristian, the consistent pattern here is that you present your weird ideas, that disagree wit mainstream science. Then many people disagree and point out the problems and contradictions. Then you spend thousands of words explaing to all those people that they are stupid for misunderstanding you, and you really meant something else, and you backpeddle, and you deny ever disagreeing with known science, and dont take any responsibility for being misunderstood.
How bout this? Before making extraordinary claims that mainstream science has it wrong [ie GHG and GHE do not cause warming], how bout thinking it thru, gathering evidence, saying only what you can prove, say it clearly and concisely without a whole bunch of handwaving. In other words do what scientists are required to do.
Kristian, to use your clutch analogy, the GHGs help DISengage the surface from space. By disengaging the surface from the cold heat sink of space, the surface sheds energy less effectively and warms up.
Since the temperature of the bottom of the atmosphere will pretty closely follow the surface temperature, the bottom of the atmosphere will also warm up. Seems like very simple cause-and-effect to me.
Your whole argument is too narrowly focused. GHGs both cool the atmosphere (by allowing radiative energy loss to space) AND warm the surface (by restricting radiative energy loss to space). No matter how you want to phrase it, the GHGs do cause temperatures to rise in the surface and subsequently in the lower atmosphere.
“And so it takes something else, something more, to turn that inherently dual process into a non-zero-sum game and have energy starting to accumulate. Because thats what we want, thats what we need. The capacity for holding on to energy, storing it internally over time.”
You’re still missing a basic idea, Kristian. More absorbtion and remission (in the wrong direction) creates a delay in the average time it takes energy to move from the surface to space.
To use an analogy with simplest possible math: think of a parking lot as the atmosphere. Let’s say cars enter the parking lot at a rate of one per second. The total accumulation of cars will be determined,on average, by how long each car remains parked.
If each car (on average) parks for an hour, 60 cars will accumulate. If we indroduce a DELAY, and each car instead parks for two hours, that forces a steady state accumulation of 120 cars in the parking lot.
This is basic math, relevant to any reservoir involving a flow of input and output …water into a dam, money into a checking account, cars into a parking lot, energy into an atmosphere.
Or to state it even more succinctly …
* The ONLY change was to the IR gases.
* After IR active gases were added, the temperature rose at the surface and in the lower atmosphere.
Therefore … the addition of IR active gases (while other factors are kept constant) CAUSED these temperatures to rise.
Nate says, March 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM:
No, Nate. The “consistent pattern” is that you don’t want to deal with the points I’m making, and so rather go about avoiding them altogether by ‘misunderstanding’ what I write and start arguing against points I never made instead (your own straw men, that is). To make it SEEM as though you’re making arguments that counter mine … Pretty standard technique.
Tim Folkerts says, March 29, 2018 at 11:06 AM:
No, it ENABLED the rise. The atmosphere’s TEMPERATURE (being higher than that of space) is what CAUSED the rise.
Tim, what you’re claiming is just stupid, and you know it. You’re basically saying that the clutch itself is somehow what drives (causes) the rotation of the shaft providing the work output, after it’s been thermodynamically connected with its power source, the engine. Why do you think a clutch is called a ‘clutch’ in the first place? What does it do?
No, as long as the surface and the atmosphere above is thermodynamically connected, it is the atmospheric TEMPERATURE (being higher than that of space) that forces the surface temperature up beyond its pure solar radiative equilibrium level.
Again, 1) the radiative properties of the atmosphere cannot in themselves make the atmosphere warmer than space, because they do not themselves contribute positively to its net heat budget, and 2) the atmosphere HAS TO BE WARMER THAN SPACE for it to produce any kind of thermal effect on the solar-heated surface. You cannot get around this.
Tim Folkerts says, March 29, 2018 at 10:02 AM:
No, Tim. We just go round in circles here, don’t we?
Dr. Strangelove tried this very same trick argument upthread. He said: “Reduce the cooling rate and the surface heats up.”
My response:
“But you’re not reducing the cooling rate if you’re not making the atmosphere any warmer than space.
Again, the whole point I’m making is that an atmosphere needs to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to force the steady-state temperature of the solar-heated surface beneath it any higher. The radiative properties of an atmosphere do not in themselves contribute positively to making the atmosphere warmer than space. Because they – on balance – cool it much more effectively than they heat it.”
It is the fact that the atmosphere is WARMER THAN SPACE that makes it capable of restricting the radiative (and the non-radiative) surface heat loss. It is the atmospheric TEMPERATURE doing the actual restricting of surface heat loss.
Kristian
The CO2 we add to the atmosphere does have A TEMPERATURE FAR GREATER THAN SPACE, and therefore DOES restrict IR loss to space. This leads to an accumulation of energy within the atmosphere.
See my comment above for an easy way to understand this…….at least easy for most people. Flynn, Gordon and g” being notable exceptions. You too, apparently. 😏
Kristian, I don’t really want to delve too deeply into the metaphysics of ‘causation’ but let me make two quick points.
1) If I throw a light switch, I am perfectly content saying ‘I caused’ the room to get lit up, rather than attributing it to some power plant far away (and even then deciding if the ’cause’ is the coal or the steam or the magnets or the electrons in the wire or temperature of the filament or …). I set in motion the chain of events that ultimately caused the change in illumination.
I am happy to use the terminology “I caused”. Apparently you are not. Given the conditions already existing in the universe, my moving the switch was the final ’cause’. Given the conditions already existing in the universe, adding IR active gases to an IR transparent atmosphere was the final ’cause’.
2) If we are going to assign a ’cause’ to temperature change, I would strongly argue the ’cause’ must be energy, not temperature.
ΔT = ΔQ/mc.
3) You say “But youre not reducing the cooling rate if youre not making the atmosphere any warmer than space.” I would add “But youre ALSO not reducing the cooling rate if youre not making the warm atmosphere absorb/emit thermal IR”. It is the *combination* of warmth AND IR activity that impacts energy flows and hence impacts surface temperatures. To me, the IR properties are much more special.
Tim Folkerts says, March 29, 2018 at 1:24 PM:
Hehe, I know perfectly well what you ‘want’, Tim, and why you’re here at all.
I know that you’re NOT here to objectively discuss the matter at hand. Because if you were, you would’ve started off by granting the validity of the basics behind my argument and rather moved on raising questions about its broader implications so as to take part in a more productive discourse. But you can’t even do that, can you? You can’t allow yourself to.
Instead, you’re strictly here to put out a perceived fire; to divert the discussion (and thus people’s attention) away from the actual point being made in a specific attempt – as always – to water down and hush up the central message being conveyed. It’s oh so transparent.
All you want from this is to be able to walk away confident that you have successfully defended your (and all other believers’) faith in the CO2 dogma against yet another barbarous attack, having made sure you are still free (and ‘right’) to claim that an atmosphere’s IR activity is in fact what CAUSES a planet’s steady-state surface temperature to be higher than at pure solar radiative equilibrium, and as such, that we can CONTROL the surface temperature by simply controlling the amount of IR-active constituents in that atmosphere.
That’s the only goal here, Tim. That’s pretty obvious.
And I see this in the way you keep coming back making the exact same misdirected (and misdirecting) arguments dressed up as relevant ones, listing them in talking-point fashion, purporting to address the main issue. You are not stupid, after all. I know you understand what my argument is. Yet you are careful not to respond to it directly.
I see it in the way you are once again trying to trick your way out of a sticky situation, to meticulously tiptoe around my argument in order simply to avoid conceding that it is in fact an open-and-shut case.
A perfect case in point!
You are ‘forgetting’ what my argument is really about, Tim. And trying to turn it into something it’s not.
My argument is strictly about THE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE and the fundamental requirement that an atmosphere will have to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to produce any kind of thermal (insulative) effect on a solar-heated planetary surface. With regard to this, whether the atmosphere in question is IR active or not is irrelevant. The fundamental precondition above is a universal. Thermodynamics 101.
And so the next question becomes: What distinct physical properties of, and/or processes operating in, an atmosphere specifically help raising its temperature above that of space, and – importantly – help keeping it that way?
This isn’t too complicated, Tim.
Here it is; my ACTUAL argument:
i) The presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface forces the steady-state temperature of that surface to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there*, because it acts like a layer of thermal INSULATION interposed between the surface and its ultimate heat sink – space. The surface heat loss will simply always be lower – at any given surface temperature – with an atmosphere on top than without.
*[Upon reaching a steady state, if the atmosphere in question is completely radiatively inactive, the bulk of that atmosphere is – for all thermodynamic intents and purposes – NOT THERE. In practical terms, it will no longer be thermodynamically/thermally connected to the surface.]
ii) Even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldn’t, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of space itself.
iii) In other words, it is an absolute requirement for the atmosphere in question to be capable of producing an insulating effect on the solar-heated surface at all that it be WARMER than space. What sets an atmosphere apart from the vacuum of space, after all, is its (thermal) mass, making it able to be HEATED by the surface on which it rests, thus naturally allowing it to gain a temperature much higher than that of space and therefore much closer to that of the surface itself.
iv) So for any physical property of an atmosphere, if it – on balance – helps in making (and keeping) it warmer than space, if it contributes positively to its net heating, to its overall content of internal energy, then it effectively acts to promote the atmosphere’s insulating effect on the solar-heated surface below.
v) Which leads us to the crux of this argument: An atmosphere’s RADIATIVE properties, specifically, will not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of that atmosphere. The radiative properties of an atmosphere’s IR-active constituents simply – and quite naturally – help in cooling the atmosphere to a much greater extent than they help in heating it …
vi) And so, insofar as an atmosphere’s radiative properties are not contributing positively to the net heating of that atmosphere, they also cannot be CAUSING the atmosphere to exert an insulating (which is, by definition, a thermal) effect on the planetary surface.
* * *
Tim,
It is ALWAYS the NON-radiative (‘massive’) properties and processes operative in an atmosphere that effectuate the storing up of energy inside that atmosphere to make it and to keep it warm, whether the atmosphere is thermodynamically connected to the surface underneath or not. And it is always the RADIATIVE properties and processes specifically that make sure the atmosphere doesn’t become overheated as a consequence, by ridding it of excess energy.
AND, with two systems thermodynamically connected, it is always the TEMPERATURES (and, in the special case of radiation, the ’emissivity’) of those two systems that determine the transfer of heat between them. The thermal radiation emitted by a body (‘system’) is always simply an EFFECT of its temperature (and emissivity). It is not itself an independent thermodynamic quantity.
So when you look at two warm objects radiating at each other, you could very well be excused for (fooling yourself into) thinking that it is in fact the thermal radiation from the one (cooler) object itself that is ultimately behind the restriction of radiative heat loss from the other (warmer) object, because you’re only looking at the actual radiative exchange, in isolation, as if it were some kind of self-contained process, when it is in fact the TEMPERATURE of the cooler object, producing its thermal radiation, that is ultimately the cause behind the reduced heat loss from the warmer object.
You see an effect of temperature and think it’s a cause of temperature, Tim. But it’s nothing but a connecting tool. Thermal IR simply provides a means of transferring a temperature signal across a thermodynamic boundary. Like the hammer providing a means of effectively transferring the power of the one who wields it to the head of the nail in the wall.
That’s all it is. The radiation itself controls nothing. It is itself controlled …
Do you see the distinction, Tim, between the DEVICE and its OPERATOR?
BOTH are clearly necessary for getting the job done, but one simply ENABLES the job to be done, a means to an end, while the other is actually DOING the job.
“My argument is strictly about THE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE and the fundamental requirement that an atmosphere will have to be WARMER THAN SPACE in order for it to be able to produce any kind of thermal (insulative) effect on a solar-heated planetary surface. ”
That is indeed a fundamental requirement.
“With regard to this, whether the atmosphere in question is IR active or not is irrelevant. ”
… and this is wrong. The IR properties of the atmosphere are JUST AS FUNDAMENTAL for producing warming.
Consider a set of identical, uniformly lit blackbody planets Say 240 W/m^@ of absorbed power.
Rank the surface temperatures if the planet has
a) no atmosphere.
b) a thin, low mass transparent atmosphere.
c) a thick, high mass transparent atmosphere.
ANSWER: All are identical @ 255 K
Now rank the surface temperatures if the atmosphere is
a) transparent with no IR active gases
b) transparent with a small amount of IR active gases
c) transparent with a large amount of IR active gases
ANSWER: c > b > a
Now tell me that mass matters and IR active gases are “irrelevant” .
“Even a 100% IR-active atmosphere wouldnt, however, be able to make any difference whatsoever to the surface temperature if the ATMOSPHERIC temperature were equal to that of space itself.”
Well fantastic, but that is a strawman, since that situation will NEVER occur.
Your arguments are pointless.
Kristian, Tim, Nate,
Isn’t Kristians argument fine for a single layer atmosphere?
The flaw is that it has has to be repeated layer after layer.
Every new layer we add will be cooler and cooler.
Yes, Svante, I think you are right. After all the lowest layer is obviously warmer than 255K. The highest radiating layer is at 255K on average. The height of this layer increases with CO2. Therefore the atm av temp increases with co2, opp of Kristians view.
Tim Folkerts says, March 30, 2018 at 10:28 AM:
I’m glad to hear.
Huh? How is this “wrong”!? Did you even understand what I was saying? The fact that an atmosphere has to be warmer than space in order for it to be able to produce a thermal effect on the solar-heated planetary surface beneath is a universal truth, which means it holds whether that atmosphere is radiatively active or not. IOW, with regard to this fundamental requirement, it is irrelevant whether the atmosphere in question is radiatively active or not. This is a trivial point, Tim.
Again, huh? For producing warming of what? The atmosphere? Really? And how does that work? How exactly does an atmosphere in contact with a solar-heated surface specifically NEED to be radiatively active in order to be able to accumulate internal energy and thus WARM?
OK, let’s see what you’ve got.
Indeed.
What does “transparent with an x amount of IR active gases” mean, Tim? Is such an atmosphere transparent to EMR or not?
Assuming it’s not, then how come “c > b”? What do you base this on?
Again, for the nth time, Tim, FOCUS ON MY ACTUAL ARGUMENT.
iv) For any physical property of an atmosphere, if it – on balance – helps in making (and keeping) it warmer than space, if it contributes positively to its net heating, to its overall content of internal energy, then it effectively acts to promote the atmosphere’s insulating effect on the solar-heated surface below.
v) An atmosphere’s RADIATIVE properties, specifically, will not on balance contribute positively to the dynamic heating/cooling budget of that atmosphere. The radiative properties of an atmosphere’s IR-active constituents simply – and quite naturally – help in cooling the atmosphere to a much greater extent than they help in heating it …
What you are doing above is nothing but proving my case for me. You do not want to deal with this central point of my argument. And so you rather do anything, it seems, to avoid it and divert from it.
Kristian,
Your argument is fine for a single layer atmosphere.
You need to repeat layer by layer.
For four fully absorbing layers, assuming 100 units SW to the surface:
Layer Down In Up
Surf 0 400 400
1 300 600 300
2 200 400 200
3 100 200 100
4 75 150 75
Space
Kristian,
First off, there was one typo in what I said that you noticed. The second scenario should have been
Now rank the surface temperatures if the atmosphere is
a) transparent with no IR active gases
b) a small amount of IR active gases added
c) a large amount of IR active gases added
The temperature for (c) is higher than (b) basically because the emission height is greater. (The explanation is slightly different depending on whether or not there is an “IR window”.) The more GHGs there are, the higher the emission height — making higher elevations cooler and making the surface warmer.
In any case, we agrees that both b & c are higher temperature than a. Thus we both agree that GHGs raise the surface temperature.
“How exactly does an atmosphere in contact with a solar-heated surface specifically NEED to be radiatively active in order to be able to accumulate internal energy and thus WARM?”
You need to be able to think more than one step at a time.
* The IR active gases are needed to warm the surface above the effective BB temperature to begin with. You already agreed that mass itself cannot do this. (ME: “ANSWER: All are identical @ 255 K.” YOU: “Indeed”).
* the warmer surface in contact with the bottom of the atmosphere will warm the bottom of the atmosphere. If your theory says the bottom of the atmosphere will cool because “that is a net cooling effect” then your understanding is wrong.
Tim, Nate, Svante
Kristian made the argument: the blue plate gets warmer as a result of the green plate’s temperature, not it’s radiation. Barry, gammacrux, MikeR and others pointed out the absurdity of the idea, but Kristian never wavered. Here we go again!
He understands this: rate of heat transfer is determined by the difference in temperature between the two objects.
Where he sides with g*, Gordon and Flynn: radiation from a cooler body cannot raise the temperature of a warmer one because that would violate the 2LOT.
The question, then, is HOW does a difference in temperature effect rate of heat transfer if not by radiation or conduction? This is where Kristian gets creative. Thousand word posts/ made up physics.
“Thermal IR simply provides a means of transferring a temperature signal across a thermodynamic boundary”
That’s like saying a bullet doesn’t do any damage, it’s just the messenger.
Tim Folkerts says, March 30, 2018 at 4:14 PM:
Ah, but this is just what your THEORY is saying, Tim. I know all about that already. You’re referring to your theory alone as somehow justification for … that very same theory. That’s called “circular reasoning”, Tim.
What I’m asking you is what OBSERVED REALITY you are basing this particular claim of yours on.
Because now we’re no longer discussing the “GHE” itself, are we? We’re discussing the ENHANCED version of it. You are basically making the claim that it (“AGW”, “the enhanced GHE”) is observed reality, that we can SEE and thus KNOW that it works, that putting more IR-active constituents into an atmosphere (making it more ‘IR active’) actually will raise Earth’s “effective emission height” to space and thus will warm the atmosphere (all altitude-specific layers of the troposphere, like the TLT and the T_2m) to force the steady-state surface temperature up.
You are essentially saying that we can force a net accumulation of energy in the air above the solar-heated surface, and thus make it warmer, on a permanent basis, by simply making that air more opaque to outgoing IR. As if radiative transfer were all that matters, even from surface to troposphere and up through the troposphere.
Ooh, you really have your work cut out for you now, Tim.
Show me. Don’t tell me. Show me!
*Facepalm* + *Shaking head in disbelief*
Haha, that is sooo disingenuous! This is just you trolling, right?
Haven’t you read anything of what I’ve been writing this entire time!? Either you haven’t, or you pretend not to, in order to allow yourself to simply ignore it.
I asked you a question just upthread, Tim. Care to answer it?
(Background first. Please read. My question is highlighted in boldface at the end.)
* * *
“It is ALWAYS the NON-radiative (‘massive’) properties and processes operative in an atmosphere that effectuate the storing up of energy inside that atmosphere to make it and to keep it warm, whether the atmosphere is thermodynamically connected to the surface underneath or not. And it is always the RADIATIVE properties and processes specifically that make sure the atmosphere doesn’t become overheated as a consequence, by ridding it of excess energy.
AND, with two systems thermodynamically connected, it is always the TEMPERATURES (and, in the special case of radiation, the ’emissivity’) of those two systems that determine the transfer of heat between them. The thermal radiation emitted by a body (‘system’) is always simply an EFFECT of its temperature (and emissivity). It is not itself an independent thermodynamic quantity.
So when you look at two warm objects radiating at each other, you could very well be excused for (fooling yourself into) thinking that it is in fact the thermal radiation from the one (cooler) object itself that is ultimately behind the restriction of radiative heat loss from the other (warmer) object, because you’re only looking at the actual radiative exchange, in isolation, as if it were some kind of self-contained process, when it is in fact the TEMPERATURE of the cooler object, producing its thermal radiation, that is ultimately the cause behind the reduced heat loss from the warmer object.
You see an effect of temperature and think it’s a cause of temperature, Tim. But it’s nothing but a connecting tool. Thermal IR simply provides a means of transferring a temperature signal across a thermodynamic boundary. Like the hammer providing a means of effectively transferring the power of the one who wields it to the head of the nail in the wall.
That’s all it is. The radiation itself controls nothing. It is itself controlled …
Can you appreciate the fundamental distinction, Tim, between the DEVICE and its OPERATOR?
BOTH are clearly necessary for getting the job done, but one simply ENABLES the job to be done, a means to an end, while the other is actually DOING the job.”
* * *
Sure. But neither can the radiative properties of the IR-active gases. (See below.)
How come the surface is warmer when it’s thermodynamically connected to the atmosphere on top of it, Tim? Where’s that higher atmospheric temperature (higher than that of space) coming from?
We are still going in circles. Go back to my original line of argument.
You absolutely insist on not ‘getting’ my argument, don’t you? On ‘misunderstanding’ it.
Upthread I wrote (about you and your tactics):
* * *
“You’re strictly here to put out a perceived fire; to divert the discussion (and thus people’s attention) away from the actual point being made in a specific attempt – as always – to water down and hush up the central message being conveyed. It’s oh so transparent.
All you want from this is to be able to walk away confident that you have successfully defended your (and all your fellow believers’) faith in the CO2 dogma against yet another barbarous attack, having made sure you are still free (and ‘right’) to claim that an atmosphere’s IR activity is in fact what CAUSES a planet’s steady-state surface temperature to be higher than at pure solar radiative equilibrium, and as such, that we can CONTROL the surface temperature by simply controlling the amount of IR-active constituents in that atmosphere.
That’s the only goal here, Tim. It’s pretty obvious.
And I see this in the way you keep coming back making the exact same misdirected (and misdirecting) arguments dressed up as relevant ones, listing them in talking-point fashion, purporting to address the main issue. You are not stupid, after all. I know you understand what my argument is. Yet you are careful not to respond to it directly.
I see it in the way you are once again trying to trick your way out of a sticky situation, to meticulously tiptoe around my argument in order simply to avoid having to concede that it is in fact an open-and-shut case.”
* * *
All I can say is: Q.E.D.
You are proving my case for me, Tim.
Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons.
You all seem to have missed the point that all gravitationally bound gaseous envelopes exhibit a thermal gradient due to the presence of the gravity field and the logic that gases store a significant portion of their total energy as potential energy.
Give them enough total energy and they escape as the mean thermal velocity becomes comparable with the escape velocity.
A weird, conflicting viewpoint arises here where because gravity is omitted from the statistical analysis of the velocity distribution being second order in the time derivative, climate science has associated a non radiative atmosphere with an isothermal profile. Then, in order to calculate the profile using a thermodynamic approach or total energy no radiative information is needed. We do not need to know if the gases radiate or not to calculate the lapse rate found in real atmospheres.
Hence the gradient, or lapse we would expect to find is predicted in a purely mechanical model of particles moving adiabatically conserving total energy. If we test for this gradient then we find that in both of the tropospheres of Earth and Venus the same mechanical gradient exists in both despite one being primarily heated from the bottom (Earth) and one from the top (Venus).
We all agree that temperature drives heat transfer, and so the existence of a controlled thermal gradient controls long wave heat transfer. Controls because heat transfer acts in a manner to reduce, not produce a potential or gradient.
The crux is that opacity in the long wave sets the effective mean radiative height that answers to space and that this height exists in a potential field at some altitude above the physical surface. The difference in temperature between this effective layer and the surface; the thermal energy gain is exactly the difference in gravitational potential energy between this altitude and the surface expressed through the thermal response of the surface components (total of heat storage mechanisms). There is no sign of long wave heat trapping or delay!!
The actual temperatures found at the effective mean radiative height are set by the mean emissivity of the radiative bodies that answer to space and the fact that all gases have intrinsically low emissivity, especially as the pressure and temperature drops with altitude which restricts and controls broadening mechanisms. Emissivities significantly less than one provides temperature gain at this altitude by reducing the systems ability to radiate efficiently. This is countered by the requirement that the flux balancing necessity of say, 200W/m2 has to come from a part of the atmosphere with significant material substance (emissivity) AND temperature. Meaning it has to come from the lower troposphere on Earth and the upper cloud deck on Venus generally.
Straight line through zenith (shortest path) blue sky emissivity for Earth is around 0.65. Measured over all available paths is around 0.85. This is also affected by cloud area and mean cloud emissivity which varies considerably from around 0.3 to 0.95 depending upon cloud type. Atmospheric haze is always present to a degree with tiny droplets of water or ice always reducing atmospheric transmission window emissions.
Twiddling with trace gas components already present in the atmosphere provides very little change to the above, which in reality is involved with entropy production and renders IR gases as working fluids to this end. The Earth emits the longest wavelengths from the lowest temperatures within physical constraints to maximise entropy production.
Kristian says:
You forget to iterate layer by layer.
Lower layers get radiation back from higher layers.
Svante, you forgot that the atmosphere does not have one layer with the properties you require. Venus does not have one layer with the properties you require.
Earths atmosphere reduces the incoming solar to 50% of incident flux and then transmits 40 out of 370W/m2 in vacuo radiative potential to space, ie it does not have one layer totally opaque to IR, and the single layer significantly attenuates incoming solar to approximately 50%.
The atmosphere of Venus attenuates incoming solar to around 40W/m2 at the surface from 2600W/m2 incident in space and has a long wave opacity of 0.98 (not unity) due to a tiny transmission window around 1μm.
If you dont have one layer with these properties what is the point of adding a further fictional layer or multiple fictional layers?
Geoff says: “Hence the gradient, or lapse we would expect to find is predicted in a purely mechanical model of particles moving adiabatically conserving total energy.”
That is a very common misunderstanding. Even some of the early great minds in thermodynamics got it wrong. Thermodynamics equilibrium is STILL isothermal even with gravity. The lapse rate is due to a constant flow of heat from the surface up through the atmosphere.
I didn’t read all the rest you posted, but if you have this fundamental part wrong, then many of your conclusions are
almost certainly in error.
Geoff Wood,
A single layer is much to simplistic.
A multilayer calculation illustrates the flaw.
To be accurate you need a MODTRAN calculation.
Sorry Tim, should have read the rest of my post perhaps.
Isothermal doesnt exist in a gravity field. No heat flow required.
LTE exists at all points because of the existence of the potential field and the fact that the field operates on all matter and energy, which includes photons, as energy has effective mass.
BTW, you are on a sticky wicket as the measured gradients are the mechanical gradients so you need evidence otherwise to support your speculation.
Svante, a single layer is wrong, and a multi-layer is wrong.
Modtran, is perfectly fine, as a line by line, monochromatic subtraction of opposing radiation vectors integrated over the entire spectrum over all available solid angles it produces the correct net radiative heat transfer from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere as a net flux, given the correct initial assumptions about thermal gradient and composition.
It proves that very little heat is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere because of the lack of temperature difference over respective optical depths.
It doesnt illustrate or prove that anything about the gradient is provided, supported, or enhanced by opacity or radiative heat transfer.
Geoff
Interesting argument. Did you read this from Dr. Spencer?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
Geoff, we clearly disagree and I doubt we will work out our differences here. Let me just state two simple, compelling arguments for my position.
1) There is no single ‘adiabatic lapse rate’. Each gas has its own adiabatic lapse rate. If CO2 and N2 and O2 and H2O all start at 300K at the surface, they will all be different temperatures 1 km up. You claim this is the equilibrium case, but each gas has a different equilibrium temperature! Which one temperature is the correct equilibrium temperature?
2) The atmosphere gets thinner as you go up. This may seem obvious and trivial, but the molecules that move up to higher levels are self-selected to have above-average energy. The slowest molecules simple don’t have the energy to get up to higher layers. These above-average-energy molecules lose some energy as they go up. Interestingly, these two effect cancel out and the average energy (ie temperature) staty uniform.
PS: to the extent that photons are gravitationally red-shifted, there will be a ‘cooling’ due to gravity. This is orders of magnitude smaller than the adiabatic lapse rate we are talking about here.
“Ooh, you really have your work cut out for you now, Tim.”
… only if I believed all the strawman arguments you attribute to me. At nearly every turn, you mis-characterize both my arguments and my intent.
Geoff Wood says:
“It proves that very little heat is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere…”
Well, it gives me about 150 W/m.
Hi Snape, thanks for the reply.
Pressure itself has nothing to do with temperature. To illustrate, if you release a body of gas into the vacuum of space the volume increases and the pressure decreases as the molecules move away from each other and lose contact with each other. However, in expanding against nothing no work is done so the total thermal energy of the gas sample as a whole remains constant. ie free expansion is an isothermal process.
However, on Earth and within any gravitationally bound gaseous envelope pressure is closely related to gravitational potential energy, one is ρgh and the other mgh where ρ=m/V.
The total energy of a body of gas is the sum of its internal energy plus energy stored in the PΔV term in the enthalpy plus its gravitational potential energy. The isobaric specific heat capacity Cp is internal energy plus R, where R is PΔV which is the energy required to change volume per unit temperature in a pressured environment, ie R is thermodynamic work.
Hence the total energy Q,
Q= m.Cp.ΔT + m.g.Δh (kinetic energy inc work and potential energy)
For adiabatic dQ=>0
0=m.Cp.dT + m.g.dh
Which can be rearranged to give
dT/dh=-g/Cp
This can be trivialised, but the test is to look at atmospheric measurements and the gradients present to see if the gradient predicted by this method is apparent. We are then testing to see if the change in gravitational potential energy is apparent as a change in temperature expressed through the total of energy storage states.
The atmosphere of Venus conforms very well to this profile providing we acknowledge that the isobaric specific heat capacity of CO2 rises with temperature and account for this accordingly. Engineering tables give values for CO2 up to and beyond 1000K, so the data is readily available to iterate to the surface from altitude. From around 50km, we are effectively taking the ~435,000J of gravitational potential energy and putting it into the surface thermal response. There is no room for any other effect, the surface temperature of Venus is an equilibrium temperature with 50km altitude.
For Earth, using global means the dry adiabatic gradient is significantly modified from -9.7K/km to -6.7K/km by water phase change or latent heat. The upper, dry troposphere has information to calculate the surface temperature with given only the difference in altitude and surface specific humidity. There is no evidence of enhanced surface energy due to any other effect. The surface temperature found is reduced from the potential temperature predicted from altitude by the subtraction of the energy required to vaporise the water to produce the measured specific humidity from the thermal pool energy, and the temperature is again given by the heat capacity of the surface air Cp (1.005 + 1.82H where H is specific humidity in kg). No other effect is evident in obtaining an equilibrium surface temperature given an upper tropospheric global mean and surface humidity as a global mean (~10.6g/kg).
Geoff
It’s going to take me a while to work through your argument. Meanwhile, we’re not on the same page about this:
“To illustrate, if you release a body of gas into the vacuum of space the volume increases and the pressure decreases as the molecules move away from each other and lose contact with each other. However, in expanding against nothing no work is done so the total thermal energy of the gas sample as a whole remains constant”
As a body of gas expands due to a decrease in pressure upon it (total energy remaining constant), it’s temperature will decrease. To me, that illustrates how pressure IS related to temperature, whereas you have the opposite viewpoint.
Also, you wrote, “free expansion is an isothermal process.” That makes no sense either. If free expansion results in a change of temperature, it is by definition NOT an isothermal process:
“An isothermal process is a change of a system, in which the temperature remains constant: ΔT = 0.”
I think you are confusing an isothermal process with an adiabatic process:
Adiabatic/ “relating to or denoting a process or condition in which heat does not enter or leave the system concerned.”
Hi Tim, thanks for the comments.
Point (1). There is no single adiabatic lapse rate.
There is a global lapse rate from global mean measurements. For example the global mean lapse rate for 2014, Omer the 12month period was -6.7K/km using global surface mean temperature from NCEP CFSRv2 and Roys own AMSU to 7.5km.
If CO2 and N2 and O2 and H2O all start at 300K at the surface, they will all be different temperatures 1 km up
Generally the mixed ratios of CO2, N2 and O2 are not variables so the heat capacity of dry air describes this mixture very well. The presence of water as a vapour only modifies the gradient slightly. The heat capacity of dry air is altered from 1,005J/kgK to 1,024J/kgK by the addition of 10.6g/kg, giving a modification in gradient from surface to lower condensation level of -9.76K/km to -9.58K/km.
You claim this is the equilibrium case, but each gas has a different equilibrium temperature! Which one temperature is the correct equilibrium temperature This is a bit like asking about 255K as a black body temperature. It is an average of the mean mixing ratios and the mean temperatures we find. There is a global mean surface temperature for the surface over a year. There is a global mean temperature at 7.5km over a year. N2, O2, and CO2 hardly alter the dry air heat capacity over a year and water as a variable expressed as specific humidity is available at the surface as a global mean and at altitude as a global mean. The relationship between the surface and altitude can be seen in the global means and the observed lapse rate explained through these other measurements, in terms of equilibrium in the vertical column.
Point (2). The atmosphere gets thinner as you go up. This may seem obvious and trivial, but the molecules that move up to higher levels are self-selected to have above-average energy. The slowest molecules simple dont have the energy to get up to higher layers. These above-average-energy molecules lose some energy as they go up. Interestingly, these two effect cancel out and the average energy (ie temperature) staty uniform.
This effect happens much higher in the atmosphere and explains the thermal gradient of the thermosphere. Molecules that are lighter and faster such as dissociated Hydrogen stream outwards and follow their own trajectories. Lower in the atmosphere constant collision makes it difficult for faster molecules to get very far without becoming a molecule more representative of the distribution. This constantly normalises energies through equipartition. The issue is that every molecule, all of the time, even during collisions is accelerated by gravity in the same relentless direction. Hence information about gravity is carried by every molecule all of the time. There is no self-selection to ignore gravity.
Again, may I remind you that you are arguing for a very complex scenario over a trivial solution. The trivial solution is that molecules feel gravity. Hence gravity produces a thermal gradient. This predicts the observed lapse rates of Earth and other planets once we add the details of chemical composition. Add to this that the gradient predicted and measured is a maximum entropy profile to which all gradients of lesser entropy will evolve spontaneously.
You are suggesting, please correct as necessary:
Diffusion mixes temperature, such that all the still air is pulling the atmosphere into an isothermal column. Bulk motion mixes entropy hence moves the isothermal column towards the observed gradient from isothermal. Radiative exchange produces a pure radiative lapse that far exceeds the adiabatic lapse and this constant pull forces the existence of convection which truncates the pure radiative lapse less steep. But of course radiative heat transfer acts in a manner that transfers thermal energy from warm to cold hence reducing the very steep lapse that it supposedly created in an attempt to become isothermal. The sum of these competing effects produces the lapse and gravity has nothing to do with it!
Did I miss anything out?
Also, to the extent that photons are gravitationally red-shifted, there will be a cooling due to gravity. This is orders of magnitude smaller than the adiabatic lapse rate we are talking about here.
Whilst I agree with you on the magnitude Tim, the really interesting point is that there is no evidence of radiative conduction affecting the lapse rate of measured atmospheres. A temperature difference is required to produce heat transfer between radiative sources, but the gradient is maintained, ie it doesnt temporally evolve due to this mechanism. Line by line summations indicate that very little energy is transferred by radiation from the surface to all atmospheric components (around 17W/m2 from 370W/m2 in vacuo radiative potential, source NASA).
Svante, most of the radiative potential is cancelled by the availability of horizontal vector components which contribute nothing due to lack of temperature difference. High opacity bands cancel due to lack of thermal gradient over short optical depths. Hence most of the in vacuo radiative potential cancels.
168W/m2 of real energy from the Sun reaches the surface. Around 100W/m2 leaves the surface as moist convection. Of the remainder, around 40W/m2 passes through the atmospheric window as outgoing long wave radiation which leaves about 18W/m2 transferred to all atmospheric components which includes water droplets and ice. The net flux is the only energy that leaves the surface, illustrated by the fact that the atmosphere and surface are only weakly coupled by radiative heat transfer and the atmospheric energy budget reflects this. Very little energy is transferred by radiation to the atmosphere.
Geoff Wood,
You are caught in the surface budget fallacy.
CO2 becomes interesting above convection and water vapor.
“Very little energy is transferred by radiation to the atmosphere.”
All of the earths energy input/output is transferred by radiation.
The atmosphere makes a 150 W/m^2 difference.
Geoff.
First off, every planet and moon with an atmosphere has GHGs and has heat flowing up from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Thus every atmosphere will have a lapse rate approximating the adiabatic lapse rate — as determined by the strength of gravity and the mixture of gases present. Convection will prevent the lapse rate from ever climbing appreciably above the adiabatic lapse rate. We could really just stop here.
*****************************************************
Discussing what happens for true thermodynamic equilibrium (no heat flow in; no heat flow out; no heat flow within) is really just of academic interest, since it has nothing to do with any real planet or moon.
Point (1).
“There is a global lapse rate from global mean measurements.”
These are NOT equilibrium conditions (there is heat flow within the system). Hence they do not inform us about what would happen at equilibrium.
Let me make the ‘different gas’ argument more clearly. Suppose you have two insulated columns 1 km tall filled with different gases. The bottoms of both columns are in a thermal bath at 300 K. Gas A has an adiabatic lapse rate of 10 K/km; Gas B has an adiabatic lapse rate of 6 K/km. If you claim that these are equilibrium conditions, then the top of column A is in equilibrium with the bottom of column A is in equilibrium with the bottom of column B is in equilibrium with the top of column B. But the tops are at 290 K and 294 K! I could connect a heat engine and extract energy from a system in thermal equilibrium — and this engine would run forever since the tops of the two columns would forever try to maintain their temperature differences!
Point (2).
This effect happens everywhere! Certainly molecules feel gravity. But you seem to have missed the point about self-selection idea. Imagine you have a layer of gas where the average kinetic energy of the molecules is 100 units. If some move around and arrive at a higher elevation where they have 1 unit more of potential energy, you might reasonably think the new average would be 99 units of KE, but it is not! This is because the molecules with 0-1 units of KE never get that high. The ones that DO get that high started with more than 100 units of KE (101 units as it turns out).
Svante says, March 31, 2018 at 9:47 AM:
Svante, there’s no flaw. You’re simply not getting the central point of my argument. Your attempted “counterargument” reveals this fact quite well.
Tim Folkerts says, April 1, 2018 at 12:56 AM:
*Sigh*
Yeah, sure, Tim. Please take a close look in the mirror before spouting such evasive nonsense.
And rather concentrate on backing up (with actual observations, not just your own theory) your claim that ‘c > b’.
You KNOW you have nothing, Tim.
Geoff,
There will be no steady-state negative tropospheric temperature gradient without heat flowing into, through and out of the troposphere. You can’t just have gravity and get a temperature gradient.
Kristian says:
“Youre simply not getting the central point of my argument”.
You said GHGs help shed radiation to space, because they convert other inputs such as convection.
You seemed to forget radiative inputs from higher layers.
The importance of CO2 is above convection and water vapor.
Where did I misunderstand?
Svante says, April 1, 2018 at 3:07 PM:
You didn’t *misunderstand*, Svante. You’re not GETTING the central point of my argument. And you’re still oblivious, it seems.
OK.
Hi Svante.
Im not caught in the surface budget fallacy. You are.
The input/output fluxes that are purely radiative have nothing to do with the surface but occur at altitude in a gravity field. The difference in gravitational potential energy from this altitude explains the higher surface temperature through the surface thermal response.
You are caught in a fallacy that 150W/m2 back radiation is equivalent to 150W/m2 of sunlight. Clue, one is available for work and power, it can be focused and condensed to provide extreme temperatures, it spontaneously produces chemical changes etc, the other is produced by calculation inside an instrument that cannot itself exploit this power.
Hi Tim,
First off, every planet and moon with an atmosphere has GHGs and has heat flowing up from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Thus every atmosphere will have a lapse rate approximating the adiabatic lapse rate as determined by the strength of gravity and the mixture of gases present. Convection will prevent the lapse rate from ever climbing appreciably above the adiabatic lapse rate. We could really just stop here.
The gradients present are independent of long wave opacity and independent of the short wave transmission to depth. Earth heated primarily from the bottom, Venus heated from the top. Uranus heated by a tiny little flux, but still with a strong adiabatic gradient running to the very stable (no internal heat production) 5000K core.
On Earth, most of the significant long wave opacity is within the first few km of atmosphere from the surface. This is largely due to precipitation of most of the water from the lower cloud level. Temperature and pressure broadening is greatest where temperature and pressure are highest, this again is in the near surface layer. However the gradient present runs straight through changes in optical properties being only affected by water phase change.
It doesnt approximate the adiabatic lapse rate Tim, it is the adiabatic lapse rate, just not the dry lapse you think of but one that is neither losing or gaining energy of significance. The atmosphere can redistribute energy vertically within timescales as the sum of diabatic heating and cooling is near zero compared with the total energy. Hence, most processes simply conserve and redistribute this energy with one storage mechanism being gravitational potential energy.
You have said,
These are NOT equilibrium conditions (there is heat flow within the system). Hence they do not inform us about what would happen at equilibrium.
Tim, when studying an object like the Sun, we can see that it is obviously very stable as a star. Things hardly change to the nth degree. We refer to this stability as thermodynamic equilibrium. We say that the Sun is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium because thermodynamic covers this condition of temperature, heat flow and resultant action and equilibrium describes the obvious stability. I too am not interested in classical isothermal equilibrium but real world gradients that cause spontaneous exchanges and the greatest producer of gradients in the known Universe is gravity. The force you think is impotent in affecting kinetic energy (temperature for a gas) here on Earth, but does this everywhere else known.
Let me make the different gas argument more clearly. Suppose you have two insulated columns 1 km tall filled with different gases. The bottoms of both columns are in a thermal bath at 300 K. Gas A has an adiabatic lapse rate of 10 K/km; Gas B has an adiabatic lapse rate of 6 K/km. If you claim that these are equilibrium conditions, then the top of column A is in equilibrium with the bottom of column A is in equilibrium with the bottom of column B is in equilibrium with the top of column B. But the tops are at 290 K and 294 K! I could connect a heat engine and extract energy from a system in thermal equilibrium and this engine would run forever since the tops of the two columns would forever try to maintain their temperature differences!
Dont worry about the above, just connect directly to the gradient that already exists vertically and attempt to drive a heat engine from these tiny little temperature gradients that already exist. More relevant, why dont you tap into the perpetual 330W/m2 downwelling radiation that is twice the power of sunlight averaged over the surface. Do something with what you believe to be real first Tim.
This effect happens everywhere! Certainly molecules feel gravity. But you seem to have missed the point about self-selection idea. Imagine you have a layer of gas where the average kinetic energy of the molecules is 100 units. If some move around and arrive at a higher elevation where they have 1 unit more of potential energy, you might reasonably think the new average would be 99 units of KE, but it is not! This is because the molecules with 0-1 units of KE never get that high. The ones that DO get that high started with more than 100 units of KE (101 units as it turns out).
Tim, all you have to do to produce cooling is reduce the energy of the fastest molecules. Thats it. Nothing else is required. This change is normalised through the distribution and the mean is reduced. Except every molecule is accelerated down, and local thermodynamic equilibrium has greater potential energy above and grater thermal energy below at all points because all of every motion occurs under an accelerating force.
Your arguments would make a lot more sense if measurements of real world atmospheres didnt support the fact that gravity does this.
Sorry Tim, that doesnt read well with the quotation marks eaten. Hopefully you will recognise your own statements!
Hi Kristian. I trust you are well.
Kristian, every single case of anything that ever exists in a gravity field is affected by gravity. You witness everyday that in order to gain gravitational potential you have to do work. It never, ever, ever comes for free.
You could simulate a single molecule moving in any pattern around an attractive point whose influence reduces as in inverse square of distance and see that energy is conserved irrespective of the orbit. The molecule always has the same total of kinetic and potential energy. Map out the kinetic energy as a function of distance and you have a kinetic energy gradient that opposes the potential field. Add another molecule and the relationship does not alter. Keep adding molecules until there are sufficient to cause regular collisions, all essentially perfectly elastic and conserving kinetic energy and momentum.
At which point does the kinetic energy gradient become zero?
Viewed another way, the collective motion of a large number of molecules has predictable behaviour. This collection of a large number of molecules moving together effectively maps out the gravitationally driven lapse dT/dh=-g/Cp. No one seems unhappy with that apparently, thats what air parcels do!.
Except the air parcel is just molecules in a gravity field transferring energy and momentum by collision exactly as above which mapped out the relevant gravitational lapse for small numbers of molecules.
So small numbers of molecules in low densities observe gravity. And high numbers of molecules observe gravity if they are moving, but they are made to move by collision of individual molecules and stopped by the same, having changed position such that vertically the pressure gradient across them (momentum exchange rate, by collision) exactly equalling the weight under gravity. And, strangely, with a parcel that moved then everyone agrees that the change in temperature will reflect the change in pressure and volume which just happens to be exactly the change in gravitational potential energy expressed through the isobaric specific heat capacity!
You believe that heat flow is required to produce the gradient that a purely mechanical model simple predicts. The gradient observed on Venus and Earth has very different surface short wave input. Mostly Venus is heated at the top but still the gradient is exactly the change in gravitational potential, just the same as Earth, reflecting that the gradient is independent of this heat flow. Measurements indicate that the gradient is independent of short wave total column transmission and independent of long wave opacity variations within the column.
Geoff Wood says:
“The input/output fluxes that are purely radiative have nothing to do with the surface but occur at altitude in a gravity field.”
It will shift the lapse rate curve, and anchor it at a higher surface temperature.
Like so:
https://tinyurl.com/y8tp8syx
“You are caught in a fallacy that 150W/m2 back radiation is equivalent to 150W/m2 of sunlight.”
Yes, if it is absorbed it will have the same effect on temperature.
(this thread is getting WAY too long!)
Geoff says: “Tim, when studying an object like the Sun, we can see that it is obviously very stable as a star. Things hardly change to the nth degree. We refer to this stability as thermodynamic equilibrium. ”
You might, but I don’t. Nor do other physicists. Check any thermo text you like. For example, from Wikipedia (since it is handy)
“In thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, either within a system or between systems. ”
The sun and the various planetary atmospheres have net flows of both energy and matter. By definition they are not in true thermodynamic equilibrium.
What you refer to is more properly called “steady-state”. (Unfortunately, many times such situations are slopplily called “equilibrium” in casual discussions.) What you say seem pretty accurate for “steady-state” systems.
Tim: “The temperature for (c) is higher than (b) basically because the emission height is greater. (The explanation is slightly different depending on whether or not there is an IR window.) The more GHGs there are, the higher the emission height making higher elevations cooler and making the surface warmer.”
kristian “Ah, but this is just what your THEORY is saying, Tim. I know all about that already.”
What you call THEORY is just the basic physics of IR passing through the atmosphere to space. This is what happens.
You still stand by your earlier statement that:
“No, Nate. Im saying the physics of the atmosphere is all CORRECT. Thats my whole point. But of course no one cares to take note.”
Svante, you have shown a 1D model that does not represent reality.
CO2 is bottomed out at the lowest atmospheric temperatures. Raising the altitude of the emitting wings raises the emission height which is a larger sphere, with greater radiative area, and greater available radiative solid angle to space. And if it raises the temperature below it becomes an even larger sphere because the atmosphere expands as it gains total energy. Plus a warmer troposphere holds more water which reduces the gradient to the surface. Plus you have achieved this effect by increasing the atmospheres ability to radiate Thus with increased emissivity it can radiate more at the same temperature whilst reducing the energy in the shortwave that reaches the surface.
You also say,
You are caught in a fallacy that 150W/m2 back radiation is equivalent to 150W/m2 of sunlight.
Yes, if it is absorbed it will have the same effect on temperature.
So show some experiment where long wave, calculated fluxes can be focused or condensed to provide work or power without providing an artificial thermal gradient and I will take your comment seriously. There is a fundamental difference between a flux that increases mean thermal energy by every photon absorbed and one that can only limit cooling, providing as you say,
If it is absorbed
Perhaps you have not listened to the statement that I keep making that the gradient that drives long wave fluxes is necessary to produce a flux initially, but the gradient is not modified by this flux, hence the long wave flux remains an environmental product. The flux is merely evidence that the matter exists at that temperature. It did not, nor does not, produce the gradient already set by gravity.
“So show some experiment where long wave, calculated fluxes can be focused or condensed to provide work or power without providing an artificial thermal gradient and I will take your comment seriously. ”
Thats just a result of the radiation being diffuse. So what. SW from a cloudy sky is the same. It still provides W/m2.
Hi Tim, irrespective of what wiki tells you, I trust my professor who taught me, and the logical fact that the Sun is in thermodynamic equilibrium. It is extremely capable of acting in a manner to regulate core energy production to maintain thermodynamic stability. If the core overproduces the increased core temperature and pressure causes a near instantaneous dynamic response to expand which automatically reduces core temperature and pressure which reduces fusion cross section. Reduction in core production leads to a near instantaneous dynamic response to collapse and increase core temperature and pressure to increase fusion cross section. The maintenance of this type of stability is extremely well maintained with no deep cycling, which is fantastic for such a large object. There is no other term for this automatic regulation of core temperature, heat production and resultant pressure other than thermodynamic equilibrium that is necessary for hydrostatic equilibrium. Without hydrostatic equilibrium the thermodynamic equilibrium that produces it would not make sense.
In the literal sense the dynamic in thermodynamic, which literally means action represents the type of equilibrium found in the Sun and all similar objects that respond dynamically to restore the obvious stability we observe over relevant time scales.
You may choose to follow some other meaning of the wording. This does not detract from the fact that the vast majority of objects in the a Universe exhibit very long periods of stability under supportive fluxes (equilibrium with) and will only potentially approach classical isothermal equilibrium upon heat death.
If that is all you have to add to what has been said?
“There is no other term for this automatic regulation of core temperature, heat production and resultant pressure other than thermodynamic equilibrium”
No Geoff. Equilibrium has specific requirements, like 0 heat flows, that are standard in science. Without consensus on what things mean, progress in science slows.
No, sorry, I retract that last line. As the Universe approaches heat death the outer envelopes of dying bodies will approach isothermal with the very cold background of space, but from the last black layer to the core the same gravitationally driven adiabatic gradient will maintain the irretrievably core thermal energy forever, just like it is impossible for the last quantum of energy to by radiated from a body close to zero K.
Geoff Wood says:
“Raising the altitude of the emitting wings raises the emission height which is a larger sphere, with greater radiative area”.
If the average emission altitude is 5 km, then the entire GHE increases the area by about 0.08% compared to the surface.
The enhanced GHE is a small fraction of that.
Hi Nate. You have said,
No Geoff. Equilibrium has specific requirements, like 0 heat flows, that are standard in science. Without consensus on what things mean, progress in science slows.
Nate, most conditions that approach equilibrium in the real world are due to balancing of heat flows, which is definitely not zero heat flows, as you have suggested. Perhaps you mean net flux, but you have not clearly defined this so I will respond to your literal statement.
If I switch on an electric fire in my house rated at 2kW the building will start to warm until my house loses 2kW to the environment. If I monitor the temperature in the building during this process the temperature will rise until the input heat flux is balanced by the output flux rise which is heat loss through the insulation of the building. When the heat lost equals the additional heat added then a new equilibrium temperature will be achieved. The temperature inside the building at equilibrium is unlikely to be the same as the temperature outside. This equilibrium temperature is the result of the balance of two separate and uniquely identifiable heat flows which are equal in units of energy at equilibrium.
The same is true of the Earth, or any other planet with or without appreciable heat production, the equilibrium temperature is the result of the balance of heat transfer fluxes, not the result of none.
The Sun loses thermal energy and some of these traceable losses heat the Earth, whose temperature rises until it emits in the long wave the equivalent of the shortwave thermalised. Two clearly identifiable fluxes that are heat transferred from the Sun to Earth and heat transferred from the Earth to space that define through a relevant emissivity an equilibrium temperature for the Earth as it responds to the flux balancing necessity that drives a body to equilibrium.
Jupiter and Saturn are not in equilibrium with the solar flux as they emit more energy than they receive. Hence they slowly cool and will continue to do so until heat fluxes balance. They are in close equilibrium with the total of fluxes which includes internal heat production. Once heat fluxes balance then no heat will be lost or gained and the temperature that answers to space will be as constant as the solar flux thermalised.
The issue here is that you and many others have some mythical obsession with equilibrium meaning no temperature difference, which is meaningless given that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium at 288K with a star at 5880K, and is clearly not what we observe in the vertical thermal profiles of gravitational condensates, which conserve potential temperature not actual temperature as a function of height.
Take Uranus as an example. This planet resides at 19.2AU where it receives a mere 2W/m2 due to an albedo of 0.5. It has no significant internal heat production, or input fluxes to drive turbulent mixing to depth. It has long been known to be in equilibrium with the supportive solar flux thermalised hence no additional heat production mechanisms are required to describe its thermal state. Uranus essentially emits the same in the long wave as the short wave thermalised with a supportive flux of 2W/m2. Internally an adiabatic gradient runs through to the core which is ~5000K calculable from the requirement for hydrostatic equilibrium given the objects known volume, gravitational mass and deduced density. The effective mean radiative surface temperature is only around 56K and the planet demonstrates near zero conductivity of heat by any heat transfer mechanism from the core to the surface. The core cannot cool without a surface flux imbalance and so, as shown by observation, the high temperature core has no influence upon surface radiative temperature because of the gravitationally driven thermal containment gradient.
Geoff
You still don’t get what the term “thermal equilibrium” means. When two objects/systems are exchanging energy, and both are the same temperature, and there is zero heat flow between them (defining heat as net exchange of energy), they are said to be in thermal equilibrium.
There is also the term “internal thermal equilibrium” where an object/system is at a constant temperature…… and is not receiving or emitting heat with it’s surroundings. Like Nate said – zero heat flow.
What you describe is different. For example, there IS a flow of heat from the sun to the earth. There IS a flow of heat from earth to space, so even if the two flows are in equilibrium, and the earth has a steady temperature, this is still not an internal thermal equilibrium, as defined above.
(The earth would also need to have a steady, uniform temperature throughout, rather than a steady average temperature.)
I realize this is just nitpicking definitions……sorry to sound so serious. Honestly, I just like to argue.
Geoff says: “As the Universe approaches heat death the outer envelopes of dying bodies will approach isothermal with the very cold background of space, but from the last black layer to the core the same gravitationally driven adiabatic gradient will maintain the irretrievably core thermal energy forever”
If the prof who taught you thermo is still alive, I would encourage you to call him/her and present this idea. I suspect you will not be so happy with the reply. (Or run it by any prof at your nearest university).
Tim, I have already brought to attention Uranus. The core temperature is 5000K. It is free to transfer heat down the thermal gradient to the surface which is in essentially stable flux balance with the tiny absorbed solar flux of just a couple of W/m2. The surface that answers to space is already so cold that the object emits next to nothing now. That is from established measurements.Remove the Sun and the surface would cool and emit even less making it very, very difficult for the vast amount of thermal energy to be radiated to space. The approach of the surface to the 4K temperature of space would take stellar evolution time scales and would not alter the fact that already, the core, with all available heat transfer mechanisms available, does not heat the surface above the temperature of flux balancing equilibrium with the supportive solar flux. This stable condition illustrates that the core is in long term equilibrium at 5000K with its surface at 56K, (which is in flux balancing stability) in the containment gravity field. No sign of an isothermal column developing.
Geoff says: “Tim, I have already brought to attention Uranus. … with all available heat transfer mechanisms available, does not heat the surface above the temperature of flux balancing equilibrium with the supportive solar flux. ”
Uranus has about 20,000 km of insulation between the 5000K core and the ~ 100 K surface. Try calculating how much heat flow there will be with a gradient of way less than 1 K/km. It will be minimal (for conduction, convection AND radiation). In other words, a very small heat flow and an interior that stays warm for billions of years is consistent with everything I have said. Uranus does not provide clear support for one model over the other!
Geoff
Heat flows from warm to cold. If the interior of a planet is hotter than the exterior, their will be a flow of heat, however small or slow, until both are the same temperature. I think that’s what Kristian is saying here.
I hope you realize gravity can’t CREATE the heat that is lost?
Ooops……Tim Folkerts, not Kristian.
Geoff,
When I read a paper that says the measurement was done in thermodynamic equilibrium, that has a specific meaning. That meaning does not apply to examples youve given such as “given that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium at 288K with a star at 5880K”.
There needs to be universal definitions in science, so that a experiment “in thermodynamic equilibrium” can be replicated by any other reputable scientist on Earth.
As I said, otherwise there is much confusion, and progress is impeded.
Your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium is not correct. Just look it up in any thermo text or online lecture notes.
You can define things how you want for just yourself, but not if you want to communicate your ideas to scientifically literate people and have it be both understood and convincing.
Tim, interestingly you are asking me to attempt to calculate heat transfer flux in a gradient that is predictable and stable and does not conduct because of the presence of the gravitational field. The gradient has evolved over a significantly long time scale whereby the objects thermal structure is supported by optical surface flux balancing.
Again, interestingly, you have proposed a gradient in speaking of Uranus of way less than 1K/km. This is predictable from the surface gravity being 8.69m/s2 and the 85% hydrogen (by vol) upper troposphere. Hence the initial gradient as we descend from 56K would be a rise in temperature of around 8.69/12 (g/Cp) or 0.72K/km due largely to the very large heat capacity of H2 at Cp=14.32kJ/kgK and He at Cp=5.19kJ/kgK mixed at 73:26 by mass. This initial gradient weakens with descent due to gravity reducing to zero between the surface and core, so we can reduce 0.72 to 0.36K/km due to the fact that g reduces from 8.69 to zero at the core. The gradient is further reduced by chemical phase changes, gradual increase in the value of Cp as more vibrational modes become accessible to the rising thermal energy distribution and greater energy stored in the PΔV term as the matter becomes significantly compressed from its surface density. The heat capacity of hexaferrum in Earths core is twice that of surface iron due to 50% of the energy being stored in the volume change of the compressed state.
The issue is that there is no conduction of heat down the gradient to calculate because it is stable, and there is no negative flux excess to address.
The gradient found here after billions of years of coming into flux balancing equilibrium with the supportive external flux would not be so low without the abundance of hydrogen and helium.
Again you are neglecting that Earths tropospheric thermal gradient, Venus tropospheric thermal gradient, Titans tropospheric thermal gradient, Uranus as discussed and the other gas giants all exhibit the same gravitationally driven form, which is easily obtained if we know the gravity and the specific heat capacity of the gaseous mixture. This is despite having high or low long wave opacities and varying degrees of short wave penetration and with or without primordial excess or internal heat production. The gradients inside rocky plants can also be described first order by gravitational means as a consequence of containment despite variations in internal heat production and massively varying volume to surface area (production/loss) ratios.
Hi Snape,
You have said,
Heat flows from warm to cold. If the interior of a planet is hotter than the exterior, their will be a flow of heat, however small or slow, until both are the same temperature. I think thats what Kristian is saying here.
I hope you realize gravity cant CREATE the heat that is lost?
Heat flows from warm to cold
This is not generally true in a gravity field because all of matter and energy lose something in gaining gravitational potential energy. Even photons lose a tiny amount of energy in travelling vertically in Earths gravity and hence do not support totally the equivalence of similar vertically displaced absolute temperatures. I can only draw your attention to the facts of measured atmospheres, that the calculated long wave fluxes do not alter the gradient at all from a purely mechanical non radiative lapse rate. Hence the observed vertical long wave fluxes are rendered environmental products.
Landau and Lifshitz 1969, warned that the Second Law should be regarded as inapplicable to problems involving gravitation.
The above is supported by measurements of real gravitationally bound gaseous envelopes. There is no evidence of heat transfer by any mechanism other than maintenance of the observed mean lapse rate, set by gravity because of the long term persistence of the containment field.
You have also said,
I hope you realize gravity cant CREATE the heat that is lost
Snape, you seem to have missed the point and become lost in unrealistic dreams set by special cases of idealised thermodynamics.
Most of the observable Universe is observable because of a process whereby gravity creates heat from potential energy and then creates even more heat as energy is lost. This is extended in time by the availability of nuclear energy from chemical potentials. As soon as hydrogen is used up, the surface losses result in higher core temperatures until the helium starts to fuse. Losses of total system energy result directly in higher internal energy.
Start with a cold diffuse cloud of interstellar hydrogen. It has, for the sake of argument, no heat content. If sufficient mass is available the cloud will collapse and gravity produces thermal energy from none by accelerating the matter. The virial theorem describes the process whereby 50% of the gravitational potential energy is radiated away and 50% is retained as internal thermal energy as the object collapses.
As total energy is reduced by radiative losses thermal energy increases.
Hence we have the well known and well documented fact that gravitationally bound bodies exhibit negative heat capacity. This is specifically that energy radiated to space in an isolated system results in collapse which releases further gravitational potential energy into the thermal states and hence the system becomes hotter as it loses total energy.
Application of standard, classical thermodynamic principles leads to the gravity-thermal catastrophe whereby radiative losses heat the object so it radiates faster and collapses faster and faster. This obviously does not happen because observation tells us that most celestial bodies are inherently stable and the crux is that the the stable heat transfer gradient, or lapse rate moves with the object and dominates the evolution by making sure that the energy released from gravitational potential is stabilised. The smaller, hotter object has a higher stability gradient as dT/dh =-g/Cp and gravity increases as the object becomes more dense after losing total energy. The steeper envelope stability gradient stops the radiative outer layer being as hot, or anywhere near as hot as the interior and radiates far less than an isothermal atmosphere would. This process maximises entropy production by ensuring that the object radiates at the lowest possible temperature within physical constraints.
Hence, the argument that if we switch off the Sun, Uranus would start to lose energy to space by radiation at 0.5W/m2 from its entire surface area. The result of this lost energy from its total energy would be a slow collapse whereby gravitational potential energy would be transferred into the thermal states of the entire body. As the object becomes smaller its gravity increases, and the core is adiabatically heated by this compression. Hence the core temperature rises as the surface cools to space. This is stabilised by an increase in the stability gradient which ensures hydrostatic stability monitored and maintained at the local sound speed.
The surface losses reduce the internal heat production as they slowly approach equilibrium with the background of space and eventually cap losses and internal heat production from subsequent collapse and further release of gravitational potential energy into the hot interior.
Sorry, I missed your comment earlier about free expansion. Free expansion, where you release a body of gas into a vacuum is isothermal. The gas as a whole retains its kinetic energy distribution as it expands against nothing. This is exactly what I said earlier. I never said the gas cooled as the pressure drops. ΔT=0 at all times in the expansion as the pressure drops. I know you have said that you like to argue, but please dont add things to my comments that I havent said 🙂
Hi Nate, thanks for the comments. I will try to be more careful about specific terms if even after I have given you specific examples you are unable to understand.
I am comforted by the fact that when you first complained to me about this, you used a general term and added specific conditions to this form,
You said,
No Geoff. Equilibrium has specific requirements, like 0 heat flows, that are standard in science.
Perhaps you meant thermal equilibrium, or thermodynamic equilibrium? Dunno. You were not specific about the type of equilibrium.
Anyway. Moving on. I am comforted by the fact that you havent brought any real conjecture to the bulk of what has been said, other than hinting at that because of literal meaning of certain words you cant understand what I am saying.
It appears from the data that temperature as we know it generally, is not uniform at maximum entropy in a gravity field. The isothermal column is predicted by consensus for a non radiative atmosphere. However, the isothermal atmosphere is not a maximum entropy profile in a gravity field. This honour is held by a reversible adiabatic profile which is both equal and maximum entropy. Equal in that all changes that occur by random/spontaneous process uphold this state of equilibrium. You could possibly bleat about my use of the word equilibrium here, but as a state of maximum entropy it cannot evolve further by spontaneous process.
The isentropic profile preserves potential temperature, not absolute temperature as a function of altitude. This gradient is predicted by a mechanical model of particles moving in a containment field as a kinetic energy gradient opposes the potential energy gradient and the containment force clearly redistributes the particulate kinetic energies perpetually, particularly as the model is mechanical with no radiation possible.
This model replicates the observed gradients of tropospheres extremely well, without having to accept multiple competing processes, which by happenstance provide a really complicated method to replicate this inherent simplicity.
Roy….”You dont need a heat energy source to raise temperature. All you have to do is reduce the rate of energy loss”.
Agreed, but you can’t reduce dissipation via trace gases like GHGs acting as a blanket. The equation governing heat dissipation is Stefan-Boltzmann, namely:
P = ebA(T^4 – To^4) that’s T^4 minus T^4 for WordPress filters.
P = radiation, e = emissivity, b = S-B constant, A = surface area, T = surface temp and To = atmospheric temp next to surface.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
It’s apparent from S-B that heat dissipation is reliant mainly on the difference in temperatures between the surface and the atmosphere in contact with it.
Even at that, surface radiation should play a minor role according to R. W. Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR radiation. He felt the bulk of heat transferred from surface to atmosphere was due to conduction and subsequent convection of surface heat. He felt that once absorbed by the predominantly nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere content (99%) the heat would be retained for some time due to the poor radiating ability of N2/O2 at terrestrial temperatures.
That offers an alternative explanation for GHE warming. It also better explains the moderate warming in UAH temperature series.
If he was right, the radiation from the surface is minimal due to S-B and most heat is transferred via convection, a la Lindzen, and radiated from TOA.
There is no raising of the temperature to begin with. The Sun heats half the Earth to ~303 K avg. (using same S-B calc as the 255 K, but with 1/2 insolation v 1/4), every day, and it cools from there.
BWD, If you actually do the math, the phrase “it cools from there” will tell you that the average temperature will be COLDER than 255 K in any scenario you can invent.
Basically, if you have time for 1/2 to warm up close to 303K, you have time for the other half to cool down near 3K.
Think of it like a feedback-biased transistor. The quiescent output is affected by the feedback circuit.
I think that the two positions might be reconciled in another way.
Roy Spencer is saying that much evidence suggests that the sensitivity of the real climate is much lower than the GCM’s calculate.
One objection to his conclusion is that, if the sensitivity is as low as he says it is, how can he explain the observed temperature of 288K in 1850? Without any GHG’s at all (not just the non-condensing ones, but water vapor too) basic physics says it should be 255K. How do you partition the gap if sensitivity to non-condensing GHG’s is as low as Roy says it is?
Lord Monckton can be seen as saying that that particular objection to the conclusion of a low sensitivity is invalid because it assumes that the gap between 288K and 255K must be explained solely by the effects of non-condensing GHG’s and the feedback to them.
In reality, he is saying, the gap between 288K and 255K also includes a response of water to the 255K. Hence, the sensitivity to the non-condensing GHG’s is indeed lower, as Roy argues from the evidence that he has looked at.
You cannot refer to the pre-industrial situation to say Roy must be wrong.
The usual way it is phrased is that without an atmosphere you get the 255K number. That is based however on the albedo with clouds, a strange assumption given the lack of atmosphere. If instead the surface albedo of 0.123 to 0.13 globally and annually averaged (Roesch) is used you get a temperature of over 269K, about 4K below freezing. Of course this albedo includes the ice caps and seasonal snow cover. Now the suns energy,just like the albedo would not be uniformly distributed, so add an atmosphere and at the equator we should get open water with an albedo closer to 0.08 and water vapor. We might get a greenhouse warm atmosphere even without CO2 and CH4. We might even escape snowball earth without CO2 if the snowball is dirty enough.
Martin Lewitt says:
March 23, 2018 at 6:14 PM
The usual way it is phrased is that without an atmosphere you get the 255K number. That is based however on the albedo with clouds, a strange assumption given the lack of atmosphere.
*
This is wrong, Martin Lewitt.
The effective temperature of 255 K is valid for a planet with either no atmosphere, or with an atmosphere that doesnt absorb electromagnetic radiation to any significant degree, and with an emissivity factor assumed to be 1.
(The emissivity e.g. of the oceans is around 0.92).
The emissivity of oceans is about 0.94, which can be determined with the help of Fresnell equations. But total surface emissivity is 0.92 on average.
The 255K however are not valid, as clouds have a “GHE”. It is like basing a theory on Schrdingers cat, where clouds both do exist and not exist at the same time. You need the albedo effect of clouds to get to 255K, but you must not have their “GHE” (which is the wrong terminology btw.). And that just will not work, not even in theory.
Leitwolf says:
March 29, 2018 at 7:00 PM
The 255K however are not valid, as clouds have a ‘GHE’.
What’s that?
If you have clouds, you have water vapor creating them.
Again: the 255 K refer to a planet with either no atmosphere, or with an atmosphere that doesnt absorb electromagnetic radiation to any significant degree, and with an emissivity factor assumed to be 1.
What I am saying is, that you can not divide the two sides (upper and bottom) of clouds. That will not make sense, not even in theory. Either you have both sides, or none.
The “trick” if you will is to say that
a) clouds would be part of the surface
b) they would also be a GHG!? and
c) that the both of which had nothing to with each other.
I am afraid, clouds do reflect LWIR, just as they reflect solar light. Otherwise they could not do what they do. They reflect radiation both ways which largely evens out. And that is the problem you need to trick around to argue a GHE.
Leitwolf says:
March 30, 2018 at 8:27 PM
What I am saying is, that you can not divide the two sides (upper and bottom) of clouds. That will not make sense, not even in theory. Either you have both sides, or none.
*
Nobody does what you are telling about, maybe some alarming pseudoscientists excepted.
*
And that is the problem you need to trick around to argue a GHE.
*
Typical nonsense written by a person lacking experience about DWLWIR measurements during clear sky periods.
*
Unter einem ‘Leitwolf’ verstehe ich aber wirklich etwas ganz Anderes als Sie.
At earth’s distance from the sun, assuming no albedo, an objects temperature would reach 393K at equilibrium. NASA
The atmosphere, through reflection (albedo)and its giant HVAC process of evaporation COOLS the planet.
At .08 albedo for water (as noted above) near the equator, we can see why tropical bodies like the gulf can reach 360K. CO2 “forcing”, I.e. LWIR is fully absorbed in the first few microns. Anyone who has ducked their head under water in the gulf in July, knows the temperature is warm to a significant depth and CO2 did not warm it.
How science has embraced the idea that our atmosphere warms the planet will be an interesting retrospective study akin to phrenology and Theloniuos Painter’s 24th chromosome.
Typo correction “Gulf can reach 310K”
“Anyone who has ducked their head under water in the gulf in July, knows the temperature is warm to a significant depth and CO2 did not warm it.”
Have done that. It didnt tell me anything about CO2.
“LWIR is fully absorbed in the first few microns.”
And as a result this energy just goes away? Doesnt count? First law my friend. The energy went somewhere.
As usual Nate, you do not understand. FTOP is referring to the fact that LWIR is not able to warm much below the surface. In fact, a 14.7 micron photon from CO2 would be unable to warm 75 F water anyway.
Uggh,
Ive tried the experiment, heating water with an IR ceramic lamp from above. It works quite well.
The surface and bulk are thermally linked.
“a 14.7 micron photon from CO2 would be unable to warm 75 F water anyway”
The evidence for this is what?
My microwave only penetrates 1 cm in water. How is it my whole cup of coffee gets hot?
Cmon people!
Nate competes for top clown:
Clown Nate: “I’ve tried the experiment, heating water with an IR ceramic lamp from above. It works quite well.”
Nate, what was the temperature of the ceramic lamp? That means, if you put your hand too close you will suffer severe burns. If you put your hand close to an ice cube, it will not burn you. But, more humor, please.
Clown Nate continues: “a 14.7 micron photon from CO2 would be unable to warm 75 F water anyway”. The evidence for this is what?
Nate, try warming your cup of coffee with an ice cube. An ice cube emits photons with more energy than CO2.
Clown Nate continues: My microwave only penetrates 1 cm in water. How is it my whole cup of coffee gets hot?
Nate, you might enjoy learning about heat transfer in liquids.
2018 is turning out to be a GREAT year in climate-comedy.
“Clown Nate continues: a 14.7 micron photon from CO2 would be unable to warm 75 F water anyway. The evidence for this is what?
Nate, try warming your cup of coffee with an ice cube. An ice cube emits photons with more energy than CO2.”
You are learning the straw man dance from MF, the strawman specialist.
A 14.7 micron photon has the same energy, whether it comes from an ice cube, CO2 in the atmosphere, or my warm (300C) ceramic heater.
When it hits the 75 F water, it will be (95% chance) absorbed, and impart its energy to the water, no matter what its source.
“Nate, you might enjoy learning about heat transfer in liquids.”
You guys are the ones who need to learn heat transfer in liquids with your ‘LWIR only absorbed at the surface will not heat the water’ argument.
Nate reveals his confusion: “When it [14.7 µ photon] hits the 75 F water, it will be (95% chance) absorbed, and impart its energy to the water, no matter what its source.”
Sorry Nate. That’s funny, but inaccurate.
There is NOT a 95% chance such a long wavelength will be absorbed by 75 F water. But, even if it were, it would not raise the temperature of the water.
To understand, think of the photon as corresponding to a temperature. And, realize that temperatures do NOT add. For example, if you have a bowl of water at 75F, and you add more water that is 55F, the combined water does not rise in temperature to 130F.
I now return you to your hilarious pseudoscience.
‘To understand, think of the photon as corresponding to a temperature.’
No. Just no. A photon is a photon. It has well defined energy. Has nothing to do with temperature.
“There is NOT a 95% chance such a long wavelength will be absorbed by 75 F water.”
No G*. The temperature of the water is irrelevant. Only the its emmissivity matters. Water is close to being a black body at 15 microns.
Why do you feel that you can just make up your own facts? How bout actually looking things up before making false statements?
“even if it were, it would not raise the temperature of the water”
The photon adds energy to the water. That means it cools slower than otherwise at night.
The temperature is higher than it would be without the added energy of photons such as this one.
Nate believes: “A photon is a photon. It has well defined energy. Has nothing to do with temperature.”
Sorry Nate, but an emitted photon gets both its energy and wavelength established by temperature.
But, your pretending to know something about photons is hilarious.
More, please.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“an emitted photon gets both its energy and wavelength established by temperature”.
No, temperature gives you a spectrum.
Where on that spectrum is your photon?
Hilarious!
G: ‘And, realize that temperatures do NOT add. For example, if you have a bowl of water at 75F, and you add more water that is 55F, the combined water does not rise in temperature to 130F.”
Arguing by an analogy with poor match to the situation is a clue that you are unable to understand the actual science.
Photons add energy to the water when absor*bed, WITHOUT adding new water. So they can add to temperature.
And you still seem very confused about photons, they have well-wavelength and energy, that has nothing to do with source temperature. What a 14.7 micron photon does when it hits water has nothing to do with the temp of the water or source.
The numbers of 14.7 micron photons will depend on source temperature. The spectrum of wavelengths will depend on source temperature. But since liquid water is close to being a BB, most of the IR spectrum will be abs*orbed, whatever the source temperature.
If you want to argue these points, try this time with real physics.
(I just found this, searching for something else. I had missed the responses by Nut. His response was hilariously nutty!)
nutty Nut: “And you still seem very confused about photons, they have well-wavelength and energy, that has nothing to do with source temperature.”
Nut, energy level, or molecular vibration, is determined by temperature. the energy of the photon is then established by the emission frequency.
g*e*r*a*n,
Do you get a single frequency for a specific temperature, or do you get a spectrum?
I understand and agree with Roy’s point, but I can also understand Monkton’s point. I think part of the difficulty lies in the way Monkton expresses the concept.
Roy is correct, and Monkton agrees, that the climate models do not directly use forcing values.
It seems to me that what Monktons team has done is create an electronic black box to validate a concept that is equivalent to the effective forcing values created by the various climate models. I agree with the fundamental conclusion and conceptual idea.
Im not so sure that the climate modelers have made a fundamental physics mistake I think it is more likely that the accumulation of factors, formulas, and equations they use create an effective forcing that is incorrect. The fact that it aligns with the fundamental physics mistake is interesting.
I plan on reading both analyses a few more times.
I appreciate the efforts of both individuals to try to sort through the issue cordially.
It is obvious that any excessive temperature rise induces a feedback reaction. Proofs are changes in ENSO.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inino5_1996:2002.png
Currently.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inino5_2014:2018.png
La Nina is reborn.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Dr. Spencer has nicely identified Lord Moncktons misapprehension. Lord Monckton has not provided a scintilla of evidence that climatology assumes there’s be no response to the 255 K emission temperature that would prevail at the surface in the absence of greenhouse gases. He has provided no evidence, for example, that the climate models assume that in the absence of non-condensable greenhouse gases thered be no cloud or water-vapor response to surface temperature.
Whether you call those responses feedback or not is irrelevant. If non-condensable greenhouse gases are then added, and thereby raise the surface temperature, those responses to surface temperaturewhich maybe you didnt call feedback before but now you doact on that temperature just as they did before the addition of non-condensable greenhouse gases. Lord Monckton has given us no reason to believe that the climate models, poor as they are, fail to reflect this. He has given us no reason to suppose that the climate models turn on those responses “as if by magic” only for the addition of non-condensable greenhouse gases.
The electric circuit is a red herring. Its an analog computer whose output is only as good as its programming. If the equations you program it with define the problem to everyones satisfaction, then those equations solution is adequate, independently of whether you use an analog computer to solve them or a digital one.
That said, I agree with Lord Monckton that not much turns on whether the models explicitly include feedback terms in their equations. They implement feedback and so at least their equilibrium conditions can be characterized by the feedback equation.
The models don’t implement feedback any more than you would if you were writing a little model that describes how warm a pot of water will get on the stove. If you pump energy into the pot at a constant rate, then conduction and radiation of heat to the cooler surroundings, evaporation, etc., will all combine to limit the water temperature to a certain equilibrium value after some time.
Now, when you wrote those equations predicting how warm the water would get, did you “implement feedback”? It’s the same with climate models.
Dr. Spencer:
It may seem strange to a climate-science type, but, yes, I’d say that the equations would implement feedback. If an output (such as temperature) responsive to an input (such as net heat flow) itself affects that input, then I call that feedback.
Now, nothing turns on whether you or I call an effect feedback; what’s important is that it happens. And it’s probably true that in the insular world of climate science most folks tend not to look at it the way I do.
But I was discussing feedback with experts in the field while you were still a schoolboy. And I can guarantee you that many of them would find my analysis quite natural (if they were still alive, anyway). Since the equation is still y = (x + fy)g (for linear equilibrium), where x is input, y is output, g is open-loop gain, and f is feedback, it’s a feedback system.
Your call, but you may want to entertain the possibility that there’s more than one valid way of characterizing the same thing. Being able to move among the different ways characterizing feedback may be helpful in speaking with varied audiences.
Hi Joe,
Well it’s interesting that you state that so clearly. However, it seems to be direct contradiction with your “g is open-loop gain”.
Here you are referring to the Planck feedback , not as a f/b , but as open-loop gain. Because at least some parts of GCMs are based on basic physics, it has been found that this gain is not constant but somewhat convex, ie it curves down slightly as temperatures rise due to the non-linearity. That much is encouraging.
After that, all the ad hoc parameter tweaking is a total fudge factory, which as Roy states, is just to get the results they think they should get. All the super computer mumbo-jumbo is a red scarf trick to gain unwarranted credibility in the process.
It may also be helpful in looking at a problem from different perspectives to highlight any contradictions or misconceptions.
There may be a nomenclature problem here. (Everyone thinks he knows the correct nomenclature, but in fact what we think is correct is just the nomenclature we heard first.)
Here’s the nomenclature I use. In the simplified equation y =(x+fy)g, f is the feedback coefficient, g is the open-loop gain, and g/(1-fg) is the closed-loop gain. As I say, though, I haven’t seen uniform nomenclature agreement.
Anyway, I take it by “Planck” feedback you mean a hot bodys radiation. That would be fy (where f is negative). Of course, the simplified equation doesnt capture everything, because that feedback is highly nonlinear. It might be better to express things as y = g(x+f(y)), where g and f are functions. But Ive never seen the equation expressed that way, and this forum is hardly the place to launch into complications.
Even for a linear system, things are usually more complicated; the equation is often given in terms of Laplace transforms. That’s what happened in my second drawing. I made g equal 1/Cs, where C is heat capacity and s is complex frequency. In other words there’s no equilibrium value for open-loop gain, because the open-loop system can’t reach equilibrium.
Anyway, this has already gone too far into the weeds for this site. I just wanted to make sure we had been clear about nomenclature.
I’m not saying using feedback is an invalid way to talk about climate system response to a forcing. I’m saying you cannot estimate climate sensitivity with the information Christopher is using as inputs.
You misunderstand my point, apparently. I’ve published simple models of the climate system using the feedback paradigm, so I’m not faulting it.
What I’m saying is that you cannot deduce the sensitivity of the climate system using the inputs Christopher is using. If you KNEW the climate sensitivity then you could express it in feedback terms. But you can’t go in the other direction.
Fair enough.
As I mentioned above, Christopher can be interpreted as using climate sensitivity in the way you suggest in order to rescue your prior analysis from a criticism that could otherwise be levied against it.
You have argued that various sorts of data on recent climate history imply that the climate sensitivity is low. An objection to that conclusion is that a sensitivity as low as you claim it is cannot account for the pre-industrial average temperature if the system is presumed to be in equilibrium that time. Specifically, a low sensitivity to the non-condensing GHG’s present at that time cannot account for all the difference between an average temperature of 288K and an average temperature without GHG’s of 255K.
Christopher can be interpreted as saying that this ignores the fact that condensing GHG’s multiply not only the indirect 8K of heating from non-condensing GHG’s but also the 255K of “forcing” from the sun.
His arithmetic thus shows how the low sensitivity that you have deduced on other empirical grounds can also account for the difference between 288K and 255K so long as the pre-industrial climate is also interpreted correctly as involving feedbacks to temperature regardless of the source — including the sun’s effect in producing the “base level” 255K.
Despite his claims to the contrary, I do not think he is PROVING the sensitivity has to be as low as he (and you) say it is. Rather he is proving that a low sensitivity is not inconsistent with the pre-industrial facts — an argument that the low sensitivity that you have deduced on other grounds would otherwise have to confront.
Peter, how can you say “An objection to that conclusion is that a sensitivity as low as you claim it is cannot account for the pre-industrial average temperature if the system is presumed to be in equilibrium that time.”? That’s EXACTLY the assumption that I and others (Otto et al, 2013; Lewis & Curry, 2015) have made in getting low climate sensitivity… that the system was in balance in the mid-1800s! So I am totally mystified how you (and Christopher?) could make such a statement.
-Roy
“Thats EXACTLY the assumption that I and others (Otto et al, 2013; Lewis & Curry, 2015) have made in getting low climate sensitivity that the system was in balance in the mid-1800’s.”
Yes — the low sensitivity explains the temperature RISE since 1850 in response to the ADDITIONAL 400-270=130 ppm of CO2 (plus other non-condensing GHG’s– but to keep the discussion less convoluted just talk about CO2) assuming that the system was in equilibrium in 1850. The issue Christopher is drawing attention to is: Can the 270 ppm of CO2 in 1850 account for the difference between the measured temperature then of 288K and the theoretical temperature in an imaginary world with no GHG’s at all but albedo otherwise identical to the actual albedo in 1850? His arithmetic says it cannot if:
(1) The temperature response to ∆CO2=270 ppm (with a direct temperature impact of 8K) is as low as you say it has been to the added CO2 from 1850 to now; and
(2) All of the gap between 288K and the “theoretical world” temperature of 255K has to be explained only by the effect of non-condensing GHG’s and amplification of their forcing.
He shows that the sensitivity you have calculated for the extra 130 ppm of CO2 from 1850 to now can ALSO account for the 288-255=33K “theoretical gap” in 1850, however, if one allows for the feedback effects that apply to the first 270 ppm (and the next 130 ppm) of CO2 to also apply to all sources of energy that yield the initial 255K in the absence of GHG’s.
The physical evidence does not support amplification.
The climate system’s response to a very large step change is a year without summer rather than a couple of decades without summer.
The physical response of the climate to a step change is negative feedback. I.e. The planet resists warming or cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death)[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]
P.S. The assumed 1.2C rise for a doubling of CO2 ignores the fact that temperature does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels in the paleo record. Obviously there is something fundamentally incorrect with assumptions concerning the 1.2C rise.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf
The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.
Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between CO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative.
Marginal radiative forcing (DRFCO2), the change in forcing at the top of the troposphere associated with a unit increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, was computed using MODTRAN.
The correlation between DRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in DRFCO2….
…This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
Earth also reacts in a natural way to changes in TSI.
A)Monckton has tried to use feedback models coupled with observed trends to prove low sensitivity before, particularly in a paper they were trying to write/submit a year ago. This may be an extension of that work, but I cannot really follow it anymore.
This is a copy of what i stated to him in several emails of dialog back then:
1)”…Basically you are using a linear small signal (perturbation) feedback equation which is defined around a large signal quiescent point, and is only valid for small signals. However you are using large signal inputs! The equation does not hold for large signals!, only for small signals around the large signal quiescent point. The climate “equations” are very complex and nonlinear, but can be simplified and linearized only in the small signal sense, fortunately.
You are inadvertently assuming and extending the linearity and validity of the feedback equation far beyond reality, by using large signal absolute temperature values. I believe the Orthodox “feedback” formulation is correct for
small signals , and that your criticism, and formulations are wrong…with respect.
2)…Also consider this: What makes the Kelvin scale so special in this case? Why not use the Celsius scale which is also an “exact” temperature, ie not an anomaly? Your results would then be different again. A solution which fundamentally varies with the choice of temperature units is rarely correct. [I realize that absolute kelvin has a special physical importance[[in non linear large signal radiation equations]], but not in regard to this
formulation.]
3)…but I still think the use of kelvin, or any other absolute temperature scale is purely arbitrary,
producing variable results, which is unacceptable, and incorrect. Only small signal deltaT is appropriate.
But, thank you very much for your interest in my opinions and Good Luck!” [end of communique]
B)Further, long term temperature trends over the past century(s)are probably “contaminated” with natural decennial scale trend components that are not accounted in the models, or solely by CO2 warming. This is the problem with ANY attempts to determine sensitivity using decennial scale(or larger) trends, by Monckton or others. In particular,the sensitivity results of Otto and Curry and Lewis will be too low if there has been an unaccounted natural cooling COMPONENT during the last half of the 20th century. Dr Spencer has noted recently the effect of such a warming component on determinations of sensitivity (and indicating that sensitivity is lower than commonly perceived), but does not seem to acknowledge the possibility of a cooling trend instead (which is what I tend to believe–for reasons not addressed here).
I think that a global temperature is imaginary , you can imagine that this temperature exists and calculate what it might be but an imaginary temperature does not determine how much radiation the Earth emits to space, it cannot be a cause. The real temperatures on the Earth determine the value of the global temperature and the real temperatures go up and down for deterministic reasons. We don’t witness an Earth where temperatures can only go up but nothing could cause these temperatures to fall nor an Earth that energy in always equal energy out because of this fictitious global temperature. We are told that if there were no green house gasses then there would be ice at the equator but an Earth that was much colder at the poles and the same temperature at the equator would have the same global temperature so the same global temperature can be caused by many different climates and is not determined any single climate.
I don’t know what you mean by “imaginary”. There is a real 3-dimensional distribution of global atmospheric and surface temperatures that largely determines how much energy is lost to space through infrared radiation. That energy loss is part of what determines temperature. So, I’m not sure what part of all this you consider to be “imaginary”.
An average height of people is imaginary height of people. It might tell you something.
For instance, Earth average of 15 C, tells you Earth is mostly cold, if you know that the tropics or %40 of surface has average surface air temperature of about 26 C.
It’S also useful if you know that ocean surface temp is 17 C and average land surface is about 10 C.
And that ocean waters warm land surfaces.
OK, well “imaginary” is not a good adjective, then. How about “misleading”?
15 C might misleading to people who worried the most about “global warming”. Most of India has higher average temperature than 15 C, so might be interesting in terms of whether Indians wondering why Europeans are worried average temperatures getting warmer than the frigid temperature of 15 C.
The Germans generally tend to be quite desperate about a warmer world than 15 C and they are living in natural environment colder than 15 C.
And no one who is worried about global warming, sets their own house thermostat at 59 F or 15 C.
Generally it seems there is a lot imagination involved by people who have no understanding of science or reality.
And idea of saving the polar bears is imagination going amuck.
Even more amok is the belief that everyone will (or even could) stop emitting enough CO2 to change the atmospheric concentration.
Will the surface temperature of the ocean in the southern hemisphere increase in winter? I am afraid that low solar activity will not allow it.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/f0v2udwg3c52.gif
The global temperature is simply determined by the amounts of energy leaving and entering the earth.
The question is what influences this?
I say it is not CO2 because I still say CO2 is a result of the environment not the cause. This is why it has always lagged the temperature.
Again I am looking for what terrestrial items if changed would cause the energy balance on earth to change.
What changes those terrestrial items to change.
It keeps going back to the sun /geo magnetic fields and the associated effects they would have when they weaken significantly in tandem.
Ranging from changes in galactic cosmic ray intensities , where on the earth these galactic cosmic rays are directed, how these galactic cosmic rays effect the global electrical circuit ,global cloud cover, and silica rich volcanic activity.
Also examining how less EVU light, UV light would effect overall sea surface temperatures and the atmospheric circulation. Not to forget any chance in overall solar irradiance itself, no matter how slight.
The upshot being of all the above is less energy coming into the earth, more leaving (higher albedo) and overall cooling sea surface temperatures.
No disrespect to Lord Monckton , but I think trying to prove why the climate models are wrong is a waste of time.
They have already been proven wrong as well as the asinine AGW theory.
All the basic principals this theory was based on have FAILED to materialize ranging from the lower tropospheric hot spot to the atmospheric circulation(just to name two).
Usually when the basic premises a theory is built upon fail the theory is considered a failure but lives keeps living on.
But now finally the test is on and I say this year will be a turn point in temperatures.
CO2 Obviously does not lag temperature when we are digging up fossil fuels and burning them regardless of the temperature. I am just amazed how many people cannot grasp this simple idea.
It lags temperature every single time without exception.
I’m going to have to agree with David here. Even if the ice core record could be proved to always show temperature change following CO2 change, what does that have to do with the fact we are now putting CO2 into the atmosphere? Are we burning fossil fuels in response to warming temperatures?
So Dr. Spencer you think this time is different because of man’s contribution of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
I do not know the answer to be honest. I guess IF the temperatures of the oceans should decline along with the global temperatures and CO2’s rate of increase does not slow down much less picks up you may be correct.
I get what you are saying which is in the past the factor of man putting CO2 into the atmosphere was not present.
Even so I think what matters is the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor is it there? I say no. I think you agree with me on this.
But if CO2 is really causing the temperatures to increase even in part I think you Dr. Spencer have it correct on all points.
The question is ,is it really causing the temperatures to increase and if so what percentage of that increase is due to increasing CO2?
PS: Does your water use lead or lag temperature?
I would have to generally agree with you Salvatore, there are many variables that we need to understand concerning global temperatures. As far as CO2, do you have any thoughts on what impact it would have? I only ask because most discussion on CO2 is focused on outgoing IR. Since the sun generates IR, what impact would CO2 have on daytime surface temperatures? Assuming the same logic for outgoing IR, incoming IR would be less.
The evidence shows that temperature extremes/heat waves are lower now than in the early 20th century and winters are generally warmer. Could CO2 be moderating temperature extremes by limiting incoming IR from reaching the surface and reducing the cooling rate? Couple that with recent studies showing the increase in biomass. Would a CO2 level of 1000 vs. 400 help reduce winter related deaths and extreme heat events and increase crop production to help alleviate hunger? Would it not benefit society to determine the ideal level instead? Your thoughts?
I think one mistake concerning CO2 is that since human activity is raising CO2 levels, it must be that this is causing the equilibrium temperature to be higher. I believe based on the evidence that the planet cycles dominate the long term trend and then there is a lot of noise created by volcanic activity, solar activity, cosmic rays, geomagnetic and more noise on that related to El Nino/La Nina. CO2 is simply there for the ride.
All things being equal if CO2 were to increase you would expect higher temperatures to some degree.
I think that CO2 is controlled by the climate rather then it controlling the climate.
We will have to see in the next few years how it all unfolds.
Considering “All things being equal”. If there is higher CO2, would not incoming infrared be reduced during the daytime? Thus the daytime surface temperature would be cooler than if no CO2 was present. There would be less IR from the surface to be redirected by the CO2 in the atmosphere (day or night).
The question I have is if the result would be moderated temperatures. The overall average temperature may be higher all things being equal (may be lower). See Figure 6.3 in the following.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/
What is the amount of IR energy provided by the sun compared to IR provided by CO2? I have seen IR photos of the atmosphere showing significant amount from the bottom of clouds and the sun, but very little from clear sky. CO2 just does not seem like it would significantly effect average temperature. And when you add the greening of the planet and impacts to water vapor quantity and other factors, maybe it lowers the average temperature. Your thoughts?
salvatore…”The global temperature is simply determined by the amounts of energy leaving and entering the earth.
The question is what influences this?”
*********
Something I have been mulling over, but it’s very preliminary, so don’t hold me to it.
Solar energy heats the surface, no question. However, the heated surface heats the molecules of air above it, which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and that heated air rises.
The air near the surface is relatively dense due to gravity and that air is heated at a relatively higher pressure. As the air rises it will travel through a pressure gradient that diminishes with altitude, therefore the temperature will be reduced naturally as the air rises.
I am having problems with conservation of energy. Energy in should = energy out, but how about energy distribution? The Sun only shines so many hours in a day and the rest of the time the atmosphere cools naturally.
Or does it? You can reduce temperature (heat) by reducing pressure. Air warmed at the surface will rise because it becomes less dense than the surrounding air. It should keep rising till the density becomes equivalent to the surrounding air. Also, as it rises, it loses pressure naturally therefore it cools naturally.
If you take a gas at a high temperature in a reduced volume, the temperature is higher because the atoms/molecules are tightly packed and colliding a lot. If you double the volume, the pressure reduces and so does the temperature.
Our atmosphere is unusual in that gravity is acting to form a negative pressure gradient from the surface upward. The atmosphere behaves as if the container described above is gradually increased in volume.
In this case it’s not so much a problem with conservation of thermal energy as it is a multi-facted change in energy. At higher temps there is an issue with higher kinetic energy which translate to higher heat levels. If you reduce the KE by allowing the gas to expand, or the pressure to drop, you naturally reduce the heat without having to dissipate it.
There will certainly be radiation to space no matter what, but what if the surface air cools naturally by redistributing the surface heat through the atmosphere by a natural process of air rising and cooling naturally at lower pressures at a higher altitude?
Of course, it does not cool completely overnight since N2/O2 are poor radiators. Next day, solar energy replenishes the lost heat.
I know the first argument I will get is related to conservation of energy. But what if the so-called GHE rise of 33C is a natural process related to the mechanism I have just described and has nothing to do with GHGs?
Critiques??? Preferably, without the ad homs.
The Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget focuses on the idea that the Earth cools primarily by radiation from the surface. I don’t think it does and neither did Wood, 1909, who was an expert on IR radiation.
I’m late to the debate but I agree, and I think we will be forced to change our understanding of surface heating by considerations you mention.
In particular it seems that a long-standing view of surface heating is that the LW energy emanating from the surface is absorbed by GHG molecules, which in turn excite and hence warm up the surrounding N and O: that’s why our atmosphere warms up, we’re told. I think this is very wrong; GHGs simply don’t have enough oomph to do that. It seems instead that the surface warms by conduction, and the evidence is at our feet: an asphalt driveway in the sun warms the air above it. This heating by conduction is the basis of the UHI effect, is it not? Look at the hottest places in the world: many of them are deserts, and it could very well be that part of the reason they are hot is lack of shade to cool the surface. Death Valley: one of the hottest places in the world with a higher-that-usual lapse rate right off the surface, which makes sense if the surface is conducting heat directly to molecules of N and O. Death Valley is relatively dry, yet we’d expect that being so it would be cooler since there are fewer radiative molecules to accept IR from the earth and transmit this energy to N and O.
Other ideas of surface warming are also confused. Reflected LWIR warming the surface? But a cooler body can’t warm a warmer body. GHGs acting as a blanket or trapping heat? But GHGs don’t inhibit convection, as a real blanket would. And GHGs don’t directly affect N and O, which don’t absorb IR, so that means that GHGs would act by transferring vibrational and rotational energy to N and O, but intuitively this seems like such a paltry mechanism when we compare it to, for example, a 200-degree surface temperature at Death Valley (I understand it has gotten that hot) conducting that energy directly into the translational energy of N and O: I think if we stand at the surface then we’ll no doubt where the heat is from! With a 200-degree surface, the heat is not coming from the atmosphere. Since N and O are poor radiators of IR, they keep that translational energy even as the air rises and cools by expansion, and even as collision with slower-moving molecules (presumably from higher up) eventually takes some of this translational energy from them as they ascend.
So just from the point of view of which concepts are clearest and make the most sense, it seems that the idea that GHGs do any significant warming of the atmosphere is just plain wrong, and that the people who promote these gases want to take all the glory from conduction and transfer it instead to the GHGs.
GHGs become interesting above convection.
Here’s a primer for you:
https://tinyurl.com/ycnmblnj
I think the idea that the emissions height will be raised by CO2 and so we count down from there to get the surface temperature is misguided; the lapse rate starts at the surface and decreases according to pressure; there is no term whatsoever in the lapse rate either for emissions height or for radiative properties. Let the radiative emission height be whatever it wants to be. If the emission height were at the surface (no GHGs) then would that really affect surface temp? How? Would the absence of GHGs cause conduction to cease? Would the absence of GHGs cause the lapse rate to cease? Would Death Valley’s atmosphere be significantly cooler? Would a driveway in the hot sun cease to conduct/convect upward? If GHGs made such a difference, then why are some of the hottest places on earth also some of the driest, when one would expect that a lack of water vapor would lead to a diminished radiative stimulation of nearby molecules, such as what is posited for warming of N and O by IR stimulation of CO2 and H20?
I understand a lot of radiative physics. I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense, and the basic mechanism that says that GHGs warm a surface has never been experimentally proved by showing the actual temperature rise that the theory predicts.
Nahle replicated the Wood/Pratt experiment and found that trapped IR did not warm a surface. That seems to tell us a few things: one is that the N and O were not significantly warmed by the vibrational and rotational movements of CO2 and water vapor in the air, which according to theory absorb the trapped and reflected IR, become excited, and transmit that energy, presumably, to the translational energy of N and O (experiment, please?) Well, it doesn’t seem to be happening; if it is, then all the radiative physicists need to stop resting on radiative math and pony up an experiment that proves what the theory predicts.
Yes, if the surface was visible from space in IR, it would run a radiation deficit and cool until it emitted 240 W/m^2.
No.
Explained by Norman here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7m9yg84
Roy Spencer answers here:
https://tinyurl.com/p7y98v3
Svante,
If there were no GHGs the earth would emit at 240 W/m2. But that does not mean that the N2 and O2, which don’t radiate IR, would not warm up due to conduction/convection from the surface. What would prevent them from warming up? And once warmed up, what would cool them off, except for the natural lapse rate and collisions with slower-moving molecules?
Regarding Goodwin Creek and Desert Rock, I accept what the radiation diagrams say but I’m not sure what they mean. I’m not trying to be stubborn but what it comes down to is that not one single person has shown through a controlled experiment how IR from CO2 and H20 cause a temperature increase in N2 and O2. Are we confusing the heat capacity of H20 with its radiative effects? There’s so much debate and so many theories (such as mine, and such as yours) that can only be cleared up experimentally by testing for the exact mechanism in question.
Regarding Spencer’s experiment, I don’t think this is definitive, and in my opinion Nahle’s experiment is more carefully controlled, and better documented, than Spencer’s. However, once again if we’re not sure then perhaps we should replicate the experiment carefully?
I’m happy to accept the mainstream GHE if it in fact is real. So far it seems to me that everything that is claimed for this GHE can be explained more simply by atmospheric pressure, conduction, the heat capacity of gases, and the lapse rate, none of which require an input for the radiative properties of gases. But the thing that really throws me off is that no one has ever tested the assumed mechanism for greenhouse warming, and I find that astonishing. We really are working off of all sorts of assumptions.
Take two one-meter square boxes, one with N2 and the other with air at 3% water vapor. Heat both from the bottom. Will the one with N2 be cooler than the one with air? I say it’s impossible for the air cube to be warmer since no extra energy is added.
If it’s possible, then someone should demonstrate this. Otherwise it seems the theory of IR heating of molecules, which causes the vibrational and rotational energy of GHGs to be transferred to N2 and O2 to heat up a volume, is flawed.
The air volume will warm up slower and cool down slower than the volume with N2 because of the heat capacity of H20. Once both volumes are heated up, it does not make sense that the N2 volume would be cooler.
The bottom will warm if you reduce the heat transfer out at the top.
Heat transfer depends on temperature difference.
Part of the heat transfer is radiation.
Convection implies a temperature gradient.
If the gas is more opaque the top radiation balance will be partly settled against a layer that is cooler than the bottom, and therefore reduce the heat transfer.
The difference will be miniscule in your example, because convection is strong.
I’m sure you can find an experiment that shows GHG opaqueness, the rest is just logic.
I disagree that going from GHG opacity to temperature change is “just logic,” and that’s really my point. It seems that a lot of assumptions are made about what GHGs must be doing yet these assumptions are not tested.
In the box experiment, I envision that both boxes are closed and insulated.
Unless I’m greatly mistaken, one of several theories of GHG warming and one that seems to be prominent is that the rotational and vibrational energy of IR photon-excited GHGs is that this internal energy is transferred to non-IR absorbing molecules. Maybe this is too small to measure in a 3% water vapor atmosphere; OK, so make it a 50% CO2 atmosphere.
I know what the radiative theories say. I know what the math says. I know what the IR opacity of GHGs implies. What I don’t know is if any of this has actually been tested in carefully controlled experiments to confirm that what we “know” is true, because it may turn out that things aren’t working out quite as we thought: that’s why science is supposed to do experiments.
As a recent thread on WUWT has pointed out, emissions radiation is not the same as emissions temperature, and the assumption that these are the same is likely causing us problems. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/07/a-rebuttal-to-an-ugly-amicus-brief-attack-in-the-exxonknew-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2784704
and
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
Don132 says:
“emissions radiation is not the same as emissions temperature”.
Yes, you have to multiply by emissivity, which can be different for different frequencies.
It is actually difficult to calculate the exact effect in the atmosphere, because it has to be done ‘line by line’, layer by layer.
MODTRAN “has actually been tested in carefully controlled experiments” by the US Air Force, and is thoroughly battle proved.
Try it here:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Info:
https://tinyurl.com/ybgq76xy
Modelling is not a physical experiment. It is not a physical experiment! Whatever we think modelling is telling us, whatever we think radiative opacity is telling us, whatever we think climate radiative physics is telling us, we simply must test those assumptions by physical experiment, period, no ifs, ands or buts. That’s how science is supposed to work.
It’s remarkable that climate science has avoided hard, concrete physical experiment. Where is the carefully controlled experiment that proves that back-radiation warms an atmosphere? It simply does not exist, and Spencer’s experiment needs much more careful controlling and documenting, and then it would read replication. If you think that no testing through concrete experiment makes climate science a more solid science, then I, a non-scientist, have to tell you that this is nonsense.
To say that radiative this or radiative that proves whatever is just avoiding the obvious question of “how is your theory grounded”? Do a physical experiment! That’s the ONLY way to prove that what you “know” is true really is true, and is not merely an assumption that you continually refuse to test.
Climate science is an untested phantasm, nothing more, until it’s grounded in concrete experiment.
Emissivity is different according to different materials.
John Tyndall did carefully controlled experiments around 1859.
Here’s the history, reads like a novel!
https://tinyurl.com/y94jowrs
Tyndall did not measure temperature change caused by IR opacity! No one has! It’s all assumptions and computer modelling. None of it is based on actual physical experiment that shows a direct link from IR opacity or back-radiation or excitation of N2 and O2 by IR leading to a temperature change. You MUST demonstrate the alleged temperature change; a start would be to carefully re-do the Wood/Pratt/Nahle/Spencer experiment, replicate it to be sure of results, and then figure out what the experiment is telling us.
Figuring out what the modelling/theory is telling us and then using that to make assertions about the physical world has it all backwards.
I will believe it when I see a physical experiment that proves it: demonstrate that the alleged mechanism induces an actual temperature change.
You mean like this?
https://tinyurl.com/y6wo2fz2
Yes, like that. Except… a carefully controlled experiment, fully documented and transparent. I would not consider that experiment carefully controlled for pressure or temperature or experimenter bias, among other things.
That experiment proves nothing except that a half-baked experiment can be used to seduce people.
You wouldn’t find that in any contemporary scientific papers, it was settled a long time ago (starting with Tyndall).
You need textbook experiments, or a basic physics course.
Norman would have good references.
No definitive experiment from anyone anywhere means that this is supposition and assumption, and nothing more. Come up with proof; it’s as simple as that, unless we want to throw the scientific method overboard and go by virtual reality.
Classic error: assuming that X implies y without any physical proof, and without ever bothering to test that assumption.
“allows us to diagnose what equilibrium temperature the models would predict”
It doesn’t diagnose what the models would predict. In fact, we know what models predict from the paper of Lacis etc al, here. They did a GCM run following removal of non-condensing GHG gases, and tracked the evolution over 50 years:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/03/lacis2.png
ZOD is a thought experiment. Suppose you could remove all GHG’s, including water vapor and clouds, but somehow keep the albedo constant. Then to maintain heat balance, the surface temperature would have to be 255 K, 33 K less than we have. That is a measure of the greenhouse effect.
Can we actually do that? It’s a thought experiment; you can do anything. There isn’t a real world that it corresponds to. But Lord M wants to take that 255K number, which depends only on TSI, albedo and Stefan-Boltzmann, and say that somehow there will be feedback to it, which all the climate scientists are missing. And they are mistaking that “feedback” for the real feedback consequent on the removal of non-condensable GHGs, which Lacis computed.
Lord M tried the following arithmetic at WUWT. Lacis et al actually find a state where temperature is reduced by 36°C. Water vapor is not eliminated entirely; about 10% remains. Albedo and clouds have risen. So he applied a ZOD, says that the higher albedo implied a lower “emission temperature” of 243 K, and so Lacis 252 K shows a feedback from that 243 K.
But the 243 K is just another thought experiment. Suppose you could from that state clear the air but keep the albedo at that higher level. That is what you could get. But you can’t do those things. The 9 K difference is not a real feedback from anything. It is a measure of how the thought experiment was unrealistic. In this case, it is exaggerated because the cooling SW reflection of the clouds has been included in the albedo, which is preserved by fiat in the ZOD, while the warming IR effect is assumed removed.
I think that sums it all up rather succinctly. Thanks Nick.
Another red herring from C of B.
nick…”They did a GCM run following removal of non-condensing GHG gases, and tracked the evolution over 50 years:”
What is a non-condensing GHG gas?
I have seen this term used in this article and it makes no sense to me. What does it mean?
I have heard the term applied to furnaces. Natural gas forms water as a byproduct as it condenses after passing through the heat exchanger. Some furnaces implement a secondary stage to deal with the condensates.
To the extent that water vapor is a “greenhouse gas”, it is a condensing “greenhouse gas”, because it condenses and releases its latent heat of evaporation in the process. CO2 remains a gas under practically all conditions found on Earth’s surface and in the atmosphere.
BWD…thanks.
Gordon,
Water vapor condensation provides a positive feedback.
An initial cooling leads to more condensation and further cooling, and vice versa.
Non-condensing GHGs can prop it up and give WV some back-bone.
Dr. Spencer
I am just a bit shy about offering comments but your excellent article and reply inspired me.
You may remember this chart you posted not too long ago.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Otto-vs-anthro-fraction-ECS.jpg
Well, having spent 35 years involved in signal analysis I have been tracking datasets and analyzing them for some time. When I examined your chart and my analysis of the H4 global dataset the values from your curve seemed to have substantiated what I have done.
I apologize that the figure is only available from my one drive.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AkPliAI0REKhgZZVVDbhEjVO59_AUw
The calculated ECS of .222 lines up quite well with your figure.
I have been doing this for a while now and originally did not include any contribution from CO2. The cyclical fits were good then too. Later, I introduced a contribution from CO2 while trying to maintain the good fits that I had.
Thought there might just be some interest.
At first I found Lord Monckton’s very promising, but then I realized a flawed assumption. Imagine two identical earths, except for the composition of the atmosphere. One has a emission temperature 255K without GHGs in the atmosphere. The other earth has a slightly cooler emissions temperature of 247K, but it has non-condensing GHGs that causes 8K of forcing, the total temperature becomes 247+8 =255K.
If I understood everything correctly, Lord Monckton assumes that the two Earths would have an equal water vapor feedback, because water vapor cannot tell the difference between 255K of pure emission temperature and 255K of “emmission + non-condensing GHGs” temperature. The two earths has equal temperature at the surface, and therefore the magnitude of the feedback is equal. However, this what is think is the flawed assumption, because the temperature of the atmospheres will be different between the two earths, the lapse rate will be different. The GHG molecules will transfer heat to nearby molecules by collisions. The different lapse rates will affect the water vapor content. I don’t know by how much, and if it is significant, but I think it is. 8K of GHG forcing is not equal to 8K of emission temperature.
I hope that I have made a mistake and that Lord Monckton is right.
As one who has only the haziest idea about the maths of feedback circuits, whether in an electrical test rig, or in the atmosphere, I’m hesitant to enter this argument, but I’m struck by the clash of different approaches to the matter I see in this debate and I’m trying to make sense of it. The two sides seem to talking at cross purposes. Let me try to frame it in terms of my understanding of the problem, which is not much changed since I first started to read about it some years ago.
As a biologist, I’m used to the idea of complex feedbacks producing something like an equilibrium. As far as climate goes, in fact, I regard it as self-evident that there is, effectively, a thermostat which operates. I won’t go into the details for fear of sidetracking the argument at hand, so bear with me on that. The claim of mainstream CliSci, based on radiation physics, is that CO2 produces about 1.2K of warming per doubling, but that this induces a feedback response, primarily from water vapour, of about three times that.
But – the water vapour feedback response is actually a response to temperature. It is not a response to CO2 itself. And that response to temperature is there anyway, even in the absence of non-condensing greenhouse agents, as long as there is plenty of water to evaporate, hence the difference between the 255K emision temp and the 287K or thereabouts observed. This is essentially what Lord M is saying when he points out that the 255K itself promotes a feedback, and uses his electrical circuit analogy claiming to prove it.
What then happens when non-condensing greenhouse gases are added? Likely, very little – because the warming they produce is provoking the same feedback response as is already present without them. The system stabilises**. It is even possible that the 1.2K theoretical warming from CO2 is neutralised, because, as Lord M says, the feedback response doesn’t care what the origin of the ‘forcing’ is, in fact there is no way it can tell..
Have I misrepresented the argument? I stand to be corrected.
**In asking about this on mainstream sites the only substantive response that I got (where I haven’t been totally ignored) was “because the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is so short, it cannot potentiate its own warming”. This I found very unsatisfactory indeed. However, it is true that water in the atmosphere is not evenly distributed, and Carbon Dioxide might act at altitude, or in polar regions, where there is much less H2O, so we might get a differential feedback reponse to CO2 in those areas. If the GCMs can reproduce this differential effect faithfully, on a small enough grid, and if they also represent the H2O feedback and thermostat effectively, we might take more notice of their results. Lord M’s logic refers to the Earth as a whole, and I’m unclear whether he would accept that a modifier of this kind is necessary to confirm his thesis for all parts of the globe.
I was with you until:
“What then happens when non-condensing greenhouse gases are added? Likely, very little because the warming they produce is provoking the same feedback response as is already present without them. The system stabilises.”
It’s the “Likely, very little” part that to me seems not to follow. A sudden slug of CO2 will cause a radiation imbalance that raises the surface temperature and–here’s the important point–that temperature increase provokes *more* of the feedback response. (The higher surface temperature raises the temperature at the higher effective radiation altitude to return the system to equilibrium.) I don’t see why you say that more feedback response is “very little.”
Anyway, what Lord Monckton seemed to be saying is that the climate models provide feedback only when non-condensable greenhouse gases are present. In my view he’s given us no reason to believe that.
Joe –
I don’t think Lord M is saying that. The 287K-255K effect is the result of the water vapour feedback, or, if you prefer, the GHE. But I’m sure he’ll answer for himself!
As far as the ‘slug of CO2’ [I don’t know why you add ‘sudden’ to that] is concerned, it’s no different from the feedback point of view as a ‘slug of H2O’ which is always available to be produced from its effectively limitless source on the surface. Except, just maybe, at the poles, where we all agree we may see/are seeing ‘polar amplification’. However the rationale for that amplification may be rather different to that which I alluded to above
Sorry for the “sudden.” I was thinking about making clearer what we actually mean by forcing, but I didn’t follow through, and I now don’t think I will. In any event, I agree that feedback from a temperature increase should be the independent of what caused the temperature increase.
As to what Lord Monckton meant, who knows? What I thought he contended that the in climate models the feedback in response to a temperature increase isn’t implemented independently of what caused the temperature increase. But there were breaks in his logic train, so your guess is as good as mine.
mothcatcher says:
As far as the slug of CO2 [I dont know why you add sudden to that] is concerned, its no different from the feedback point of view as a slug of H2O which is always available to be produced from its effectively limitless source on the surface.
It is different — excess water vapor (above the w.v.’s saturation pressure) will precipitate out of the atmosphere. CO2 doesn’t.
Joe promises: “”A sudden slug of CO2 will cause a radiation imbalance that raises the surface temperature”
Any evidence of such a thing Joe, or just your belief?
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
appelly, you’ve tried this comedy routine before. Try something new and original.
Have you considered pushing carrots into your nostrils?
Glad to help.
You’re still avoiding discussing this evidence.
You don’t have any science.
There’s a reason you and Flynn always deflect, deny and insult when you’re presented with the evidence for the greenhouse effect. The only think you never do is refute it.
appelly, you can’t understand the science, so how can you understand the refutation?
Clowns don’t know science, they only know humor.
We found that daily Ld [global atmospheric downward longwave radiation] increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.
— Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008,
Kaicun Wang and Shunlin Liang, JGR, 1 October 2009, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011800.
mothcatcher,
“But the water vapour feedback response is actually a response to temperature. “
No, it’s a response to change in temperature. A way I find useful to think about it goes:
1. CO2 raises T by one unit
2. That evaporates more water, a GHG, which raises T by, say, 1/2 unit
3. That evaporates more water, which raises T by 1/4 unit
and so on, with a geometric progression. T rises by 2 units (1/(1-r), where r=1/2).
That sequence of events may not actually happen, but it describes the result.
Now try that with a steady 255 K resulting from radiative balance. You could say that it evaporates water, raising T to ??. This raises 255 to, well 255. That was a fixed calc. You can’t make a sensible feedback model out of it. 255K was an ideal based on no GHG in the atmosphere. You can’t then perturb it by adding wv. That stops the basis of the calc.
—–
“because the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is so short, it cannot potentiate its own warming”
I don’t think that is the answer to wv feedback. It is the answer to wv forcing. You can raise the amount of wv in the air by raising the surface temperature. That works because wv is always in equilibrium, pretty much, with liquid in the sea, and you change the “constant”. You can’t raise it by letting off steam. Temperature can shift the equilibrium, but not adding wv (because always there is liquid).
“1. CO2 raises T by one unit”
That’s a belief, but not science.
Thanks, Nick.
Try substituting your point 1.
for “1. CO2 raises T by one unit” read
“H2O raises T by one unit” or, if you prefer,
“The sun raises T by 1 unit” which it does, rather frequently.
For CO2 to produce the effect we are talking about, it has to operate outside of the normal solar evaporative cycle. Maybe it does, but just calling it a forcing doesn’t do the trick.
CO2 is a forcing because if you put it in the atmosphere, much of it stays there. That is what raises T by 1 unit relative to what was before. Sunlight isn’t a forcing, unless it varies (sunspots etc). It isn’t a change. There is a duality here:
1. forcing – CO2 stays in the air, but has no source(except us) to replenish it.
2. Feedback – wv is at equilibrium (approx) with a continuously available source/sink. So you can’t force by adding it. But the eq constant changes with T, and if that is increased, wv evaporates and warms. Hence the geometric progression.
It isn’t quite so clear-cut because CO2 is slightly soluble. This makes it slightly less of a forcing, and a weak feedback. That is of some importance at end glaciation, but otherwise a minor distraction. Mainly it acts as a forcing.
Can’t see why CO2 is different, and a forcing, because it ‘stays there’ (though, agree it does). So does wv stay there – although the individual molecules are different over time.
For the purpose of Lord M’;s argument, and my instinct, all greenhouse gases, whether condensing or non-condensing, have equal effects regarding feedback. Only spatial separation of those GHGs can account for a differential response. And that’s the question.
?Anyone else like to come in on this.
Nick believes: “CO2 is a forcing because if you put it in the atmosphere, much of it stays there.”
Nick, you should look up “photosynthesis”, and “food chain”.
Glad to help.
No, G-e-r-a-n
Off target. Doesn’t help. But I think you probably know that.
CO2 is a forcing in present context merely because it is the very and sole parameter in the system that is modified in the first place by anthropic emissions. Its increase implies an energy imbalance at TOA and thus transient heat accumulation in the system. It is the perturbation to which one would like to know the response of climate system.
Water vapor is not considered to be a forcing in this context simply because it is not directly modified by mankind ( except by the minor effect of irrigation practices in agriculture). It’s change is a reaction of the system to the initial CO2 change and therefore it a feedback to the change in CO2, as is albedo via induced ice or cloud cover changes.
Of course both changes in CO2 and H20 vapor have an effect on TOA energy balance. Yet what is labeled forcing and what is labeled feedback depends of course on context.
If mankind didn’t emit a lot CO2 and change its amount in atmosphere but happened to increase instead in a sizable way the mean H2O vapor content of atmosphere by irrigation practices for instance, one would have to talk of vw as the forcing GHG and CO2 as the feedback ! CO2 would be expected to change as a reaction of the system because the forcing of additional vw might increase the mean temperature which in turn increases atmospheric CO2 content via a change in equilibrium “constant” between ocean and atmosphere.
W I B T G I R
Not sure what I should make of your combative handle..
But you’re just giving me definitions, not explaining the feedback system
Sorry mothcatcher, but it’s exactly ON target. The discussion is “what is the forcing”. Atmospheric CO2 contributes zero forcing. Some people just don’t know that.
Another quote, for example: “[CO2’s} increase implies an energy imbalance at TOA and thus transient heat accumulation in the system. It is the perturbation to which one would like to know the response of climate system.”
1) CO2 does NOT imply an “energy imbalance”
2) CO2 does NOT imply “heat accumulation in the system”
It’s okay to ask questions.
mothcatcher:
I don’t for a moment think Lord Monckton is right. But on whether water vapor is just as much a forcing as carbon dioxide is, I agree with you.
“Forcing” is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W /m^2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.
Everything else being equal, more water vapor means less radiation out from the tropopause for the same surface temperature, i.e., it means greater net radiation in. The same is true of carbon dioxide.
The term “change” only means there’s a set point you subtract from the resultant net radiation. It has nothing to do with whether the radiation change came from more water vapor or more carbon dioxide.
“Everything else being equal, more water vapor means less radiation out from the tropopause for the same surface temperature”
Yes. But the forcing issue is whether you can get more water vapor. And you can’t (for long), at constant temperature, because water vapor is in equilibrium with another phase (sea and rain). CO2 is not.
Heat a saucepan of water. At first, temperature rises according to the heat supplied. The flame forces temperature. But when the water boils, the temperature no longer rises. The vapor pressure has risen to 1 atm, and water is in equilibrium with another phase (steam). Heating now does not force temperature rise, but steam production.
That is the situation with wv in the air. Air is effectively saturated, because it is in contact with the sea. It isn’t literally saturated everywhere. But any wv that you put in the air will within a few days reach a point where RH is 100%, and then clouds and rain. This goes on normally all the time, and evaporation from the sea replaces the loss. The combination of sea evap and rain regulates the amount of wv in the air, and the only way it can be shifted is by changing the equilibrium point, by changing T. Else adding wv forces, not humidity, but rain. CO2 doesn’t have this interaction.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Nick believes: CO2 is a forcing because if you put it in the atmosphere, much of it stays there.”
Nick, you should look up photosynthesis, and food chain.
And when the plant and animals die?
appelly, rhymes with jelly, the plants and animals will die about two weeks before you get a job.
Don’t worry, that won’t happen in your lifetime.
“But the forcing issue is whether you can get more water vapor.”
No. Forcing is what I said it was. If you think more water vapor doesn’t mean more forcing, make your case. Otherwise, please please don’t obfuscate. I’m an old man, and I don’t have time to play games.
JB
If you think more water vapor doesnt mean more forcing, make your case.
Water vapor and CO2 are both greenhouse gases and in particular asudden change at time t=0 in their atmospheric concentration induces a sudden change in TOA energy imbalance.
Nobody disputes that.
Yet to distinguish forcing and feedback time t but be included in the discussion and thus adjectives like “sudden” !
Indeed TOA energy imbalance at time t is not simply what’s called forcing ! What’s called forcing is the initial TOA energy imbalance at time t=0.
Here the initial perturbation of the system brought about by humans is CO2 not water vapor. And what is called forcing, by convention, is the relevant initial energy imbalance at TOA with everything else being unperturbed in particular water vapor concentration, cloud and ice cover etc.
That is, when the system had not yet reacted to the initial sudden CO2 perturbation.
The forcing is thus not the actual TOA energy imbalance after a while, at time t, once the system is allowed to react and change the amount of water vapor in air ,that is, when feedback takes place.
It’s important to grasp that the initial perturbation by CO2, the TOA energy imbalance doesn’t stay constant but varies with time. As the system reacts and readjusts this imbalance progressively evolves and finally decreases and vanishes once a new steady state is reached.
In real climate system CO2 concentration augments continuously and the perturbation can be viewed as a series of small successive sudden steplike increases as the single one discussed above.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight :
Actually, that was a well-stated argument. And it was helpful for you to state what I had avoided complicating my comment with: that the forcing is still there after the irradiation imbalance has gone.
Moreover, you’re right in a sense about forcing versus feedback. If we look at the linearized feedback equation, y=(x+fy)g, we ordinarily think of the CO2 forcing as x and the water-vapor feedback as fy. So in that sense you’re right that in the context of distinguishing forcing from feedback the water-vapor component should mostly be classified as the latter rather than the former.
But I think that mothcatcher was getting at a different point, which is whether the output y responds differently to the forcing x than to the feedback fy. It doesn’t.
Furthermore, couldn’t it happen that, the complexity of the system being what it is, a water-vapor change can result from something other than a temperature change? Could you still classify the water vapor’s radiative effect then? I don’t think so.
So I’m happy to agree that water vapor can be looked at mostly as feedback rather than forcing. I just don’t think looking at it that way really goes to mothcatcher’s question.
Joe,
“If you think more water vapor doesnt mean more forcing, make your case.”
I’ve made my case. But I can’t put it more simply that this:
1. If you put CO2 in the air, it stays there, hinders IR, and raises temperature. CO2 forces temperature.
2. If you put water vapor in the air, it doesn’t stay there. The air can’t hold more water for long. Water vapor forces rain.
But
3. If you warm the air, as with CO2, then the air can hold more water. Sea water evaporates. This hinders IR and causes warming. Water vapor is a feedback.
nick stokes…”1. If you put CO2 in the air, it stays there, hinders IR, and raises temperature. CO2 forces temperature”.
There’s no proof of that. In fact, Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR who was fully aware of the absorbing qualities of CO2, claimed CO2 could not cause such warming.
At the time the greenhouse theory was named, it was believed greenhouses warmed because the glass trapped IR. He knew immediately that was wrong and created an experiment which disproved it. He postulated that greenhouses warm because the glass traps molecules of air, which are 99% nitrogen and oxygen. In other words, greenhouses warm due to a lack of convection.
Regarding IR, Wood thought it would be ineffective more than a few feet above the surface due to inverse square law. You can prove that to yourself to an extent by turning on a 1500 watt electric stove element and seeing what effect you can detect at 5 feet. If you feel anything it’s likely due to air molecules being heated directly by the ring and passed to you by convection.
I have used Dalton’s law of partial pressures to guestimate the heating effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to Dalton, the total air gas pressure should be the sum of each gas pressure. The partial gas pressure should indicate the partial temperature contributed by each gas, due to collision.
The partial pressure of CO2 would be in line with it’s 0.04% of air. That means, the temperature it contributes is in the order of 0.04%. If the atmosphere has warmed 1C in the past century, it means CO2 could have contributed no more than about 0.04C.
There is no way that a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere caused that 1C warming.
“In fact, Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR who was fully aware of the absorbing qualities of CO2, claimed CO2 could not cause such warming.”
Nonsense. He did not.
Joe Born
Unfortunately I can’t clearly see what the point mothcatcher tries to convey actually is.
He said: As a biologist, Im used to the idea of complex feedbacks producing something like an equilibrium. As far as climate goes, in fact, I regard it as self-evident that there is, effectively, a thermostat which operates.
The idea that something merely holds the temperature of climate system essentially constant when CO2 or an other perturbation is applied is by no means self-evident. As I already pointed out feedback is in general not simply negative feedback that neutralises the initial perturbation as observed in the phenomenon of homeostasis of biologists.
Water vapor in air is definitely a positive feedback that actually amplifies the response of the system to the CO2 perturbation. A thermostat instead is by essence negative feedback.
We are dealing with a dynamic chaotic complex system. Such systems are in general characterized by a set parameters that determine their behavior. CO2 concentration in air or the solar “constant” are such parameters. Changes can indeed be applied to them and results in relevant “forcings”.
INow if one considers that water vapor pressure because of the physics of liquid- vapor equilibrium tends to remain essentially saturated in air ( as assumed by Nick Stokes) or equivalently and more realistically if one assumes that relative humidity remains essentially constant, vapor pressure is an internal variable that cannot be set independently . It is thus not a system parameter at all and therefore never a forcing, just feedback.
In reality, as I explained in a previous post, things are not really that simple,
H2O liquid/H20 vapor are not merely in thermodynamic equilibrium and H2O vapor is not saturating and so could in principle become a forcing for instance by massive irrigation in agriculture that systematically moistens the atmosphere. Yet this still doesn’t lend more sense to Lord M or mothcatcher’s considerations.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
I don’t think we’re really disagreeing in substance. You’re discussing how the water vapor got there and what its concentration is likely to be. And you’re looking at forcing in the forcing-versus feedback sense. I don’t disagree with that.
And I may be wrong about what mothcatcher was asking. Here’s what I thought he was asking. Scenario 1: You magically and instantaneously put a slug of water vapor into the air when radiation had been at equilibrium, and an imbalance results. Scenario 2: You magically and instantaneously put a slug of carbon dioxide into the air when radiation had at equilibrium, and the same imbalance results. The question I was hearing is, Is the temperature response to that imbalance different because it was caused by carbon dioxide rather than water vapor? My answer was no.
Furthermore, if the beginning equilibrium states so differed between the two scenarios that the system state is the same for both after the perturbation, the resultant feedback should be the same even though the perturbation causes differed.
Maybe that wasn’t his question. And I’m not sure what conclusion he wanted to draw from it. But that’s the question I attempted to answer.
nick stokes…Nonsense, he [Wood] did not”.
Oh, ok, id YOU say so. Guess this article by Wood must be wrong.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
ps. ignore the dumb comments by Connelley, he’s an uber-alarmist who programs computers.
Joe Born
As to your scenarios with the same initial radiative imbalance from H20 vapor and CO2 slugs I can’t see how one could expect the same long term response. As already pointed out water vapor is internally regulated and the applied perturbation to atmospheric partial pressure of water vapor won’t stay there and perturb radiative equilibrium for more than a couple of weeks. It comes rapidly down to the ocean in the form of rain or snow, in sharp contrast with the CO2 perturbation that persists for hundredths or thousands of years.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
“As to your scenarios with the same initial radiative imbalance from H20 vapor and CO2 slugs I cant see how one could expect the same long term response.”
I believe you misunderstood the scenarios. I said their states so differed at equilibrium that they were identical after perturbation: the one equilibrium state’s H2O and CO2 concentrations so differed from the other equilibrium state’s that one state’s H2O and CO2 concentrations immediately after its H2O slug were the same as the other’s immediately after its CO2 slug.
Although the same states resulted from different perturbations, they’re still the same states, so the same state trajectories thereafter unless they again get different perturbations.
Joe Born
So with identical final states, your scenarios would imply that in the initial states one state had less CO2 and the other had less water vapor than the common final state.
If this is indeed what you mean then I cannot see how both initial states can be at radiative equilibrium or better in steady states. Only one of them may correspond to radiative balance. So one doesn’t simply perturb equilibrium but non equilibrium states and subsequent trajectories need not be identical.
Water vapor and CO2 are not independent quantities at equilibrium. A given concentration of CO2 implies a given concentration of water vapor when the system is at radiative equilibrium.
Now possibly I still misunderstand what you said.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
“So with identical final states, your scenarios would imply that in the initial states one state had less CO2 and the other had less water vapor than the common final state.”
Correct.
Immediately before perturbation:
System 1: no imbalance, 1 W/m^2 H2O forcing, 0 W/m^2 CO2 forcing.
System 2: no imbalance, 0 W/m^2 H2O forcing, 1 W/m^2 CO2 forcing.
Immediately after perturbation:
System 1: 1 W/m^2 imbalance, 1 W/m^2 H2O forcing, 1 W/m^2 CO2 forcing.
System 2: 1 W/m^2 imbalance, 1 W/m^2 H2O forcing, 1 W/m^2 CO2 forcing.
Here I’m using “forcing” generically, to include what you would call feedback. Independently of how System 1’s water vapor immediately before perturbation got there, that is–i.e., independently of whether you’d call it forcing or feedback–its sudden disappearance would initially cause a -1 W/m^2 imbalance. And that’s the point.
I may have confused things by calling the initial state “equilibrium” rather than simply zero radiative imbalance.
Joel Born
If there is any forcing in the initial states then there is also radiative imbalance in these initial states
Forcing by definition is what perturbs the radiative balance reached in a steady ( which is technically the proper adjective rather than “equilibrium” ) state which is precisely characterized by zero radiative imbalance.
So I still can’t get what you actually mean.
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
“If there is any forcing in the initial states then there is also radiative imbalance in these initial states.”
Ah! That’s our problem. Yes, forcing is defined by reference to an initial radiation imbalance. But here’s the thing: forcing does not mean that an imbalance necessarily prevails currently. If it did, forcing would stop when carbon-dioxide concentration stopped increasing. But that can’t be; the temperature elevation that’s a response to the carbon dioxide remains, and the temperature elevation is (in our models) determined by forcing.
For the sake of simplicity, start with a totally non-radiative atmosphere so that the surface is radiating directly to space exactly as much power as it’s receiving from the sun. Also assume there’s no water, life, or other complicating factors. Call that the zero-forcing state. (Climate types call some other state the zero-forcing state, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Now inject a slug of carbon dioxide instantaneously throughout the atmosphere. Before the surface temperature has had a chance to respond at all, there’s a radiation imbalance caused by the carbon dioxide’s impeding outward radiation. The carbon dioxide is associated with a forcing, and that forcing is the initial imbalance.
“Initial” is the operative word.
In the fullness of time, that imbalance causes the earth’s surface to warm enough to redress the imbalance: the imbalance eventually disappears. But the carbon dioxide is still considered to exert a forcing, namely the imbalance it caused initially, even though there’s no imbalance now.
The forcing delta_F is causing a temperature change delta_T. That delta_T persists. The quantity delta_T / delta_F is the system’s open-loop gain.
Again, so long as carbon dioxide is there, its forcing is there, as is the resultant elevated temperature.
Joel Born
Well, the concept of forcing is the initial radiative imbalance that results from some perturbation of the system. It refers to an initial steady state that by definition was in radiative balance.
So yes, in your example, the CO2 forcing certainly persists once a new steady state with zero imbalance is reached. Yet it persists only as a forcing of the system with respect to its initial state. Reference steady state is essential to determine what is forcing !
If the new reference state is the final state with zero imbalance re-established there is no forcing anymore with respect to this final state unless a new perturbation (more CO2 or stronger sun) is applied.
Lord Monckton when he “derives” a feedback factor f from temperature data without and with condensable GHGs actually refers to a hypothetical steady state of the system at 0 K.
This is plain nonsense as pointed out by other commenters before.
JB
It should read a steady state “without and with non condensable GHGs”
WhenIdiotsBelieveTheyGetItRight:
We finally converged. Sorry if my nomenclature choices confused things.
Yes, I agree with your statements about reference points.
I also agree with your diagnosis of Lord Monckton’s approach–to the extent that his approach is intelligible.
Lord Monckton’s modus operandi seems to be to use enough ambiguity and omit enough information that most serious observers give up trying to make sense of it. As a consequence, the few serious commenters who remain get drowned out by his fanboys.
Joe Born said:
Lord Moncktons modus operandi seems to be to use enough ambiguity and omit enough information that most serious observers give up trying to make sense of it. As a consequence, the few serious commenters who remain get drowned out by his fanboys.
You sum it up very well indeed.
“But the water vapour feedback response is actually a response to temperature.
No, its a response to change in temperature. A way I find useful to think about it goes:”
A bit of nit picking here Nick. I think everyone understood what mothcatcher meant
It’s n ot nitpicking. It’s Lord M’s key misapprehension. I just want to stop it spreading.
Nick, you might like this:
“In the climate system, CO2 concentration is a forcing, whereas the water vapour concentration is a feedback. To illustrate the difference, here’s a crude analogy:
Suppose that I’m trying to lose weight, but I’m reluctant to reduce the 300 grams of delicious chocolate cake that I eat every day. Having read that the human body is around 80% water by weight, I conclude that the cake can’t be a problem: after all, I drink 2 kg of water per day, so it would make more sense to reduce that! So I cut down to 1 kg of water per day and maintain my cake intake. Several weeks later, I’m surprised to find that I haven’t lost any weight! What’s happened? It turns out that the human body regulates its water content, so reducing my intake just reduced my output. Fat storage isn’t regulated in the same way, so the cake keeps piling up.”
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/7502/is-there-any-experiment-to-prove-that-co2-with-the-atmosphere-concentration-can/7511
Don’t fret, snake. Fat clowns are funny too.
Just ask appelly, rhymes with jelly.
It is even possible that the 1.2K theoretical warming from CO2 is neutralised, because, as Lord M says, the feedback response doesnt care what the origin of the forcing is, in fact there is no way it can tell..
The 1.2 K “theoretical” warming from CO2 is the bare effect with everything else being unchanged or without any feedback.
To “neutralise” the bare effect overall feedback must be at least negative. H20 vapor in atmosphere is positive and there are a lot of others from what physics tells us.
So it is rather wishful thinking to expect that feedback response in climate might even neutralize the effect of the CO2 on temperature as homeostasis regulates the body temperature of an animal.
Now, there is no doubt, feedbacks are clearly the real Achille’s heel of all existing climate sensitivity “calculations”. We simply don’t know yet how to do this reliably.
when…”Now, there is no doubt, feedbacks are clearly the real Achilles heel of all existing climate sensitivity calculations. We simply dont know yet how to do this reliably”.
We most certainly do know how to deal with it, stop using contrived science and start using established science related to feed backs. Climate modelers have invented their own definition of feedback as demonstrated by Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS, who apparently does not understand what positive feedback means.
See my reply to mothcatcher for a link about this.
Mothcatcher.
Similar to u I am a geologist so not into the models. As i understand him and your summary i think he has identified that the models dont consider the existing ghg warming and this reduces the total expected warming from man’s co2 input significantly or reduces the climate sensitivity. In other words the natural system already used some of the available feedback. Roy doesn’t like feedback because they are not a forcing included in the models and must be derived.
As I understand it WV can be a strong ghg or a cooling variable depending on its state. So all water could become ice and a runaway negative feedback, whereas CO2 is Not compressible at earth temp ranges. So it sort of provides the stabilizing backbone of atmospheric temp that keeps WV in the atmosphere and warming. Didnt read everything. Hope im not missing your question. This is how i was taught.
mothcatcher…”Have I misrepresented the argument? I stand to be corrected”.
*************
The argument is far more complex than what anyone seems to let on.
Gavin Schmidt, who runs NASA GISS and also the uber-alarmist site realclimate once described positive feedback as follows:
“A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it”.
See halfway down the page under ‘Gavin Schmidt On Positive Feedback’.
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
If you look around the Net you will see just as many incorrect definitions of PF as that, all with the notion that positive feedback can cause amplification without an amplifier.
Roy has addressed that issue recently and if I am understanding him correctly he is saying we should not equate the feedbacks mentioned in climate science with feedbacks used in disciplines like electronics. That’s fine with me but it means climatologists are using the term feedback incorrectly as it is defined in physics.
As a biologist, you are likely dealing with a form of feedback that is more akin to servo-systems. That differs markedly from the kind of positive feedback being suggested by Schmidt above that could lead to the mystical tipping point.
That’s really what it’s about, is it not? Modelers are trying to establish that CO2 being added to the atmosphere can produce a feedback that warms the planet.
In a servosystem, the feedback does not require amplification, it’s a control signal that indicates to an error comparator which way the driving mechanism should respond. For example, the feedback could be a signal from a tachometer on a motor shaft indicating whether the RPM is above or below a set point RPM.
The type of feedback referenced by Schmidt above is a positive feedback that requires an amplifier. An input signal (alternating current in an amplifier) is fed into the amplifier and amplified. A sample of the output signal is fed back in phase with the input signal, it adds to the signal, and the summed signal is amplified each cycle. The output becomes an exponentially increasing signal and under certain conditions it will become amplified indefinitely.
It’s not desirable in electronics to have such a PF under normal circumstances. It can occur without the intentional internal feedback signal in a public address system when the microphone gets too close to the speakers. Acoustic pressure from the speakers is picked up by the mic and fed back to the input. The same exponential gain occurs and you hear the familiar squeal associated with that situation.
Turning off the power stops it immediately. No amplification, no feedback. That’s closer to what Schmidt is trying to describe than the electronic amp with a built in feedback loop. However, oscillators, which are a vital part of electronics, use a modified and controlled form of positive feedback.
Having said all that, one needs to focus on what is being implied by feedbacks. Besides the cloud feedbacks mentioned often by Roy, for which I have no argument, the feedbacks used in models seem geared to the notion that CO2 in the atmosphere can feed back energy from the atmosphere and cause warming.
I have expounded on this enough and won’t focus on it here. Let me say, however, that two versions of anthropogenic warming exist. One version is that GHGs in the atmosphere are trapping heat, or as Roy claims, slowing down the dissipation of heat from the surface. I claim that is not possible and physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, in his book on atmopsheric radiation, suggests the concept is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly (not Roy’s version, the heat trapping blanket part).
The other version is that IR back-radiated from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface and added to solar SW input to super-heat the surface beyond what it is heated by solar energy. I don’t think that’s possible either. For one, the re-circulation of energy that has already been emitted from the surface, back to the surface to heat it more, is perpetual motion. The other problem, one that by now likely drives Roy nuts, is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids the transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Models are geared to bypassing the 2nd law and they indulge in feed backs that permit that. One of the culprits, Stefan Rahmstorf, suggested a positive net balance of energies, meaning electromagnetic energy, can satisfy the 2nd law, which is completely false. Heat cannot be transferred as EM from a cooler body to a warmer body.
I don’t know why Lord Monckton is wasting his time with model theory. the proof that disqualifies AGW is already there, in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which was ironically proposed to remove the perpetual motion allowed by the 1st law. AGW would appear to be based on the first law with modelers oblivious to the existence of the 2nd law.
The problem is that in the dense troposphere, greenhouse gases can not be separated from others. Until we calculate what the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be if there was no troposphere, we do not know what the greenhouse effect is.
“thats a mathematically-describable object … ”
.. and there’s the rub
.. We only know a small percentage of the physics involved with the long-term weather patterns of many climate regions. .. We are not even close to any certainty, precision nor accuracy in our mathematical discription of the “world’s climate” or any regional climate type
.. inadequate data, incorrectly modeled physics & math
.. plus the fact that small errors multiple rapidly into lage errors when one tries to make forward projections
.. last I check .. “climatologists” can’t agree if CO2 is 2% or 9% or 20% of the greenhousegas effect, that borders on speculation rather than “science”
What physics dont we know?
For you, appelly, the list is too long.
I’ve seen some radical claims on climate change blogs but DA’s apparent claim to omniscience, is quite extraordinary.
DA…”What physics dont we know?”
1)2nd law of thermodynamics
2)Ideal Gas Equation
3)Dalton’s law of partial pressures
4)atomic theory
5)quantum theory
6)Stefan-Boltzmann’s equation
Physics know all of those six areas very well.
Try again.
Graviton! David physics doesnt know how gravity fundamentally works. Since im on quantum scale, I am optimistic you will get into quantum climate change and how galactic cosmic rays (GCR) interact with the atmosphere as cloud seeds changing water from a ghg to albedo. Then how solar activity deflects the GCR based on suns magnetic field strength. And finally how GCR vary in time. All such an under explored part of climate science.
For pecentages, see Lacis et al Science 2010.
erik…”.. last I check .. climatologists cant agree if CO2 is 2% or 9% or 20% of the greenhousegas effect, that borders on speculation rather than science”
It is speculation and backed by consensus, not proof.
The real science related to gases like our atmosphere tells a different story. PV = nRT. Couple that with Dalton’s law of partial pressures with constant volume and you get a temperature produced by CO2 closer to 0.04C for a gain of 1C. The rest of the warming obviously came from nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of atmospheric gases.
You’re ignoring quantum mechanics and radiation transfer. On purpose.
Dr. Spencer, The climate commitment study of Wigley, et al,(2005), did attribute a portion of the unrealized commitment to past natural forcing:
“A breakdown of the natural and anthropo-genic components of the CC commitment, together with uncertainties arising from ocean mixing (Kz) uncertainties, is given in table S1. Past natural forcing (inclusion of which is the default case here) has a marked effect. The natural forcing component is surprisingly large, 64% of the total commitment in 2050, reducing to 52% by 2400.”
It goes without saying that the climate was not in equilibrium in the mid-1800s, it takes centuries for the oceans to reach equilibrium with new sustained levels of forcing and the forcing is always changing. I don’t know if Wigley’s natural component was due to interpreting the warming prior to 1950 as natural, which appeared to be the consensus at the time. But if the Little Ice Age was global and the end of it was due to natural forcing, we still would have climate commitment in the mid-1800s and even now from that new level of forcing, assuming it was still at a higher level than in a long global Little Ice Age that cooled the oceans.
ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Wigley_2005%20Sea%20level%20commitment.pdf
I happen to agree with you that there is likely a natural forcing component, possibly still in progress. But even if we assume it DOESN’T exist (Otto et al., 2013; Lewis & Curry, 2015), you diagnose a climate sensitivity only around 1.5 deg. C (based upon assumed forcing, surface temperature rise, and ocean heat content increase).
So, to the extent that some natural warming was ALSO occurring since the mid-1800s, that would make the sensitivity even lower.
Furthermore, with recent research that the aerosol cooling effect has been overestimated, it reduces the sensitivity even further.
This is the current best method for diagnosing ECS, in my opinion. Long-term changes in forcing, surface temperature, and OHC. Unfortunately, uncertainties abound, in OHC (what was it 100 years ago?) and in forcing (was there a natural forcing happening?)
Roy wrote:
“Furthermore, with recent research that the aerosol cooling effect has been overestimated,”
What paper(s) is this? Thx.
David,
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22974
and commentary here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/546483a
Martin Lewitt says:
“But if the Little Ice Age was global….”
It doesn’t seem to be:
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Whether these pre-instrumental episodes were global or not goes back and forth. This from 2014
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htm
That study “involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America.”
How can one area outside of Europe and North America say anything about the rest of the globe?
It adds a data point in another part of the world, that is interpreted as a change in weather patterns: “Our study is significant because, while there are various different estimates for the start and end of the Little Ice Age in different regions of the world, our data show that the most extreme phases occurred at the same time in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. These extreme episodes were abrupt global events. They were probably related to sudden, equator-ward shifts of the Westerlies in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Atlantic depression tracks in the Northern Hemisphere.”
While the data point is local, if it reflects a shift in known track effecting more than just that data point, broader conclusions can be supported. Of course, for the artificial global temperature statistic to be cooler in a period, the whole globe does not have to be cooler, it is enough for some places to be cooler and others not compensatingly warmer.
DA…evidence re Little Ice Age
You don’t really think that a 1C cooling applied only to Europe over 400 years, do you?
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/project2/group4.htm
Talks about evidence of harsh conditions in Europe and North America. I have read this in book by explorers to North America between the 1600s and 1800s where they observed an inordinate cold.
*************
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
“The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period”.
So, according to the IPCC, who have mandate to find proof of anthropogenic warming, and a propensity for lying in that respect, there was only regional cooling by the LIA over a 400 year period.
Three cold periods in China during LIA:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/little-ice-age-climate-near-beijing-china-inferred-from-historical-and-stalagmite-records/E88F2B571CA53E4888EB957EC9F893A8
Also… http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/summaries/asialia.php
*************
LIA in South America:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htm
See PAGES 2k, which uses 511 time series:
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Gentlemen
I think this will settle the argument.
Christopher said
“Now, assume ad argumentum that the naturally occurring greenhouse gases induced no radiative forcing at all. In that event, the entire 32 K difference between the natural temperature in 1850 and the emission temperature is the feedback response to emission temperature itself. ”
Christopher ,
You will be laughed out of court with arguments like the above. A feedback has to have some actual physical meaning. Any feedback has to either involve sound, electromagnetic light waves either seen or not or pressure of some sort. There has to be some physical process. So when you are talking about gases in the atmosphere they change temperature because of some physical process. Any feedback from that temperature change also has to involve a physical movement of some kind of energy through some medium. A temperature cannot change a temperature. A temperature doesnt exist. It is only a measuring tool of mankind, not a physical entity. So what you really mean is that the initial temperature change was caused by reflected IR being absorbed by greenhouse gases which caused more evaporation and enabled more IR to be trapped as a feedback. You cannot have a temperature change without having a net (incoming – outgoing to space) IR amount being trapped.
But this is where the alarmists are wrong. The real graph should be around 31.4 K for the clouds and water vapour part with the rest being CO2 for about 0.8K. The 1st key thing is that in the beginning there wasnt any clouds and water vapour in the atmosphere but there was CO2 and a lot of it. Therefore the temperature rose from the emission temperature 255.4 to the equilibrium temperature of 287.6. That initiated evaporation from the oceans enabling clouds and water vapour to form for the 1st time and thus an equilibrium temperature was reached. The 2nd key thing is that there is always enough water vapour in the air to absorb the net difference in IR. And when the amount gets saturated, precipitation happens and the amount drops back. Thus the total global level of H2O vapour in the atmosphere has never really changed from the beginning. Thus when the CO2 levels went down 325 million years ago because of increased plant growth ( the plants really got started big time around 325 million years ago) the temperature also dropped. There can never be any feedback (ie increased water vapour) (except a very very small one) from increased CO2 because the levels of CO2 since then by itself cannot cause a large enough temperature change. So when you talk about feedbacks you need large amounts of CO2 as in 8000ppm like the atmosphere had 530 million years ago. So the initial feedback to create the clouds and water vapour in the 1st place is really the only big feedback that has occurred. If mankind was to put 1000’s of ppm CO2 into the air we could get the temperature up but we would have to burn every last piece of carbon in the ground. Dont forget that since 1980 mankind has burned 75% more fossil fuels but has only increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 21%. The alarmists have no answer for that statistic.
There can never be any feedback (ie increased water vapour) (except a very very small one) from increased CO2 because the levels of CO2 since then by itself cannot cause a large enough temperature change.
Nothing but a tautology.
I suspect that Monckton uses the 255 K temperature to mean the surface temperature with no greenhouse gas feedbacks in play; the 279 K temperature to mean the surface temperature with all feedbacks operating except non-condensing gas feedback; and the 287 K temperature to mean the surface temperature with all feedbacks, including non-condensing gas feedback.
When the surface emits radiation at 255 K into an atmosphere which contains water vapor, some radiation will be absorbed and re-radiated in all directions, about half of which will head back to the surface causing some warming, i.e. +24 K, raising the surface temp to 279 K. Adding non-condensing greenhouse gasses will raise the temp by 8 K more.
How does this not make sense?
That is exactly what I said
Except reread what I say from the beginning. What is wrong with what I said?
Sorry Alan. I read many comments upthread and got the impression that people were obscuring Monckton’s central point with too much detail, so I skipped to the bottom and added my two bits, trying to keep it simple. -J
John asks: “How does this not make sense?”
John, it makes a kind of “sense”, it’s “nonsense”.
If you start with surface temp of 255 K, and the water vapor “warms” the surface to 279 K, then the “magic gas” heats another 8 K, to 287 K. Then, what’s to prevent the “magic gases” from heating the surface another 32 K. Then, another 32 K. Then, another. ..
But, maybe you believe in the “magic gases”, and “runaway” temperatures?
G*
If you put on a pair of wool sox your feet will get warmer. Let’s say 5 C.
What’s to prevent the “magic fabric” from warming your feet another 5 C, then another, then another……?
snake, if you believe the atmosphere acts as your socks, then you’re a clown.
because, as your feet warm, the temperature gradient through the sock increases, which increases the rate of heat flow. Eventually an equilibrium is reached where your skin is warmer, but the outside of the sock isn’t.
A more appropriate example would be to compare temperature change at two locations, one a desert with low humidity (e.g. Death Valley) and the other an area of high humidity (e.g. Miami). Both locations are near sea level with clear skies. Daytime temperatures would be the same but nighttime temperatures would be very different, with the dry desert air being much colder.
-J
Dr Spencer,
I hate analogies.
Put a corpse in the Sun, until it is as hot as it’s as hot as it’s going to get.
Put socks on its feet. Watch the temperature of the feet drop below that of the heated parts of the body.
Cheers,
Roy…”…as your feet warm, the temperature gradient through the sock increases, which increases the rate of heat flow”.
I think you meant ‘decreases’ the rate of heat flow, did you not?
I presume you are referring to convection and conduction because IR does not care about socks, it goes straight through.
I wear a heart rate monitor when I’m out walking and in winter I wear several layers of clothing, including a heavy winter jacket, over the transmitter strapped around my chest. That EM frequency is much lower than IR and it goes straight through the clothing to the receiver on my wrist.
The heated air against my chest does not dissipate much through the clothing. Sometimes I wear a windbreaker of a dense material that makes it feel like I’m in a steam bath when it’s zipped up. I sweat profusely in sub-zero weather while wearing it and over several layers of clothing.
Even though the windbreakers seals in hot air, it transmits the EM from my HRM trasmitter on my chest to the receiver on my wrist, which itself is often buried under several layers of sleeving.
I don’t think IR radiation is very effective at cooling.
Gordon asks, “I think you meant decreases the rate of heat flow, did you not?”
He meant what he said, Gordon. That’s why sox don’t cause runaway warming.
g*e*r*a*n says: “If you start with surface temp of 255 K, and the water vapor warms the surface to 279 K, then the magic gas heats another 8 K, to 287 K. Then, whats to prevent the magic gases from heating the surface another 32 K. Then, another 32 K. Then, another…”
So, water vapor is not a “magic gas” but non-condensing GHGs are? How does that work? Citations, please.
If you started with surface of 255 K…
If Earth was 255 K, what would it look like?
Let’s see, there couple ways, one do this.
One could simply have Earth further from the Sun.
Or if wanted planet without an atmosphere though like
Earth, you move Mars closer to the Sun. At Mars current distant it is about -50 C or about 220 K
So move Mars closer so gained 35 K.
Another way is to mix the entire Ocean of Earth, so not requiring more Sunlight (or increasing the amount of heat).
Average ocean temperature is 3.5 C and if mixed to have uniform ocean temperature, it’s surface temperature would change from about 17 C to 3.5 C.
And bring tropical average air temperature from about 26 C to
3.5 C. Land surfaces in tropics would be able to reach about 30 C in day time and would get well below freezing at night. And one would get snowfall as fairly common weather in tropics and even over the tropical ocean.
And tropics would have a lot less water vapor and could have as much water vapor has one current has outside the tropics which is about 0 to 1%. So tropics could have about 1% instead of 4 to 5%. Or 1/4 the amount water vapor in tropics.
And outside of tropics it should be less than 1/4 of current
levels.
Outside of tropics during summer, and below 45 degree latitude
you also get daytime highs on land also reaching 30 C, but due to weather one could have daytime in summer at or below freezing. Above 45 degrees latitude in summer it’s never going get as high as 30 C even in good weather. And during winter above 45 degree latitude it’s going to get very cold. So English channel would freeze.
Currently US is about 12 C, and with the ocean it could like Canada or around -4 C in terms of average temperature and Canada average temperature could lower by 30 K or have average temperature of about -35 C. Or coldest temperatures in Canada could be about -100 C. And Europe would be like Canada, and Russia a bit colder than Europe.
Of course you would not have the Gulf Stream and all the other oceanic currents and this would cause more winter time freezing of ocean water. And so average global surface temperature would be near 255 K (-18 C ).
John, some bad news for you. If you are supporting the concept of GHE and “magic” gas, it is YOU that must provide the evidence. CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. It can NOT “heat the planet”. It can NOT “trap heat”.
The industry of pseudoscience wants to “define” CO2 as a “pollutant” and “heat source”. Many Alarmists and Warmists believe/accept that definition. It’s about as meaningful as “defining” that your bank account now has 10 billion dollars.
Fantasy land.
Evidence for the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
See also:
“There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus,” 10/9/11.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/
appelly, did you ever hear Einstein’s definition of insanity?
I guess not.
You’ve avoiding discussing the science presented.
You haven’t presented any science.
When presented with evidence, you and MF deny, distort, avoid and insult — everything but actually confronting it.
Clown, you have no evidence. You have no science.
You believe the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K, and the Earth is warming the Sun!
You’re a clown.
More humor, please.
See, you did it again.
It’s evidence you can’t refute, or you would.
You haven’t presented any science, appelly.
CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source.
For the Nth time, no one is claiming it is. Enough already.
Are you in “denial”?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim CO2 can warm the planet, then claim you are not claiming it is a “heat source”.
Getting yourself tangled up in your pseudoscience is fun to watch.
john…”So, water vapor is not a magic gas but non-condensing GHGs are?”
Now I get it, non-condensing GHGs refer to CO2 since it does not condense to water as does WV.
Who started this lunacy? The only other significant (for want of a better word) GHG is CO2. Methane is ridiculous as a GHG.
So, now we have to divide GHGs into condensing and non-condensing since some alarmist scientist thinks CO2 increases WV.
I suppose this pseudo-science is aimed at the notion that WV does not persist in the atmosphere. Supposedly, all WV disappears after a while leaving CO2, at 0.04%, as the big bad GHG. Has anyone noticed that WV is replaced as fast as it condenses, making it essentially static?
What difference does it make whether WV condenses or not?
Here in Vancouver, in a rain forest climate, the relative humidity seldom goes below 70%. Even when it hasn’t rained for a spell.
Hilarious!!!
So, now we have to divide GHGs into condensing and non-condensing since some alarmist scientist thinks CO2 increases WV.
Not “now” — scientists have known this since Arrhenius.
There is a big difference in how condensing and non-condensing gases operate in the atmosphere — the atmosphere can only hold so much of the former, but there’s no limit on the latter.
A simple question: in times of low solar magnetic activity, jet stream over the oceans becomes more meridional. How much does it increase the cloud cover over the oceans?
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
That is one of the important questions. I do not know the answer.
Ren,
You state: “in times of low solar magnetic activity, jet stream over the oceans becomes more meridional.”
Do you have a citation? Svensmark and Christensen (something like that) quantified cloud cover change at about 4%. Here is a basic article. The peer reviewed paper is 2nd link.
https://principia-scientific.org/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000011
How does explain the fact that allowing for solar distance, Venus has the same temp as Earth at the same pressure despite Venus 95% CO2 vs Earth 0.04% CO2?
The GHE on Earth works by CO2 hindering one part of the thermal IR spectrum, and water vapor another. On Venus CO2 blocks its part more effectively, but the wv part lets IR through.
The stated 37 degrees C (which is the average human body temperature prior to viral attack) corresponds to 310 Kelvin (K) (Celsius temp plus 273). If we enter the Venus altitude-versus-temperature graph at 310 K and go straight up (red line) to the temperature profile, and then horizontally to the left axis we find a corresponding altitude of 52.5 kilometers (33 miles).
Now, as a rough cross-check, we enter the Venus altitude-versus-atmospheric pressure graph at 1000 millibars (the Earth’s average sea level atmospheric pressure) and go up to intersect the altitude-pressure profile line, and across to the left axis where we find the corresponding altitude of 49.5 kilometers (31 miles). This altitude is only three kilometers (or six percent) different than we found from the temperature graph.
So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a region in the Venusian atmosphere which approximates that of Earth with respect to temperature and pressure. But there may be problems.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080205025041/http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
The temperature in the troposphere of Venus, as on Earth, drops linearly with atmospheric pressure.
The Troposphere of Venus, just like the Earth’s troposphere, ends at a level just below the 100 hPa pressure level.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
Nick, does “hindering” translate to “warming”? In pseudoscience, the answer is “yes”. In reality, the answer is “no”.
Your choice, pseudoscience or reality?
does adding insulation to your house hinder the loss of heat in the winter, and lead to warming of the interior for the same energy input from the heating system?
The problem with analogies like insulation, clothing, blankets, etc. is that they omit the cooling capabilities of the atmosphere. To use house insulation as an analogy to the atmosphere, there would need to be automatic louvers installed in the insulation. The louvers would open as temperatures rose above a set point.
But energetically, they ARE similar. A blanket DOES have a cooling capability. As temperature on one side of the blanket increases, there is greater rate of heat transfer through the blanket, and the blanket then loses heat faster to its surroundings through both conduction and radiation.
Seriously, g*e*r*a*n, I cannot believe you are still beating this drum… unless someone is paying you to do so.
-Roy
A blanket is a passive “system”. It’s just there.
The atmosphere is a dynamic system. Working with oceans, It responds to increased temperatures in a number of dramatic ways. Possibly you’ve heard of El Nio and hurricanes. The Gas Laws explain that the atmosphere expands as temperatures increase. Stefan-Boltzmann explains that emission increases dramatically, as temperatures increase.
Seriously, Dr. Roy, I cannot believe you are still beating the drum that the atmosphere is a blanket. You sound more like a “Warmist” than someone that just wants to claim the middle- of-the-road until they can figure out which way to jump.
El Niño!
Yes, stop thinking about blankets, Roy. It’s just woolly headed.
Re: blanket
At 288 K, the Earth’s surface emits an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 is observed entering and leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
Well just going by inverse square law and putting toa at about 10k above sea level, i would expect about 60w/m2 outgoing…
Better question is how does all that additional energy get to the toa?
appelly, there is no “missing 150”.
It’s just that your pseudoscience doesn’t add up.
You need some pseudo-arithmetic to go with your pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
roy…”does adding insulation to your house hinder the loss of heat in the winter, and lead to warming of the interior for the same energy input from the heating system?”
Roy…you need to be more specific. Insulation in walls and ceilings slows heat loss mainly due to conduction, it has little or no effect on radiation. In construction, if they want to address radiation loss, they use a reflective surface to reflect the radiation.
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/weatherize/insulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)
When you suffer from hypothermia, like after a marathon where your core temperature drops, they will sometimes put you in a thermal body suit, or use a blanket that incorporates aluminum. They were designed initially by NASA for space and I presume the idea is to reflect back radiation that would represent a heat loss.
Keep that to yourself or eco-alarmists will be spreading them everywhere to reflect solar radiation.
wiki…space blanket…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_blanket
The Earth’s surface receives an average of 240 W/m2 from sunlight at its surface, but, at 288 K, emits 390 W/m2.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
appelly, I know you can not figure that out. You don’t have an understanding of the physics. You can’t even understand the toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Hilarious.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
Well just going by inverse square law and putting toa at about 10k above sea level, i would expect about 60w/m2 outgoing
Better question is how does all that additional energy get to the toa?
How do you figure that? Any correction to the inverse square law will go like 2h/R, where h is height and R is the Earths’ radius. For h=10 km this is only 0.3%
philJ,
Inverse square in this situation means multiplying by Re^2/(Re+h)^2, so 6500^2/6510^2 gives about .996.
“A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020?WT.feed_name=subjects_giant-planets&foxtrotcallback=true
Dr. Spencer, I’ve written a rebuttal to Dr. Myles Allen’s presentation, but because you have a much larger following, it would be great if you or one of your frequent guests would do the same.
Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sophistry-in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-the-lie/
You’ve indeed managed to capture most of the denialist disinformation.
One of my favorite examples is your “graphic 13”, which begins with a graph which is not referenced and which doesn’t even include a scale on the vertical axis and which is obviously smoothed with an unstated filter. The second graph is taken from ice core data from Greenland, presumably the delta18O data, that represents only high latitude temperature and likely ends before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The polar latitudes are much more sensitive to changes in climate, thus the temperature range shown is not representative of global changes. The last graphic begins 600 million years back, while the present climate of repeated Ice Ages only kicked in around 3.3 MA, most likely the result of the closure of the Isthmus of Panama, which resulted in a fundamental change in ocean circulation. Thus, all previous periods are not representative of our present situation and can not be used for comparison.
Eric, the graphics are fairly widely accepted. Of course ice core samples, tree rings, and “600 million years” are all “soft science”, but do you also consider the 2LoT “disinformation”?
“Youve indeed managed to capture most of the denialist disinformation “.
“Denialist” is a pejorative term used in climate alarmism propaganda intended to equate CAGW skepticism with Holocaust denial; its name-calling, the lowest form of argument lower even than ad hominem.
Those employing it show cognitive bias “… a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment …” (Wiki).
Wrong. “Denier” had a well understood meaning before the Holocaust, and it retains that meaning after it.
Deniers just use the Holocaust to play the victim.
As in “davie is a denier of reality”.
He just likes to play the victim.
Indeed, if upset about being called a denier then you may be also called a snowflake.
I started using the term “denialist” to describe a group of folks who insist on denying the scientific evidence of AGW. I have never “intended to equate CAGW skepticism with Holocaust denial”, a misdirection by the denialist camp, who have an anti-science agenda. I’m happy to see the term appearing in the main stream media as an identifier of group think much like the term “neocon” has become common in describing another group with an agenda.
The example I pointed to above is one such piece of work, where science like graphics are presented with no references and no real relationship to the underlying data. What good is a graph without a scale? There are only two temperature data points noted, one for the Little Ice Age and the other for 1998. I think the graphic is little more than a cartoon, an intentionally deceptive graphic used for political ends.
Similarly, the “15 thousand year” graphic is delta18 Oxygen data from an ice core, which is a proxy for temperature in the source region for the precipitation. That graphic shows “present temperature”, which isn’t correct, AIUI and the data does not represent global temperature.
Eric claims: “I started using the term “denialist” to describe a group of folks who insist on denying the scientific evidence of AGW.”
Eric, just so no one can accuse you of delusion, would you mind presenting the “scientific evidence of AGW”.
Thanks.
If you don’t know the evidence for AGW — readily available to anyone who’s interested — how can you claim there is none?
appelly, I’ve seen the AGW “evidence”. It’s hilarious. Almost as funny as your 800,000K nonsense.
Again no refutations. Never any.
appelly, there is NO evidence that you can understand the physics, but 5800 K can NOT radiatively heat an object to 800,000K.
But, keep insisting that the 2LoT is invalid.
It makes for great climate-comedy, and is fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“there is NO evidence that you can understand the physics, but 5800 K can NOT radiatively heat an object to 800,000K.”
If an object gains a steady amount of heat per unit time but has no way to shed heat, what maximum temperature will it reach?
Jelly, the Earth could not receive a “steady amount of heat”, after it reached equilibrium of about 400 K.
You need to learn some physics.
swannie…”I started using the term denialist to describe a group of folks who insist on denying the scientific evidence of AGW”.
What evidence? There is good evidence from Tyndall that CO2 absorbs infrared energy but not a shred of evidence that the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere has warmed the planet by close to 1C in a century and a half.
In fact good science, a la Dalton and the Ideal Gas Equation, suggest strongly that such a rare gas as CO2 could not possibly raise atmospheric temps more than a few hundredths of a degree C over a century and a half.
Even the IPCC cannot claim CO2 is warming the atmosphere, all they claim is that it is ‘likely’. It appears far more likely that the planet has re-warmed due to a reversal of the process that caused the Little Ice Age.
Gotta keep an open mind, Swannie. Never hurts to be skeptical in science.
Gordon Robertson says:
What evidence? There is good evidence from Tyndall that CO2 absorbs infrared energy but not a shred of evidence that the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere has warmed the planet by close to 1C in a century and a half.
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release:
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
GR, Yes, a good scientist is always skeptical and when new evidence is presented, a good scientist must consider it. For example, my Green Plate demos have shown that a cooler body can warm a hotter body under certain conditions. If you are a good scientist, instead of a denialist, you would accept those results and recant your previous claims. You are a good scientist, aren’t you?
Eric, your hilarious comedy-routine of trying to disprove 2LoT is perfect timing.
April 1st is this Sunday!
g*e*r*a*novich, Yes, I need to get-er-done. My latest results at 250 microns show the same obvious temperature increase for a warm body by a colder one as before. You denialist clowns better get used to reality because reality always bites back.
Eric, that’s great!
See if you can get your “experiment” on CNN, for April Fool’s Day. The rumor is they’ll do anything for ratings.
E.Swanson wrote:
The last graphic begins 600 million years back.
Also, the data points” on that figure are about 10 Myrs apart, and come from climate-carbon models. So CO2’s influence on any climate phenomena shorter than about 10 Myrs isn’t going to show up there.
It also excludes the fact that the Sun was much weaker in distant times past. (The Sun’s irradiance has been increasing by about 1% every 110 million year.) And that the continents were of different shape and in different places, meaning the planet had a different albedo and different climate dynamics.
That figure is a cartoon, not data.
The next question is: can the increase in geopotential height in the stratosphere over the polar circle cause a drop in temperature in North America?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2018.png
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
I can see some sense in what Christopher Monkton is saying in that the Earth being very large will take a lot longer than a pot of water to cool down, there is a difference in scale here between the Earth and the examples cited here. The Earth will cool down slower and slower and it is subject to daily warming it may remain warmer than the loss of the greenhouse gas warming would suggest for all I know.
donald…”I can see some sense in what Christopher Monkton is saying in that the Earth being very large will take a lot longer than a pot of water to cool down…”
The opposite applies as well. It took a long time following the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850, for the Earth to re-warm. All those glaciers to melt as well as accumulated ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland. All those oceans to re-warm.
Akasofu predicted 0.5C/century re-warming and he seems to be pretty close. I think we’re almost there.
“It took a long time following the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850, for the Earth to re-warm.”
Systems don’t warm without a cause.
Some warming after the continental LIA came from a slightly warmer sun, diminution of the ice-albedo feedback that cooled into the LIA, and early GHGs.
But what caused to system to become WARMER than it was pre-LIA?
A problem with CO2 is it doesn’t explain why Venus is hot.
(And another problem with CO2 is it doesn’t
explain glacial and interglacial periods- and roughly such things are what greenhouse effect theory is “suppose to” explain).
Now, the analogy of greenhouse gases house insulation has a problem that home heating elements are quite hot. They are so hot that they can burn down a house and sunlight is that hot.
And the lack of hotness of sunlight is the problem with Venus – why is its rocky surface so hot.
So insulation does not make the source hotter. A flame burns it a certain temperature depending on the chemical reaction (lit match is about 2000 degrees- and paper ignites at 454 F). Electrical elements depends electrical factors like voltage and electrical resistance, but over 3000 K is doable.
The sunlight in terms of a blackbody at earth distance is about 120 C and on Earth surface with 1000 watts of direct sunlight
it’s temperature is about 80C.
And BTW sunlight going thru the thick atmosphere and clouds of Venus doesn’t have direct sunlight at it’s rocky surface, so couldn’t heat a blackout surface.
and yet the core of the sun is estimated to be 15 million deg C., despite producing less energy per kg than the human body does through metabolism.
Yes, insulation DOES make something hotter. As long as you pump energy in, if the system cannot lose energy, it keeps getting HOTTER.
Basic thermodynamics. Conservation of energy. It doesn’t get more basic.
Dr Spencer,
I’ll be brief.
Put a thermometer on the ground. Let the sun heat it to stable(ish) temperature.
Throw a blanket over it. The temperature drops.
The Earths “blanket” stops around 35% of suns radiation reaching the surface, even accordibg to NASA,
Even Tyndall measured the increase in surface temperature as you go up, as the amount of “blanket” lessens. Keen mountaineer, as well as scientist and experimenter of brilliance.
No magic one way insulator, Dr Spencer. Things get hotter, and colder. All the fancy SB calculations in the Warmist world cannot explain the temperature when the surface was molten, before the first liquid water formed, or even when the average was 10 K hotter than the present!
I’ll leave you alone – insulators do not provide energy, or heat. The Sun is an external heat source, not an internal one. Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth, and all the other Warmists are wrong.
I’m right, and I’m not even sorry about it. Just a fact.
Cheers.
The point is, that while the Sun is an external source, its short-wave radiation comes through the transparent blanket, becoming de facto internal. And then the outgoing radiation bumps into the blanket, which is no longer transparent for Earth’s emission.
I don’t really really see why simple arguments need to be said again?
CO2 is not just a ‘blanket’, it’s a half-transparent, ‘selective glass’.
Your mountaineer thing just proves the point. It is what is to be expected. In space, sunlight is even harder. The blanket is ‘one-and-half way’ – only working well on long-wave from the Earth, not well on the shortwave from the Sun.
‘ insulators do not provide energy’
Trust me we know. But the CO2 does not only insulate, it selects wavelengths.
Now everything is said. Why it needs to be said again? Why these circles? What’s this about? Are you possibly just making fun of us? Why am I reading this? This is the most immensely vain thread on the planet.
wert, in all that rambling, did you have a valid point?
Yeah, I didn’t think so either.
Wert
Mike lives where it’s very hot and thinks insulation is only useful for keeping things cool.
Flynn, you confuse radiation and temperature badly. Place your thermometer to read the temperature of a surface outdoors in the sun. Later put something over the thermometer that lets sunlight through to the surface but blocks the infrared from going from the surface to outer space. A glass dome for example. Your thermometer will read a higher temperature after a few minutes.
I know you will complain that greenhouses mostly work by halting convection. So you actually should do this experiment on the moon in a vacuum. Thermometer will still read higher. Just a fact.
D,
Unfortunately, you cannot produce this magical one way insulator, can you?
The atmosphere does not change at night. Same CO2. Temperature drops anyway.
Try your glass dome experiment. You’ll find you have been dreaming.
You are talking nonsense. Urban myth, unsupported by fact.
Cheers.
dmac…”Later put something over the thermometer that lets sunlight through to the surface but blocks the infrared from going from the surface to outer space. A glass dome for example”.
Watt disproved that circa 1909. He was an expert in IR and consulted by Niels Bohr for his expertise on radiation. Nahle replicated and corroborated his experiments more recently.
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf
Watt concluded that glass does not block IR, that a greenhouse warms because the glass traps molecules of heated air and prevents them cooling due to blocking the natural influx of cooler air.
In the atmosphere, heated air rises and cooler air replaces it via convection. As Joe Postma claims, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
Watt lived before the understanding of quantum mechanics and radiative transfer. You do too.
A or any heat source has limit to it’s temperature, this is related to a fundamental limit to the performance of chemical rockets. A nuclear rocket could heat gas to a higher temperature and can therefore have higher rocket exhaust velocity.
The Sun is about 5800 K but it is far away from earth and it’s temperature reduces with distance. One can increase the temperature of direct sunlight by magnify sunlight- collecting a larger area and focusing the sunlight into a smaller area. But regardless of how much area is collected the temperature will limited to the sun temperature (5800 K).
But with earth, the sunlight is unmagnified, and with 1000 watts per squared meter of sunlight in insulates box, a blackbody surface can only reach about 80 C.
And if box wasn’t insulated it might be instead be 70 C, or insulation can increase temperature but not higher than the heat source.
And basically what an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody is doing is smearing the energy of sunlight of area of disk over an area of a sphere. Or if had heat source of 120 C and increase the area by 4 times it should about 5 C if the increased area is radiating into vacuum of space.
True but a sidetrack. The Earth is nowhere near 5800.
By the way, if you could collect all sunlight from the Sun to a one place, that would have to become in balance with the Sun that then prevented the Sun from emitting freed energy. The temperature of the surface of the Sun would rise slowly towards the maximum possible related to its fusion reactions.
gbaikie says:
“The Sun is about 5800 K but it is far away from earth and its temperature reduces with distance.”
No it doesn’t. Its temperature is its temperature. The amount of radiation per area decreases with distance, but it still retains its blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 5800 K.
Yes, sunlight does keep it’s spectrum, if it didn’t you could not increase its temperature to 5800 K by magnifying the sunlight. Or you could get 1360 watts of light from cooler and closer heat source, but that light can not have it temperature increased by magnification as much as one can with sunlight.
Why is Monckton ignoring
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature, Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
See Figure 2 – removing all noncondensing GHGs from the atmosphere leads to an equilibrium temperature 35 K lower in 30 years.
For that NASA publication to be correct, liquid water would have to have no vapor pressure unless CO2 was present. It is appalling that you and NASA apparently dont know better.
Water vapor partial pressure vs water temperature: http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/1515sp01/database/vpwater.html
That graph doesn’t show water vapor going to zero.
That the vapor pressure does not go to zero on the graph is indeed a relief that such a well-known relation was not overlooked. But that leaves the more insidious prospect that the model itself is faulty. Simply impose feedback (definition of fb as used by CS) from water vapor low enough to produce the graph.
The issue raised by the observation that water vapor varies tremendously over the oceans in spite of CO2 fraction being essentially constant everywhere remains unaddressed.
So you agree that your first point — “For that NASA publication to be correct, liquid water would have to have no vapor pressure unless CO2 was present” — was wrong.
The issue raised by the observation that water vapor varies tremendously over the oceans in spite of CO2 fraction being essentially constant everywhere remains unaddressed.
Regions will obviously vary.
Does the global average change much?
Here is the aerosol article with the result that the aerosol effect which had been assumed to be cooling is much less that the models have parameterized, so that a slight warming may actually be within the range.
“This suggests that estimates of the net negative radiative forcing due to the total ACI1 can also be significantly reduced and its uncertainty range could even include positive values.”
The implications are that this may also explain the high sensitivity and attribution to CO2 in the models and resolve some of the discrepancies with other estimates
I note that even with likely over sensitive models Lacis kept 40% of the oceans with their 0.08 albedo ice free. While Lacis repeatedly characterize clouds and water vapor as fast feedback processes, over open ocean at lower latitudes they persist and induce feedbacks themselves. Without CO2 a significant part of the earth might remain habitable … if only plants could grow.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03379-6
No one is proposing to get all CO2 out of the atmosphere — just the manmade part.
appelly, have you heard that “Toys-R-Us” is going out of business?
Kind of like your pseudoscience, huh?
But there are those proposing that CO2 is so important, that without it there would not be significant enough water vapor for the earth to be habitable. Whereas near the equator, with the ocean albedo of 0.08 the average emission temperature is 290K. Plenty warm enough to have an H2O vapor pressure of 0.02 atmospheres, enough to have greenhouse impact on temperature and positive water vapor feedback to that that temperature increase. Let just view the hype about CO2 and results from climate models with high CO2 sensitivities with some skepticism
IF there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, calculations suggest the average surface temperature of the planet would be < 0 C. This would cause the water vapor saturation pressure to drop, a lot of ice to form, reflecting ever more sunlight, dropping the temperature still further.
DA…”Why is Monckton ignoring”
Because it is co-authored by Gavin Schmidt who is an uber-alarmist.
I don’t see you interviewing skeptics like Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH for your science articles.
I have a time or two asked John Christy for his thoughts. But I rarely, if ever, write about satellite measurements.
Gavin Schmidt is right to be an alarmist. We should all be alarmed about the rapid pace of global warming.
appelly believes: “We should all be alarmed about the rapid pace of global warming.”
Hilarious, jelly. More humor, please.
Again, no science. Again.
That’s correct, appellly, you have no science.
Alarmed isn’t good, it feeds hysteria. Many prey on hysteria. The smart commit to learning and innovation. Innovation? Has been happening at a blistering pace the last 200 years.
We shouldn’t be hysterical, but we should be alarmed. A surface warming at +0.15-0.20 C/decade is hardly normal….
Here is a way to address the climate change issue in court:
Climate Alarmist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool
Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, with the Glacier National Park Glacier. He claimed that man-made global warming is the cause of the decline of the glacier. The problem is, Glacier National Park is in the middle of nowhere, and there is no urban heat island effect. There has been no warming in that area since 1994 and temperatures have actually been in a slight DOWNTREND!!!
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/climate-alarmist-is-playing-san-francisco-judge-as-a-complete-fool/
Except in very obvious cases, you can’t determine a trend just by eyeballing. You’d need to turn the temperatures into anomalies and calculate their trend and statistical significance using something like least squares analysis.
From USGS:
“…Despite occasional big winters or frigid weeks that occur, the glaciers of GNP, like most glaciers worldwide, are melting as long term average temperatures increase. Analysis of weather data from western Montana shows an increase in summer temperatures and a reduction in the winter snowpack that forms and maintains the glaciers. Since 1900 the mean annual temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has increased 1.33C (Pederson et al. 2010), which is 1.8 times the global mean increase. Spring and summer minimum temperatures have also increased (Pederson et al. 2011), possibly influencing earlier melt during summer. Additionally, rain, rather than snow, has been the dominant form of increased annual precipitation in the past century (Selkowitz et al. 2002). Despite variations in annual snowpack, glaciers have continued to shrink, indicating that the snowpack is not adequate to counteract the temperature changes.
“In conjunction with the past centurys long-term temperature increase, ocean-driven climate trends (Pacific Decadal Oscillation of PDO) influence GNPs regional climate….”
“Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park,” USGS https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
“The daily temperature time series reveal extremely cold days (≤ −17.8C) terminate on average 20 days earlier and decline in number, whereas extremely hot days (≥32C) show a three-fold increase in number and a 24-day increase in seasonal window during which they occur.”
— “A century of climate and ecosystem change in Western Montana: what do temperature trends portend?” Gregory T. Pederson et al, Climatic Change, January 2010, Volume 98, Issue 12, pp 133154.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9642-y
Anecdotal evidence. Not attributed. Could be just bullshit if true.
Scientific studies are not “anecdotal” — they’re the opposite.
Can you refute the study?
appelly, your “scientific” studies are hilarious.
800,000K!!!
It’s fun to watch.
DA…”Scientific studies are not anecdotal theyre the opposite”
Anecdotes are fine for climate alarmists. If they all agree on something, they take it to a journal editor who agrees, and he farms it out to a reviewer who agrees. Ergo, anecdotes get peer reviewed.
You have no evidence of any of that, Gordon. You’re just frustrated that your own POVs aren’t accepted by science, but because you can’t disprove the science, you’re reduced to making up conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them.
Pierrehumberts claim: “In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22e17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800 000 K aftar a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
– Physics Today, January 2011, pg 33
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Proof:
dT = dQ/mc
Given: (dQ/dt)_net = 1.22e17 J/s in => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.
appelly, do you remember the definition of insanity?
appelly has attempted to use that silly calculation, numerous times. In his head, it is “proof” that the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000 K. That just shows you how little appelly understands physics.
His “given” is that the Sun can continue to heat the Earth, even after the maximum temperature allowed by physics (S/B equation). Even closest to the Sun, and with zero albedo, the maximum insolence would not exceed 1450 Watts/m^2, which corresponds to about 400 K. But, pseudoscience doesn’t care about reality.
A simple analogy would be if appelly stated that he could run 10,000 mph (16,000 kph). Someone might say that was impossible. Then appelly would provide the “proof”:
d = rt (distance = rate multiplied by time)
r = d/t
r = 10000 miles/1 hour = 10,000 mph
appelly would then state, “QED”!
He loves his pseudoscience.
G*
A better analogy: if someone gave you $1450.00/second, and you didn’t spend any of it, there would be no limit to how rich you would get.
snake, have you figured out what planet you’re on yet?
g*e*r*a*n says:
His given is that the Sun can continue to heat the Earth
That is the assumption of the thought experiment.
…even after the maximum temperature allowed by physics (S/B equation).
This is a very bad misunderstanding of the SB equation.
Snape says:
A better analogy: if someone gave you $1450.00/second, and you didnt spend any of it, there would be no limit to how rich you would get.
Yes, thanks.
Give up Roy. Some folks are just too thick.
The real problem is when La Nina meets with low Sun activity.
In Australia, for example, there will be a lot of rain now and the ice in Antarctica is growing rapidly.
Please see how La Nina and the jet stream cooperate in Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The amount of snow this year shows that the temperature of the atmosphere in medium latitudes can change quickly year on year.
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
La Nina could be strengthened.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Do you think we will have more Atlantic hurricanes this year?
This is very likely.
Why?
If Society Cant Trust Science, What Can They Trust? Climate Alarmist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool
Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, with Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/climate-alarmist-is-playing-san-francisco-judge-as-a-complete-fool/
‘ The graphic describes a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.’
Your claim is simply wrong. The graphic shows a log dependency.
But to add an insult, the relation is linear enough to be well approximated linearly for decently small changes in ppms.
The forecast of ozone in the lower stratosphere on March 30 indicates frost in the northern US.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/i7aswbtjdii6.png
Hummm, would true equilibrium be achieved when all of the CO2 is put back where it originally came from in its original form?
There is enough confusion about the science, maybe we should pause for a quick review.
1) The atmosphere is NOT a blanket, clothing, or home insulation. Anyone that clams to such nonsense just doesn’t understand the related science.
2) CO2 can NOT “trap heat”. It absorbs certain infrared wavelengths, and then re-emits them. The absorbed/emitted wavelengths are of such low energy that they can NOT raise Earth’s temperatures. An ice cube emits photons with higher energy than CO2.
3) A photon emitted by a source, if somehow reflected back to that source, can NOT raise the temperature of the source.
4) Temperatures do NOT add. For example, two glasses of identical water at 40 degrees, poured together have a temperature of 40 degrees, not 80. Two object at 40 degrees radiating to a third object can NOT raise its temperature above 40 degrees.
Science: Learn it, love it, live it.
Consequently, the “forcing” from atmospheric CO2 is ZERO, zilch, null, nada. AGW is a hoax.
PS A horse is NOT rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track.
I generally agree with you say, CO2 doesn’t warm, nor it been proven that CO2 prevents cooling, though I think it might do this by some small amount- doubling from 300 to 600 ppm is less than 1 K added to global surface air temperature, but it’s possibility and I can’t say what the mechanism involved
is. Or no one has mechanism, I can cite, which seems to me is
testable – or valid.
I tend I think greenhouse gas “effect” is mostly confided to low elevation.
Anyhow as general thing, I don’t think that Earth is warm
and if one could mix the ocean the global air would be much colder.
If had 40 C glass of water and added careful to a 1/2 glass at 20 C water, the surface of water of glass could be near 40 C, bottom at 20 C.
So average temperature of water is 30 C, but it’s global air surface temperature is about 40 C.
Or our global average surface temperature is due to warmed water rising.
So the ocean heat gradient has highest temperature at the surface and warmed water is losing most of it heat via evaporation, and tropical ocean evaporation is warming the air of atmosphere, globally. Though more ocean heat transported as warmed ocean waters pole ward.
And this related to lack radiant energy emitted from tropics into space.
There is also atmospheric heat gradient generally called lapse rate and also has the warmest air temperature at the surface.
So where warmest water and warmest air is, is what we call the temperature of Earth, but it’s like calling a glass with 1/2 40 and 1/2 20 C a glass with temperature of 40 C.
Earth’s ocean and sky and land is quite cold and on top of that 59 F is still not warm, but my current air temp is 48 F and 1 pm and 59 F would be an improvement.
1) How does home insulation raise the temperature of a house?
2) An ice cube emits photons of all energies.
3) The greenhouse effect does not work via “reflection.”
4) No one (but MF) thinks temperatures add.
1) Red herring.
2) WRONG!
3) Red herring.
4) WRONG!
appelly has NO science, but an abundance of debate tricks.
Hey jelly, you avoided mention of the toy train.
Hilarious.
DA…”1) How does home insulation raise the temperature of a house?
***It blocks heat by conduction.
2) An ice cube emits photons of all energies.
***Not so. It has a very restricted EM bandwidth.
3) The greenhouse effect does not work via reflection.
***Might as well. Absorbing a fraction of surface IR and spitting back a fraction of it is not even as good as reflection, unless the mirror is mighty dirty.
G*R raised an excellent point. When you emit EM from a radiator, you cannot send equal or less energy back to raise it’s temperature. Something to do with perpetual motion. Also, something to do with the energy being modified in intensity and frequency due to the back-radiator being at a lower temperature.
1) and the GHE works by inhibiting radiation, which also carries energy. Both work by redirecting some outgoing energy.
2) “It has a very restricted EM bandwidth.”
Where is its spectrum?
3) Reflection redirects ALL incident energy. The GHE only redirects a fraction.
“When you emit EM from a radiator, you cannot send equal or less energy back to raise its temperature.”
The Earth’s surface, at 288 K, emits an average of 390 W/m2. Yet only 240 W/m2 leaves the top of the atmosphere. Where is the other 150 W/m2?
appelly, your ongoing confusion is amazing.
Is this a great year in climate-comedy, or what?
No refutation, as usual.
Jelly, your fascination with the 150 Watts/m^2 is hilarious.
GR wrote
FALSE. Insulation in a house blocks convection and creates a space filled with air mixed with fiberglass (or rock wool or maybe plastic foam). The resulting material exhibits lower heat transfer by conduction than would be the situation without it’s presence. It’s amazing that you haven’t grasped the difference between conduction and convection, as it’s basic engineering and you claim to live in cold Canada.
Eric, with his obvious ignorance of 2LoT, attempts to teach “heat transfer”.
It’s fun to watch.
swannie…”Insulation in a house blocks convection and creates a space filled with air mixed with fiberglass (or rock wool or maybe plastic foam)”.
Where’s the convection between the drywall and the outside wall? Convection acts between interior walls. It’s the wind blowing out of your hot air registers coming from the furnace.
Insulation slows conduction after heat transfers through interior drywall. Modern wood frame construction adds a vapour barrier of tough plastic between drywall and studs. They even put plastic boots around the electrical boxes.
It’s no wonder you got confused in your experiments regarding convection. You don’t know what it is.
GR wrote
That’s an easy one, GR. In a stud wall without insulation, convection begins due to thermosyphoning. The warm inside of the sheetrock (or what ever) heats the air next to it and the cold outside wall cools the air nest to it, the result being a convection loop. The heat transfer due to this convection dominates the conduction thru the air. Properly installed insulation blocks this process, however, if the insulation is not sealed at top and bottom, the convection can still proceed, though at a lower rate. As the warmer air likely includes some moisture, the moisture condenses on the outer wall, which can result in damage to the outer wall over time. The placement of the vapor barrier depends on the climate and in warmer climate where air conditioning is used, the barrier on the outer wall may be important. With a super insulated wall, the vapor barrier might be placed mid way thru the insulation, which is the way I built my house, which has about 12 inches of fiberglass in the walls.
g*r…”1) The atmosphere is NOT a blanket, clothing, or home insulation. Anyone that clams to such nonsense just doesnt understand the related science”.
I agree that is the case for IR radiation but I am warming up to Kristian’s idea that the atmosphere behaves like an insulator….in a way. I think Mike Flynn mentioned something similar. It apparently absorbs 1/3 of the solar energy incident at the TOA, it absorbs ultraviolet in the stratosphere, and it retains heat it scavenges from the surface, better explaining the GHE metaphor.
I think the atmosphere may be significantly warmed from the outside in due to warming over the bandwidth beyond the IR spectrum.
Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR radiation, felt the atmosphere acted to retain heat it absorbs at the surface, likely because N2 and O2 are poor radiators at terrestrial temperatures.
I think the GHE is explained quite well by the natural properties of the oceans and the atmosphere.
What thinkst thou???
Wood didn’t even know about quantum mechanics. 1909 was before even Bohr’s model.
DA…”Wood didnt even know about quantum mechanics. 1909 was before even Bohrs model”.
Did not stop Bohr consulting with Woods re IR. Who knows, maybe Wood put him onto ideas that lead to QM.
What says Bohr consulted Watt? And about what?
What did Watt know about IR that Arrhenius didn’t?
The Sun heats the planet. The atmosphere and oceans control how warm the surface gets. Thermodynamics works.
The greenhouse effects works by more than thermodynamics — radiative transfer. Even if Watt knew a lot about IR, he didn’t know much about the interaction of matter and radiation. For that GHE, that’s where it’s at.
Sorry appelly, the GHE does NOT work. There’s nothing to it. Same as your head.
DA…”The greenhouse effects works by more than thermodynamics radiative transfer. Even if Watt knew a lot about IR, he didnt know much about the interaction of matter and radiation. For that GHE, thats where its at”.
I wonder if it has occurred to you that we are talking about heat transfer. Thermodynamics is the science associated with that.
What could be beyond heat transfer in the atmosphere?
Watt knew enough about IR to realize the surface does not cool well via radiation. He reasoned it was the major gases, N2 and O2, responsible for cooling the surface and warming the atmosphere.
What do you think of Boltzmann estimating the atmosphere absorbs 1/3 the solar radiation appearing at TOA?
Gordon Robertson says:
What could be beyond heat transfer in the atmosphere?
Radiative transfer (another form of heat transfer).
What did Watt know about IR that Tyndall or Arrhenius did not know?
Gordon
“I am warming up to Kristians idea that the atmosphere behaves like an insulator….”
Kristian’s idea?? Lol!
g*r…”3) A photon emitted by a source, if somehow reflected back to that source, can NOT raise the temperature of the source”.
Good point, and that applies equally to bazillions of them.
A surface emitting energy cools. If some of that energy is returned, it cools less.
Cooling “less”, if it could even be verified, is NOT warming.
Just another fail for appelly jelly.
Your body disagrees.
Now, you’ve mis-applied your pseudoscience, adding to your confusion. You just keep hitting new record lows.
It’s fun to watch.
Again, refutation = zero.
Jelly, the refutation was there. You’re just not smart enough to get it.
It’s fun to watch.
Yes, I certainly did “miss” it.
Where was it again?
Jelly, I wouldn’t waste the electrons to respond to any other clown. Consider yourself “special”.
The Earth is not a human body.
Hope that doesn’t confuse you.
(Hilarious.)
Would you body keep warming if it had no way to get rid of its heat?
Nope.
DA…”A surface emitting energy cools. If some of that energy is returned, it cools less”.
Not according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Or Clausius, who thought heat could NEVER be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Gordon, SB says nothing about energy returning, it is only about energy emitted.
Gordon Robertson says:
Or Clausius, who thought heat could NEVER be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Wrong. Clausius didn’t say that.
You get this consistently wrong, but are so pigheaded you won’t even go read, or quote, what Clausius actually did say.
Gordon, you confuse heat and energy.
You need a lesson from Kristian, I’ve taken a couple.
Gordon states: “Good point, and that applies equally to bazillions of them.”
Yes, and that is also the reason the “green plate can NOT warm the “blue” plate.
PS A horse is NOT rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track.
If it didn’t, it could only run in a straight line.
Hilarious!
Things in space, only travel in straight lines.
Unless they’re in orbit.
Everything in space in orbit (in many orbits ie, we are in a orbit around the milky way galaxy and our galaxy is in orbit with other galaxies- and if an orbit required spinning we would spinning every which way.
And I repeat, everything traveling in space is going in a straight line.
Or Newton first law is still law.
gbaikie, the simple definition of a straight line is “the shortest distance between two points”. By that definition, an orbit is definitely NOT a “straight line”.
You’re not trying to use some new-age, unrelated, space-time, distracting, nonsense definition, are you?
In a low earth orbit, the rotational time is about 90 mins- or one can go to other side of earth in 45 mins and it’s the fastest way to get to other side of the planet.
Earth takes 365 days to orbit the sun or 1/2 of year to get to other side of the sun. At earth distance from the sun, earth orbital path is fastest way to get to the other side of sun at earth distance.
In a gravity well, one could loosely say the faster you go, the straighter the line, but at about 30 km per second earth going in a straight line. If you go faster than 30 km per second, you would doing a hohmann transfer and could go further from sun at Mars distance on far side the sun, which requires about 8 months vs 6 months. So one could claim that is a straighter line (though not saying others would agree).
One can also lower Earth orbital speed from 30 km per second and end up at Venus distance and would reach the far side of sun at Venus distant in shorter time than 6 month. So if don’t care how far from the sun to are- that’s faster path to other side of the sun. You might claim it’s straighter line.
Of course you slow down a bit more and end up at Mercury distance and get there in 105 days (or about 3 1/2 months).
Or you slow down a lot and zip by the sun on far side at close distance and get to far side in less than 3 months. And NASA is going to send spacecraft very close to sun- not sure when or what orbital trajectory they will use, but to save on rocket fuel mass, it could be a long and crooked path.
NASA generally sends spacecraft to Mars in less than 8 months- taking about 7 months, and that trajectory is called a hohmann + patched conic trajectory. It’s one rocket burn at Earth (hohmann transfer) plus a few rocket burns as nears Mars distance (patched conic). But they are all paths which are straight lines (as you can only travel in a straight line in space) but gravity wells and velocity are the changing perimeters. Or patched conic is using rocket power to add velocity which adding straight lines (adding trajectories- or any kind of trajectory is a straight line).
One of my hobbies is getting to Mars in less than 4 months.
It is claimed by others that if you use ion engines it can be done in 39 days. And before ion engines were used, it was claim that nuclear rockets could get to Mars in 3 to 5 months, and not talking about a nuclear Orion, which could only get to Mars quickly, but could be used for star travel.
But I am not huge fan of ion or nuclear rockets or exotic rockets (though do like the nuclear Orions- but that is a common fedish).
My idea involves using chemical rockets to get to Mars in less than 4 months.
Now this would use a non-hohmann transfer. A hohmann transfer
is using the least amount of delta-v. And it’s adding to or removing the orbital velocity. So if in earth orbit going 7.8 km per second, adding say 2 km per second will raise apogee, and removing 2 km per second will lower the perigee and you will enter Earth atmosphere. Adding 2 km per second doesn’t get you out of Earth gravity well, rather it is about halfway to Moon, though 4 km per second could get you to Venus or Mars (or Moon- BTW, in a rather short time period).
So what I mean by nonhohmann is not adding to earth’s orbital velocity or said differently the added delta-v to changes earth’s orbital velocity direction/vector.
And that would be be still going in straight line- as all trajectory have to do.
But it is similar to hohmann transfer in that’s one burn.
Or if going to the moon from LEO, you don’t add 1 km per second to a 7.8 km sec orbital velocity and raise opogee, and add another 1 km per second when at opogee. If wait until again at perigee, and add 1 km per second, that’s fine,but if burn at apogee, it circularizes the orbit and wastes delta-v if you trying to go out to the moon.
Or add velocity at perigee when going to escape trajectory or high earth orbit.
So, this non-hohmann does that, it burns at perigee, but it “starts” from high earth orbit.
Oh, forgot why I mentioned it, the less than 4 month trajectory, which is a non-hohmann trajectory is a shorter line to Mars.
So, you are trying to use some new-age, unrelated, space-time, distracting, nonsense definition.
That’s what I thought.
The facts remain, orbiting is NOT “traveling in a straight line”; the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; and, the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis, as it orbits Earth.
If you are rotating, do you always face in the same direction?
Jelly, see how you refuse to use the correct phraseology?
There are TWO distinct, independent motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”. You have to correctly understand both. You need to study Kepler and Newton.
But, you won’t.
Consequently, it’s fun to watch.
gbaikie…”Its one rocket burn at Earth (hohmann transfer) plus a few rocket burns as nears Mars distance (patched conic). But they are all paths which are straight lines (as you can only travel in a straight line in space) but gravity wells and velocity are the changing perimeters”.
I studied this stuff in engineering as part of an in-depth physics course and we worked it all out without Hohmann transfers, gravity wells, space-time, and the likes. I am quite dubious about modern terminology even though Hohmann dates to 1925. That makes it pure theory since there were no satellite or spacecraft orbits then.
The Earth is always moving in a straight line. It’s orbit is a resultant between it’s straight line momentum and the perpendicular attraction of solar gravity. Therefore the apparent curve of an orbit is an infinitesimal series of straight lines as the Earth is nudged from one tangential straight line to the other.
Same with the Moon. If it was rotating around a local axis the tangential lines would have a moment to the them (angular momentum or torque) and they don’t since the Moon is tidally-locked.
Gordon,
You don’t think gravity bends space, and I do. Newton’s laws still stand, and work fine for most uses, and I am not arguing against Newton, rather I think that gravity bending space is in accordance with Newton laws.
And for Newton and Einstein, gravity (and light) remain a mystery. Not do I have any near term hope of a unified theory. Or science will continue.
But I would say my idea is or could be said to be pre hohmann and not particularly connected to Einstein’s theory. Or can work with Newton physics, only
The only thing I would suggest that needs to be considered or added is the oberth effect which is about rockets.
Plus addition to vectors. Throw baseball out of moving train, and where does it go.
The Earth is always moving in a straight line.
An ellipse is not a straight line.
Period.
a*: I’m not talking about orbiting — motion around the Earth — but about rotation — rotations about the Moon’s axis.
They are different.
Poor jelly is so confused.
Sadly you are the one who is confused.
In this animation, which Moon is rotating about its own axis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Jelly, how many times are you going to ask the same question?
The one on the left is NOT rotating on its axis. It is “orbiting”. The graphic confuses you because you have NO knowledge of orbital motions. Just as you have NO knowledge of physics.
That’s why you have your career as a clown.
More humor, please.
Everything, not just the moon, orbiting without spinning is tidal locked. The toy train, horse racing on a track, biker on a velodrome. Always the same side to the spectator in the middle. But it makes one rotation around it’s axis during one orbit. That is orbiting. Spinning is different, The moon is not spinning, the earth is.
DA…”PS A horse is NOT rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track.
If it didnt, it could only run in a straight line”.
Straight lines gently curving into a curved line do not cause rotation. The Moon restrained to an orbit when it’s tidally-locked does not rotate about an axis.
Mind you when we trained for soccer we would sometimes rotate on a local axis as we lapped the field to build up the groins. As you run, you turn sharply to the left then sharply to the right without breaking stride. Requires fancy footwork.
Gordon Robertson says:
Straight lines gently curving into a curved line do not cause rotation.
Straight lines don’t curve, Gordon!
(Unless they’re on a curved manifold, which is not the case here.)
DA…”Straight lines dont curve, Gordon!”
A curve is a series of infinitesimal straight lines. The slope of a curve at a point is a straight line…remember???
Gordon, a straight line isn’t a curved line.
Surely you’re not going to deny this????
That whole argument requires a lot of fancy footwork, lucky those groins are well built up.
shady hangs back in the shadows, waiting for the best shady-shot.
It’s all part of being shady.
It’s fun to watch.
Svante, when a*n*g*e*r writes “Its fun to watch,” you can be sure that’s the most intelligent response he was able to come up with. Which is not impressive in the least.
Jelly, thanks for your desperate effort.
It’s fun to watch.
svante…”That whole argument requires a lot of fancy footwork, lucky those groins are well built up”.
I’ve had both groins torn at the same time…not a lot of fun, unless you walk only in a straight line. Hip rotator cuffs are not much fun either.
Ouch, nasty. Hope you are fully recovered now.
I think Lord Monckton said it best: game over! The question is whether the green goblins will let us drive our trucks and eat our steaks in peace? Prolly not, since most alarmists will never get the message. And those who do, can’t admit they are wrong.
“The bottom panel, the residual anomaly, is the panel of interest. You can see how little the temperature has varied over the seventeen years of record. The El Nino of 2016-2017 is quite visible … but other than that there isn’t much happening.
There is one thing that is interesting about the residual … other than warming as a result of the 2016-2017 El Nino, the temperature anomaly only varied by about ± 0.2°C. Among other places, I’ve discussed what I see as the reason for this amazing stability in a post called Emergent Climate Phenomena.
The next question of interest to me is, where is the temperature changing, and by how much? Here is a Pacific and an Atlantic centered view of the warming trends recorded by CERES, in degrees C per decade.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/24/where-the-warmth-is/
Why was the last El Nino 0.4 C warmer (surface) than the 1997-98? Why was it 0.4 C warmer than 1982-83?
Why is the ocean gaining heat every year?
DA…”Why was the last El Nino 0.4 C warmer (surface) than the 1997-98?”
You mean 0.04C, don’t you?
Unless, of course, you are referencing the fudged NOAA data.
No, I mean 0.4 C — peak for surface temperature.
Why?
A Huuge lunar aquarium.
The have a lunar aquarium, some things need to be done and then we need the magic of capitalism or we need more markets in space. We currently have a global satellite market which generates about 200 billion dollars as an entire industry and perhaps in ten years it could be more than 250 billion dollar market. All countries in the world are involved and poorest countries want their own satellites to fit their particular needs and/or don’t want to rely on other nations or other parties- satellite “access” is a national interest need.
Though national military security is also another factor.
Basically in terms military security, satellites are vital and
increase military security at a low cost. Though satellite in general, are all about lowering costs in order it increase capability, such as, improving weather forecasting at lower costs compared to trying to do, this without using satellites.
NASA is not really about lower costs and NASA is small part of global satellite market. NASA likes to imagine it’s lowering costs and lots of people think space activities is the same thing as NASA, mostly because NASA has astronauts and space station (and a flyby of Pluto and mars rovers).
Most money spent on space activity by the US is not NASA spending, rather it’s military space and black programs (or not publicly transparent).
Anyhow NASA should be doing things which lower costs, and way to do this is by doing important exploration.
And important exploration would lead to more markets in space.
Which would be lunar mining and having towns on Mars (towns are and always have been, market places).
I want discuss lunar aquarium because it involves understanding climate. One needs to be able to predict the effect of sunlight in regards to water.
Lunar aquarium requires a pressure vessel and the needed strength of vessel is related to the temperature of the surface of the water.
So you could have solar pond which has lower surface temperature then the water below the surface and as long as warm water didn’t reach surface the structural strength needed could related to the lower temperature at surface.
So water at surface at 20 C doesn’t need much structural strength, whereas 100 C water requires a lot of structural strength. So 10 C water require around Mars pressure which is about 1/100th of Earth sea level pressure.
And 20 C is about 1/2 psi.
So if want say tropical water of say 26 C it has to be fairly strong but not much of problem to do it.
Though potential of forming ice could involve huge amounts of pressure- you simply can’t stop the expansion of water becoming ice. You have to allow it be able to expand.
Anyhow I am thinking that water in huge aquarium, does not freeze during the two weeks of lunar night.
OT diversion:
Place a donut on your kitchen table and give it a twist. It’s rotating about a central axis, right? Now take a bite out of the donut and do the same thing. Is it still rotating? Take another bite and repeat.
How many bites until what’s left of the donut is orbiting a central point rather than rotating about an axis?
Donut is spinning around it’s center of mass, if bite twice, each on opposite sides
it will rotate better, same if bite 4 times on opposite sides (or 3, 6, 8, etc).
If only eating on one side, it won’t work very good.
gbaikie
Let’s say you have just one bite left, and you move it in a circle around a center point on the table. That’s an orbital motion.
At what point did axial rotation morph into an orbit?
snake, you have NO knowledge of orbital motions.
At what point did you believe you did?
g* is NOT the sharpest tool.
Rotational and orbital motions needs to be considered separately.
This animation makes it very clear that the tidally locked Moon is rotating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
If it wasn’t rotating, it would always face in the same direction!
appelly, you still get it WRONG. But, that’s not a surprise.
And snake, it’s okay for you to handle donuts, but always have adult supervision before dealing with sharp objects.
Glad to help.
refutations=0.
If you cannot see that the Moon in the left animation is rotating, and that it is not rotating in the right animation, you are either willfully blind or lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
jelly, rhymes with appelly, the one on the left is “orbiting”. It is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Notice how you always avoid the phrase “rotating on its axis”?
It’s fun to watch.
But, you and the donut boy would make a great clown team. The “Jelly donut”.
(What a great year in climate comedy!)
the one on the left is orbiting. It is NOT rotating on its axis.
Does the black patch on that Moon circle around the small central white dot (its axis)?
If *you* were akin to the Moon and always faced the Earth, would you need to be constantly changing the direction you’re looking in?
jelly, please learn about “orbiting”.
Okay, don’t.
Just continue your hilarious clown routine.
It’s fun to watch.
Why is it you can’t understand the difference between rotation and orbiting?
If *you* were akin to the Moon and orbiting and always faced the Earth, would you need to be constantly changing the direction youre looking in?
jelly, if I were orbiting an object, and NOT rotating on my axis, I would always have the same side facing the object.
You STILL do not understand “orbiting”. You don’t understand physics. You don’t understand reality.
It’s fun to watch.
snape…”Lets say you have just one bite left, and you move it in a circle around a center point on the table. Thats an orbital motion”.
But is it tidally-locked?
if I were orbiting an object, and NOT rotating on my axis, I would always have the same side facing the object
Does “not rotating” mean always facing in the same spatial direction?
Say, in a 2D plane, always facing north?
Clown Jelly, AGAIN, you used “rotating” instead of “rotating on its axis”.
It’s like you only want to live in your confused world.
But, that’s why you’re a clown.
Does “not rotating” mean always facing in the same spatial direction?
Yes or no?
The poor clown STILL can’t differentiate between “rotating” and “rotating on its axis”.
That’s why he has a career in comedy.
Jelly, if you are NOT “rotating on your axis”, and you have no other motions, then you will face the same direction.
Most people that can think for themselves will understand.
But, at least you have your career in comedy.
So going have aquarium in a hole so sunlight only enters from the top and look into it like can do do with Sea World aquarium. With lunar aquarium one could see into from the sides and could enter the pool from sides or bottom.
The aquarium could be like a community park or part of commercial area (like a mall).
Dimensions:
100 meter long, 50 meters wide and deep.
10 meters deep on Earth has 1 Atm of water pressure, Moon is about 1/6 gravity, so 60 meters equals 1 atm pressure on the Moon. And adds whatever pressure from pressure vessel which could be 1/2 psi or bottom of pool could have less than 14.7 psi (1 atm). So could have situation not being able breath at top of pool but with scuba could breath in middle depth of pool. Though if have top able to withstand 2.5 psi, you could breath at top of pool – and top surface of water could be quite warm for an aquarium or swimming pool.
So side and bottom insulated from heat loss and top structurally designed with window panes of plastic and glass being about 1″ thick. And have at equator on the Moon.
What would the water temperature be?
Sea surface temperature anomalies have now dropped below 0.1 degree C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
If water had uniform temperature of 10 C and it was noon time would water increase or decrease in temperature?
It seems safe to say, it’s temperature is increasing.
And if pool was 1/2 meter deep, it would be warming quicker than if meters deep.
Now say there is a couple meters of air space between top of water and transparent ceiling.
And when water is 10 C the air pressure is 1 psi. And air has some water vapor in it.
Now in 60 mins of time what would happen?
One question is, is glass ceiling warmer or cooler than than water. If cooler, the water vapor will condense on it and if ceiling is warmer, it won’t.
And one could design the material of ceiling so it’s either colder or warmer than the 10 C water, but designing ceiling to be warmer than water at night time, might be complicated and undesirable. Let’s say ceiling is colder at night and gets warmer during the day.
And this might mean that ice builds up on the ceiling during the lunar night.
If ceiling is warmer this would set or control water vapor pressure and when water surface temperature is warmer than ceiling that temperature sets or controls water vapor pressure.
Which means a much warmer ceiling will reduce evaporation by increasing vapor pressure and much colder ceiling will condense more water and increase the water’s evaporation.
Anyhow, most of sunlight can pass thru ceiling and thru the top inch of water and be absorbed by the water. And most of the sunlight will absorbed in top couple of meters of water.
Or something like 1000 watts per square meter per second. And not much heat will be radiated when water is around 10 C.
My God your examples are complicated.
Let’s look at Europe now. You can see that dry, cold air will flow from the north and there will be frost again in Europe.
It will also falling snow.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=europe×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
If it is possible that galactic radiation can produce ozone in the lower stratosphere during winter (temperature rise) then North America may now have a severe drop in temperature during the winter.
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism
Chris Monckton is not a mathematician.
He has a MA in classics, 1974 and diploma in journalism studies.
His occupations are listed as politician, journalist.
In 1995, Monckton and his wife opened Monckton’s, a shirt shop in King’s Road, Chelsea.
I would not bother paying him any more attention than I would an annoying wasp.
Earlier this month Monckton implied that the AGW consensus was only 0.3%:
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180316_docket-317-cv-06011_amicus-brief.pdf
Which is a whopping huge lie.
To clarify: he wrote this to a US COURT OF LAW.
Between 0 and at least 200 K, with the Earth an ice ball, there cannot be much if any water vapor or ice albedo feedback. It is all frozen.
The system is very nonlinear. Only as portions of the Earth’s surface melt, will there be the onset of such feedbacks.
So the idea of Monckton that feedback should be applied to the full range of 255 K, makes no sense.
On any spherical body the sunlight will be more intense when the sun is near zenith – it will be warmer.
Near equator and during the day, the spends more time nearer to zenith as compared to other locations on the sphere.
Anywhere on sphere one has about 6 hours of a 12 hour day in which has more intense
sunlight and this period is called “peak hours” and if harvesting solar energy peak hours is when you get most of the solar energy. And peak hours is centered on noon time or peak hours is about 3 hours before and after noon.
Or reason solar energy will never be a viable source of electrical energy is humans want electrical energy 24 hours a day and solar energy provides about 6 hours a day – assuming it not cloudy.
The upshot is tropics receive more solar energy at it’s surface and therefore warmer than other locations on the sphere.
The tropic is 40% of surface, if widen the tropics so region is 1/2 of Earth surface, that leaves you with two quarters, one north and other south which combined is other half of Earth’s surface.
The tropical half is warm and the quarters is cold. And if tropical half does not have a warm ocean the two quarters are very, very cold.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Oceans are in a definitive cooling trend . This was running around +.35c this summer.
Why does this matter, Salvatore? We’re in a La Nina, after all.
What is the long-term trend?
For all Greenhouse enthusiasts.
What is the highest temperature ever recorded in inside a greenhouse, resulting from exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?
What is the highest temperature ever recorded inside a motor car, resulting from exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun
What is the highest temperature ever recorded on the Earth’s surface, resulting from exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?
Now tell me again how “. . . all you need is a magical one way insulator . . . ”
No GHE. Not sorry about the fact at all. Keep on with the fantasy. Don’t let facts get in the way.
Cheers.
Mike, on a hot sunny day, please dont leave your dogs in the car in the sun.
Nate,
You don’t have a clue, do you?
The usual stupid dismissive response, given to avoid providing inconvenient answers.
Want to try again – maybe providing answers?
I didn’t think so!
Cheers.
Warmists love to use the “dog in a closed car” scenario. In their polluted heads, the fact that a closed car, in full sunlight, can kill a dog, is “proof” of the GHE!
If the windows are down, the dog will be fine.
And, Nate, the atmosphere ALWAYS has its “windows down”.
Hilarious.
G*, in this post, adults are trying to have a conversation, and you still need constant attention. Go outside and play with your friends.
Poor Nate, his pseudoscience is so easily busted.
It’s fun to watch.
Mike brought up the enclosed car in the sun, not me. He seems to believe it will not get very hot in there. Obviously most people, even you, understand that it will.
I dont know why he doesnt appear to know this.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“If the windows are down, the dog will be fine.”
Dumb.
How do you put the windows down on the Earth?
Clown, the Earth has no “windows”.
It’s hilarious how you always run from reality.
More, please.
Yes, the Earth has no windows — which is why your attempt to compare the GHE to a dog in a car with open windows was just dumb.
Sorry jelly, it wasn’t me that made that comparison.
Your claims, like your “science”, are somewhere between fallacious and fraudulent.
But, it’s fun to watch.
“If the windows are down, the dog will be fine.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-294227
And if the river is dry, no one will drown.
And if there is no CO2 in the atmosphere, there will be no life on Earth.
See you hilariously ridiculous your “ifs” can be, Jelly.
That’s great clown work!
Irrelevant. But I realize that’s often the best you can do.
Jelly, don’t consider yourself “irrelevant”.
The planet needs humor.
More, please.
Keep being irrelevant. Thanks.
Jelly, obviously I’m not “irrelevant” if you’re spending so much effort trying to run me off.
Your pathetic efforts are fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n says:
obviously Im not irrelevant if youre spending so much effort trying to run me off.
Is that what you need to think you’re happy, someone paying some attention to you?
You would know about the need for attention, Jelly.
One second you don’t like that I remain anonymous, then the next second you believe I crave attention.
Your confused logic is fun to watch.
Mike, have a point? Then make it.
Preferably without strawmen
N,
Get some actual temperatures. Then try and come up with a testable GHE hypothesis.
You can’t. That’s the point. Fact, not fantasy,
Cheers.
You brought up cars and greenhouses to make some sort of point or gotcha. I guess you no longer care. Fine with me.
As I said to G* and it applies to you. In this forum, adults are trying to discuss actual science. You are a child looking for attention, distracting the adults with silly nonsense. Go find some kids to play with.
“What is the highest temperature ever recorded in inside a greenhouse, resulting from exposure to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?”
Here we go again.
The ignoramus with his non-sensical, irrelevant questions totally ignoring the point of this thread. You don’t undestand a single thing Monckton wrote.
S,
And as usual, faced with having to face inconvenient fact, another dimwit refuses to acknowledge that there is no GHE.
You could read Monckton’s response again, but it would remain as completely incomprehensible to you, as is presently the case.
Keep avoiding the truth. It doesn’t matter. Nature doesn’t care what you think. Nor do I.
Cheers.
You simpleton.
Roy agrees there is a GHE. Monckton agrees there is a GHE. The argument is about how much. Are you saying they are dimwits?
Your posts give us luke-warmers a bad name.
S,
The motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba”.
Dr Spencer and Lord Monckton can agree all they like. Nature doesn’t care – nor do I. Facts are far more persuasive
I don’t give a toss about your name – good, bad, or otherwise. Maybe you could try finding a few answers for yourself.
You are dimwitted. There is no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. This is science, according to you? Only a dimwit would think that physical facts are decided by consensus. Or have you changed your mind?
Cheers.
Simon, you appear very frustrated, being a “luke-warmer”.
Why would you expect that CO2 can “heat he plane”? Just because someone told you? Are you unable to think for yourself?
Without violating the laws of physics, what is the mechanism whereby CO2 can “heat the planet”?
Of course there is a GHE. It is easily testable.
Take a cloudy night comparable to a clear night – same wind, same starting temperature.
The cloudy night will remain warmer than the clear night.
Another.
Use a desert area. Find a similar / comparable area with humidity.
What happens at night on clear nights. The desert area loses heat faster.
Why? Lack of H2o in the atmosphere.
Simple fact is that the equilibrium radiative temperature of planet Earth is 255K yet the surface temperature is 287K.
How come you two simpletons cannot process this basic information?
Lewis says: “Of course there is a GHE. It is easily testable. Take a cloudy night comparable to a clear night same wind, same starting temperature. The cloudy night will remain warmer than the clear night.”
Lewis, that is NOT the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE. I have measured low clouds with temperatures as high as 95F, Clouds are water, not CO2.
Lewis says: “Use a desert area. Find a similar/comparable area with humidity.
What happens at night on clear nights. The desert area loses heat faster.
Why? Lack of H2O in the atmosphere.”
Lewis, again, that is NOT the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE. That is the NATURAL effect of humidity. It would happen even if there were no humans on the planet.
Don’t feel bad. A lot of people make those same mistakes.
Simon tries again: “Simple fact is that the equilibrium radiative temperature of planet Earth is 255K yet the surface temperature is 287K.”
Simon, 255 K is a calculated value. You have to be cautious when comparing two different things. You may get mislead.
The average surface temperature is due to the physics of how Earth’s systems work together to control it’s temperature. The Moon receives, on average, the same solar irradiance as Earth, but it has temperatures well above 250F (120 C) and well below -250F (-156C).
Facts are fun, huh?
287 K is also a “calculated value.”
appelly joins in: “287 K is also a ‘calculated value.'”
Very good, appelly. You’re learning.
Keep going.
Maybe someday. ..
“That is the NATURAL effect of humidity.”
And what is that natural effect, G? Could it be water vapor GHE? No that doesnt exist!
Good job, Nate. You answered your own question.
I repeat the question:
“And what is that natural effect, G?”
Read and learn, Nate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity
Glad to help.
” The Moon receives, on average, the same solar irradiance as Earth, but it has temperatures well above 250F (120 C) and well below -250F (-156C).”
That equates to an average temperature of 255K. Are you stupid? You have proved my point precisely. The moon has no atmosphere yet the average radiative equilibrium temperature is the same !!
Do you not believe or even read your own source, G*?
“Along with other greenhouse gases, water vapor is transparent to most solar energy, as you can literally see. But it abs*orbs the infrared energy emitted (radiated) upward by the earth’s surface, which is the reason that humid areas experience very little nocturnal cooling but dry desert regions cool considerably at night. This selective absor*ption causes the greenhouse effect. It raises the surface temperature substantially above its theoretical radiative equilibrium temperature with the sun, and water vapor is the cause of more of this warming than any other greenhouse gas.”
Yes, I always enjoy climate-comedy.
“and water vapor is the cause of more of this warming than any other greenhouse gas.”
So now you agree that water makes a GHE?!
So the much younger G*, who said there is no GHE, he should just be ignored?
No simple, it just proves you do not understand my point. The Moon would have about the same calculated temperature, everything else being equal, But Earth has a complex system of temperature control that the Moon does not. That’s why the Moon has such drastic temperature swings.
Maybe you don’t realize that the high temps on the Moon are well above the boiling point of water. Earth would get that hot, if not for its ability to cool itself.
See. as I indicated, facts are fun. Don’t be afraid to learn.
Do you or do you not now think there is an h2o GHE? You are being evasive.
@Lewis
“What happens at night on clear nights. The desert area loses heat faster.
Why? Lack of H2o in the atmosphere.”
I obviously do agree that temperatures fall much slower with clouds. In fact the differene is huge. I have analyzed these data, and temperatures will drop by about 85% less with overcast skies as compared to clear skies.
Than I ran the same analysis with regard to humidity, and there was essentially no difference. Wet or dry, temperatures drop at the same rate.
Also your statement is wrong. Temperatures do not drop more sharpely in the desert. That is only an urban myth. Under a clear sky daily temperature variation is up to (with clear skies) 20K. GHGs do not make any difference on that.
You may want to check this with climate data for the Atacama, Sahara, or the Tibetian plateau.
Wonderful rebuttle CO2islife. Thanks!
I posted a claim earlier by R. W. Wood that Nick Stokes dismissed as nonsense. Alarmists are quick with ad homs and short on fact.
Wood essentially proved that greenhouses do not warm by trapping infrared energy, that the warming is due to a lack of convection. He has essentially disproved the GHE and AGW.
Here’s an article by him on the subject.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
The article is posted by an uber-alarmist, William Connolley, who hangs out at realclimatee. Please ignore his dumb comments following the article, he’s a computer article and IMHO has no idea what he’s on about in physics or climate science.
Here’s a wiki article on R.W. Wood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
Pretty impressive credentials.
All Wood does is suggest that a garden greenhouse keeps warm mainly by slowing down heat loss via convection, rather than by radiation.
He does not disprove the fact that the atmosphere is radiatively active.
Note that he also states:
“I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
swannie…with all due respect to Roy, he is a meteorologist and Wood is an authority on IR. Do you really think a scientist with the expertise of Wood could mess up an experiment on IR? Do you think Neils Bohr would consult with a dummy?
Here is an in-depth reconstruction of the experiment done by Wood:
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf
Nahle explains why another experiment refuting Wood failed.
I respect Roy deeply for the work he has done at UAH and NASA. I just don’t agree with him on thermodynamics. I am under no delusions about how he regards me.
What expertise did Wood have re: global warming that Arrhenius did not have?
After all, you don’t need to know much to realize that CO2 causes global warming.
How does CO2 cause global warming, Jelly?
NO links, NO “bird cage liners”, just your own words.
(This will be hilarious.)
If by now you don’t know how CO2 causes warming, you can’t learn and there is no point in replying to you (again).
Translation: CO2 does NOT cause global warming.
Nahle’s experiment doesn’t replicate Wood’s experiment in which both boxes were insulated, necessary in order to cause most of the energy leaving the boxes to pass thru the covers. In Nahle’s 6 experiments, only the first uses an insulated box, his #4.
Nahle should have run a case with 2 insulated boxes, one with a glass cover and the other with a polyethylene cover, then run both first in the open then repeat with a glass sheet covering both, the glass placed some distance above them to filter the IR radiation but allow convection to both surfaces. Since the glass cover blocks IR, the box with a glass cover will receive less energy than the one with a polyethylene cover. Filtering the IR from both while running both configurations at the same time would provide a more accurate conclusion.
Also, Nahle doesn’t calibrate his thermometers against each other nor does he indicate which thermometer is used for each box.
profp…”All Wood does is suggest that a garden greenhouse keeps warm mainly by slowing down heat loss via convection, rather than by radiation.
He does not disprove the fact that the atmosphere is radiatively active.
Note that he also states:
I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter”
*********
You did read the wiki article on Wood??? It describes him as an eminent scientist with expertise in infrared radiation. How far do you think an expert would need to go into the matter in order to see the flaws in the GHE and AGW?
He suggested the atmosphere warms by scavenging heat from the surface and transporting it aloft. Since the atmosphere is a poor radiator, it retains the heat, a perfect explanation for atmospheric heating.
No GHE required.
What did Wood (Watt?) know about IR that Arrhenius did not know?
“Since the atmosphere is a poor radiator, ..”
Yes, you are correct. The atmosphere does radiate. Both up and down. The downward radiation is very important.
You are learning, very slowly.
Gordon, you seem to be a big fan of R.W. Wood. Did you attend one of his lectures in 1909?
Myki,
If you put real effort into it, you might appear more supercilious and patronising. Have you thought of trying harder?
Cheers.
Tell me old man – did he use a blackboard or any visual aids?
Was the lecture theatre lit by electricity or candles?
Myki,
If that’s the result of your best effort, you wasted your time at Stupid U.
I doubt you will ever be able to rise to the stupid level. Keep trying if you wish – a miracle might yet occur.
Cheers.
Old man – what was Theodore Roosevelt like as a president?
p,
Did you ever aspire to reach Myki’s level of stupidity?
What happened when you realised you couldn’t even get that far?
So sad. Too bad.
Cheers.
myki…”Gordon, you seem to be a big fan of R.W. Wood. Did you attend one of his lectures in 1909?”
I would love to have attended one but I was just returning from the North Pole, after having fought in the Boer War.
BTW…I admire many scientists, perhaps most…especially Wood, Bohr, Newton, Clausius, Schrodinger, Pauling, Feynman, Einstein, and Bohm. I admire the character in them as well as the scientist.
The main reason I admire Wood is that he came between Arrhenius and Callendar and he was the one with in-depth experience on IR. He took one look at the theory typical of Arrhenius and seemed to say, “that doesn’t sound right”.
These days when a good scientist takes that stance, Like Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH, or Peter Duesberg with the HIV/AIDS theory, they are ostracized. I really enjoy the fact that someone with the eminence of Wood stepped forward in the face of popular consensus and booted it up the butt.
Gordon, what “in depth experience” did Wood have on IR, that Arrhenius didn’t have?
Did he ever do a CO2 calculation of his own?
Gordon Robertson says:
Wood essentially proved that greenhouses do not warm by trapping infrared energy, that the warming is due to a lack of convection. He has essentially disproved the GHE and AGW.
Um, no.
About Robert Williams Wood:
“He is often cited as being a pivotal contributor to the field of optics and a pioneer of infrared and ultraviolet photography.”
Photography, Gordon, photography!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
The forecast of ozone in the stratosphere on March 29 shows very cold air over Canada.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/qpaj4gzca15i.png
Willis Eschenbach shows the real “hockey stick”.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ceres-decadal-temperature-trends-20171.png?w=635&h=613
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/2694_LOTI_201802_robin_sf200.png
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/images/small/gistemp.png
Thanks for that link. Look at all that red! I believe that, world-wide, it was the third warmest February on record.
Actually GISTEMP was the 6th warmest February. 30-year linear trend is +0.19 C/decade.
Hey gents, it’s GISS, aka, “pseudoscience-R-us”.
GISS calls this product “GISTEMP.”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
And, it has a 38% chance of being accurate.
Plus or minus 38%, of course.
It’s a shame, especially after UAH’s annual number posting of early January, that people still do not understand how to compare numbers when each has an error bar.
I agree appelly, rhymes with jelly, it’s a shame that so many people avoid reality.
But, it’s fun to watch.
So why are you mocking GISS for considering error bars when making annual temperature comparisons?
jelly, I’m not mocking GISS. There’s no need. Their track record leaves them with little credibility.
Their budget probably could be cut by 75%, and the US would gain.
Again you avoid all discussions of the science for some juvenile insults.
That’s all you ever do. It’s clearly all you’re capable of.
jelly, you have no science. You can’t understand simple physics. Basic orbital motion confuses you.
Face it, you’re a clown.
“Actually GISTEMP was the 6th warmest February. 30-year linear trend is +0.19 C/decade.”
Hey gents, its GISS, aka, ‘pseudoscience-R-us’.
Looks like global warming has been exiled to Siberia. What did it do wrong?
Huh?
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
According to the UMaine climate reanalyzer, today the world is +0.7 C above the 1979-2000 average, the northern hemisphere is +1.0 C and the southern hemisphere is +0.2 C.
More hilarious “cherry-picking”, to go with appelly’s pseudoscience:
*CO2 can heat the planet
*The Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K
*The Earth is warming the Sun
What a great year in climate comedy we’re having.
‘What a great year in climate comedy were having’
If you work hard enough, you can stay ignorant for another year. I know you can do it, G*!
Nate, with your ignorance, everything you don’t understand would be “ignorance”.
It’s not hard for you to mis-understand. That’s why it’s so easy to get you confused.
It’s fun to watch.
You still don’t understand what the 800 K thought experiment is about.
There are many things that go right over your head. And not by a small margin.
Jelly, it was 800,000 K, not 800 K.
And, even in a “thought experiment”, you do NOT get to violate the laws of physics.
But, your pathetic efforts are fun to watch.
It’s a thought experiment. Like Schrodinger’s cat or Einstein’s riding on a light beam.
Do you know what a thought experiment is? Seriously….
Jelly, if you violate the laws of physics, in your “thought experiment”, then the “thought experiment” is INVALID.
But, in your pseudoscience, obviously not.
Hilarious.
Thought experiments have a hallowed position in physics, and are often illuminating.
Pierrehumbert is keeping with that tradition.
When you violate the laws of physics, you are into pseudoscience.
G*, How is it after all the exposure to science you get here, that anyone could remain so ignorant of the basic properties of photons, or black bodies?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-294290
That takes real effort, G*.
Nate, you are so confused that you probably believe you have a point.
It’s fun to watch.
FYI Canadians
” Of the 18 UNESCO World Heritage sites in Canada, Ontario contributes just one: the Rideau Canal Skateway. Constructed in the early 19th century for steam-powered vessels and inscribed as a protected site in 2007, the slack-water canal contains sections of the Rideau and Cataraqui rivers, flowing south from Ottawa to Lake Ontario.
It typically takes a minimum of 10 nights of temperatures below 14F to freeze the canal. During the 2017-2018 season, however, two cold snaps in early and late December were still not enough to create solid ice. The Skateway was finally opened for its 48th season on January 5, 2018. It closed and reopened multiple times for the next month due to adverse weather conditions and their negative impact on the ice” and finally reopened on February 6 to an anxiously awaiting public. While the Rideau Canal Skateways typical season lasts for 50 days, the two years prior to the 2017-2018 season saw just 25-day and 34-day sessions.
In a 2012 study published in Enviornmental Research Letters, scientists claimed, Global warming has the potential to negatively affect one of Canada’s primary sources of winter recreation: hockey and ice skating on outdoor rinks. By comparing daily maximum temperatures from 1951 to 2005 and analyzing a variety of data points, including regional climate information, the researchers found that the outdoor skating season had already significantly shortened across the country, especially in central Canada, which includes Ontario.
If this trend of warmer winters continues, its possible that skating along the ice of this record-earning World Heritage site may one day be a thing of the past.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/destinations/canada/skating-season-shrink-world-largest-ice-rink-climate-ontario/
They are unnecessarily worried.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/uhv8v1qy6553.png
Current Snow in North America
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/na_swe.png
Another snowstorm is developing in the northeast of the US.
Also, Canada’s backyard hockey rinks are melting!
“Canadas Outdoor Rinks Are Melting. So Is a Way of Life,” NY Times 3/20/18.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/climate/canada-outdoor-rinks.html
The planet obviously needs more CO2.
Thanks for pointing that out, appelly.
The world had plenty of CO2 before man started to emit it by burning fossil fuels. Now it’s just ruining the lives of Canadian school children. No more Wayne Gretzky’s.
Jelly, the planet would flourish with CO2 at 550-800 ppm.
Learn some science.
Just kidding, stick with your career in comedy.
It’s fun to watch.
DA…”The world had plenty of CO2 before man started to emit it by burning fossil fuels”.
According to the IPCC, based on a CO2 density of 390 ppmv, anthropogenic CO2 makes up only a small fraction of natural CO2, at 0.04%.
Why did that nearly 0.04% right through the pre-Industrial Era, not cause catastrophic warming? Even if it was half that value, which is half of nothing compared to the size of the atmosphere, and still many times the size of what we have emitted in a century and a half, it did nothing to warm the atmosphere catastrophically.
If that’s not proof that CO2 has little or no effect on the atmosphere, I don’t know what is.
Gordon Robertson says:
“According to the IPCC, based on a CO2 density of 390 ppmv, anthropogenic CO2 makes up only a small fraction of natural CO2, at 0.04%.”
Wrong.
First of all, manmade CO2 doesn’t “make up” any fraction of natural CO2. They are different.
Secondly, atmo CO2 is now 409 ppmv. That’s 46% higher than the preindustrial level of 280 ppmv.
Gordon Robertson says:
Why did that nearly 0.04% right through the pre-Industrial Era, not cause catastrophic warming?
Because it was essentially constant (+/- about 10 ppmv) throughout the Holocene.
If thats not proof that CO2 has little or no effect on the atmosphere, I dont know what is.
Gordon, CO2 definitely had an effect on the atmosphere before the industrial era. No one, except you, is saying it didn’t.
See
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature,” Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind and Reto A. Ruedy, Science 2010 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
Jelly the clown reports: “First of all, manmade CO2 doesnt ‘make up’ any fraction of natural CO2. They are different.”
Jelly believes CO2 is different from CO2.
Hilarious.
Natural CO2 and CO2 from fossil fuels have different isotopic signatures, because the latter is so old its radioactivity has diminished to practically nothing.
Need a reference?
Yes Jelly, I’m aware of that branch of pseudoscience. Some clowns believe there is “new” and “old” carbon!
It’s fun to watch.
DA…”Canadas backyard hockey rinks are melting!”
From the NY Times, fast replacing the National Enquirer for fake news.
I guess you forgot that the same neck of the woods set records for cold during the winter of 2018.
For how many days?
“Observed decreases in the Canadian outdoor skating season due to recent winter warming,” Nikolay N Damyanov et al, Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 014028 (8pp)
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014028
profp….”It typically takes a minimum of 10 nights of temperatures below 14F to freeze the canal”.
The Rideau Canal is in Ottawa, the capital of Canada. Our Parliament sits there and sometimes there is so much hot air emanating from the House the canal doesn’t freeze at all.
Maybe. I’ve been to Ottawa several times. I experienced the coldest night of my life there, -30 C, and quite windy.
PS: But still loved the city, and walked up and down the Rideau Canal several times. (But not that night.)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/27/new-report-reveals-a-23-year-long-pause-in-stratospheric-temperature/
Dave what do you say? Another basic premise this theory has called for not happening.
OTHERS ARE:
No decrease in OLR
No lower tropospheric hot spot
No increase in a +AO/NAO
Now no stratospheric cooling.
The report is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a “think tank” who won’t reveal their funding sources. They aren’t exactly a trusted organization.
Is it peer reviewed? I don’t think so…and it’s not published in a legitimate science journal where it would have gotten a proper scrutiny. So right away I’m very suspicious.
Stratospheric temperatures are complicated by ozone loss, which is a warming factor compared to GHG’s stratospheric cooling. The word “ozone” does’t appear in GWPF’s report anywhere. So their report is far from a thorough analysis.
appelly, rhymes with jelly, did you have a point?
It appears you are just rambling–“funding sources”, “peer reviewed”, “ozone”.
You might want to learn how to think logically.
Glad to help.
Q: Why didn’t GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperatures?
Do you know how stratospheric ozone is formed?
Yes. But it doesn’t matter.
Why didnt GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperature trends?
Sorry jelly, avoiding science DOES matter.
Learn some science. It will answer some of your stupid questions.
Why didn’t GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperature trends?
jelly, you need to ask GWPF. I have no connection to GWPF.
Unless you consider that we both get the “big bucks”, for debunking pseudoscience.
Now, Dr. Roy won’t be able to sleep tonight.
☺
I knew you didn’t have an answer. Good to see you admit it.
I knew all you had were debate tricks.
Glad to see you admit it.
Sure, in your uneducated denier world, asking for an answer is a “debate trick.”
You should consider being a troll on some other site — you don’t have the chops to be one on a science site.
jelly, you have not been paying attention.
My rule, for clowns, is that I only consider “responsible” questions.
Asking me about what an organization “considers”, is NOT a responsible question. It is a debate trick, known as a “red herring”. It’s used frequently in pseudoscience.
But, your failed efforts are hilarious, so please continue.
You don’t answer questions because you can’t.
Whatever else you say is based on that.
Jelly, you know I have answered many questions, even some that are not “responsible”.
So, AGAIN, you are busted!
You’re not even a challenge. It’s like playing chess with someone that can’t even play checkers.
It’s fun to watch.
Why didnt GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperature trends?
Jelly, remember the rule: “responsible” questions, only.
Now, ask the same question again, proving that you are a clown.
It’s fun to watch.
You have no answer, so as always you go to name calling.
Jelly, you hilarious clown.
Your debate tricks are so trite that they are funny. You ask some nonsense question, as a “red herring”, hoping I will not recognize your deception.
It’s fun to watch.
So again, why didn’t GWPF consider the effect of ozone loss on stratospheric temperature trends?
Ask the same irresponsible question, over and over again, without getting any results.
People need to see how insane you are, if there are any that don’t already know.
DA…”The report is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank who wont reveal their funding sources. They arent exactly a trusted organization.
Is it peer reviewed?”
********
Scientific method does not call for revelation of funding or peer review. Is the article based on science or not?
Gordon,
The “scientific method” (whatever that is) is not the sole criteria for evaluating claims that are purported to be “scientific.”
From what I can tell, no, the GWPF report is not based on science.
Partial evidence: what I gave above about the failure to consider ozone changes in the stratosphere.
Why do you think they’re skipping peer review and journal publication? No one who is serious about their science does that. Ole Humlum, the report’s author, has a PhD and is well aware of that.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
What’s the long-term trend?
Very good, appelly. Keep your questions very short.
Don’t try any “facts” or “logic”.
That way you can hide your ignorance.
Whats the long-term trend?
The short-term trend appears to be that you are keeping your questions short.
Hopefully your questions will remain short, and involve something relevant.
We can only hope.
What is the long-term, climatological trend?
What is “long-term”?
The WMO considers “30 years” to be the smallest interval for calculating climatic trends.
I think the notion being introduced here by the British Lord and be viewed in a simpler light than electrical circuits.
Lord Monckton is basically attacking the notion that CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere with 8 watts of forcing and an average of 240 watts of solar insolation has nothing to say about it despite the claimed mechanism by which CO2 controls water vapor in the atmosphere via forcings that raise the temperature of the surface.
Does not the sun raise the temperature of the surface? Does it have no say in how much water vapor would reside in the atmosphere without CO2?
James Hansen has said we would be a snowball earth without CO2 in the atmosphere. Ignoring the sublimation of ice when the sun shines on it.
Thanks to Lord Monckton we now have this absurdity described mathematically. I nominate him for a Nobel Prize!
James Hansen has said we would be a snowball earth without CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is probably right. Without atmospheric CO2, the Earth’s average temperature would be below 0 C. This would reduce water vapor, and the parts of the planet that would begin to freeze over would create a self-reinforcing negative ice-albedo feedback.
From Pierrehumbert’s textbook:
“One sometimes hears it remarked cavalierly that water vapor is the ‘most important’ greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The misleading nature of such statements can be inferred directly from Fig 4.31…. If water vapor were the only greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature would be a chilly 268 K, and that’s even before taking ice-albedo feedback into account, which would most likely cause the Earth to fall into a frigid Snowball state…. With regard to Earth’s habitability, it takes two [water vapor and CO2] to tango.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, “Principles of Planetary Climate,” (2011) p. 271.
http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf
You have simply ignored what I said. Does the sun evaporate water and ice or not?
Does the sun evaporate water and ice or not?
It evaporates liquid water, but that depends strongly on temperature. And whether ice melts depends on the temperature. If air temperature is at -18 C, and a change in the Sun warms that to -17 C, ice still won’t melt.
You are giving me an example of where the sun doesn’t shine or shines very little. Indeed in such an environment little ice will melt and water vapor will be suppressed even with a lot of CO2.
bill, don’t expect appelly to know any science.
bill hunter says:
You are giving me an example of where the sun doesnt shine or shines very little.
I didn’t say anything about whether the sun shines or not, only about temperature.
Like I mentioned, bill. Don’t expect any science from appelly.
“I didnt say anything about whether the sun shines or not, only about temperature.”
so what is your heat source?
Bill: It doesn’t MATTER what the heat source is — the answers to your questions depend on temperature, not any PARTICULAR source of heat. It can be the Sun, or a hair dryer, it doesn’t matter.
DA…”Bill: It doesnt MATTER what the heat source is the answers to your questions depend on temperature, not any PARTICULAR source of heat. It can be the Sun, or a hair dryer, it doesnt matter”.
How do you manage to get both of your feet in your mouth at the same time?
What other source of heat do we have than solar energy that can heat the planet as it does?
bill…”so what is your heat source?”
Don’t feed the trolls, Bill. DA thrives on circular arguments.
Gordon thrives on lying.
Yeah I noticed Gordon. I dropped participation so as to not play his game. . . .even held off telling him the sun evaporates ice also. . . .without melting it. Figured that would prolong it.
DA…”From Pierrehumberts textbook:”
Enough said…pseudo-science.
Gordon, the idea that you think you can judge Pierrehumbert is so ridiculous that it doesn’t even bring up laughter, just an eye roll.
“There goes Gordon again….”
Jelly, 800,000 K.
Well beyond an “eye roll”.
What does your calculation give?
The correct calculation “gives” (clown terminology) about 390 K, max.
You’re only off by a factor of 2000.
That’s why you’re a clown, with no job, and no future.
But, it’s fun to watch.
Let’s see the details of that calculation, the one you claim gives 390 K max.
S/B equation, Jelly.
Bill, clearly we have had ice ages, as a result of not very much change in total solar input.
The climate is very nonlinear. Much of the Earth and atmosphere hovers around the freezing temperature, and thus precisely in the range of strong nonlinearity of water vapor with temperature.
It is plausible that removing the noncondensing GHG, the WV and ice-albedo feedbacks will drive the Earth to a very icy state, and is confirmed in simulations.
Roy, drought is back in California, “severe” in about 1/5th of the state. Almost the entire state is at least “abnormally dry:”
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx
Very good, appelly. The La Niña definitely affects California.
If only there was some way to heat the ocean, huh?
Just another bust for the GHE pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
The ocean has been heating rapidly for decades.
And all that “rapid heating” is cooling the ENSO waters?
Hilarious.
appelly gets tangled in his pseudoscience, AGAIN.
It’s fun to watch.
ENSO only takes place in the tropical Pacific.
The long-term trend is that ocean heat content is increasing steadily and strongly.
appelly, don’t you find it hilarious how all that “ocean heat content” avoids the ENSO waters?
Oh I forgot. You can’t think logically.
Never mind.
What evidence says it avoids them?
jelly, you may not have understood the link you provided:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx
That link is about drought, and says nothing ocean heat content.
You clearly can’t answer the question — as is always the case. You never have any data or evidence or science to offer and have to resort to being a pest. I can see why Roy once banned you. He should again — you offer nothing here. Your comments are usually irrelevant, like this one, and always juvenile.
jelly, now you are starting to sound like a yelping, whining chihuahua.
You are the one that provided that link. You are the one in denial about the impending drought, due to the La Niña. You are the one avoiding reality.
But, you’re hilarious.
More hilarity, please.
You don’t understand the difference between drought and ocean heat context.
As Bart wrote earlier, “Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.”
Sorry jelly, I’m not talking about a “difference”. I’m talking about a “link”.
A La Niña tends to cause less than average rainfall in southwest US.
Science: Learn it, love it, live it.
You claimed that “all that ocean heat content avoids the ENSO waters”
Prove it.
With data. With evidence. With science.
No clown, I didn’t “claim” that.
You just can’t get anything right.
It’s fun to watch.
You still haven’t offered any data or evidence that the increasing ocean heat content has avoided ENSO waters.
You don’t have any.
Jelly, the clown, is the “missing” ocean heat content avoiding ENSO, or are you avoiding science”?
Of course, that is a rhetorical question.
For climate-clowns, “rhetorical” means everyone already knows the answer.
As always, glad to help.
Still again, no data or evidence. No science.
Yes, again, jelly has no science.
LOL
The 255 K value is a mathematical mistake and is too warm. According to Dr. Spencer, a value of 250K is a more correct theoretical, global average temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gases. Others find an even cooler mean temperature for an Earth with no oceans, no life, and no atmosphere….
What calculation are you referring to, that gives 250 K? Genuinely interested to know….
David…so glad you asked… (so few do)
To see what Roy says…. go here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/
To see a detailed explanation… see Ned Nikolov’s calculations here… https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574
Many..BELIEVE that without an atmosphere, the infrared radiation would be radiated back into space from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19C (some say -18C). Both these values are mathematically wrong! The avg. temp of the Earth without an atmosphere would be about -75C (assuming spin has no effect on mean temperature).
In response to Mr South, Merlis+ 2010 considered tidally-locked Earthlike planets with albedo 0.38 and concluded that such a planet with a rate of rotation similar to the Earth would have a dayside temperature of 280 K (derivable by spherical geometry) and a nightside temperature of not less than 250 K: global mean temperature thus 265 K. At today’s lower albedo 0.293, the equivalent temperatures would be 289 and 259 K respectively: mean 274 K, including the feedback response to emission temperature.
Thanks for the Merlis reference…. do we agree that the moon with a rate of rotation similar to the moon would have a mean temperature of 197 K? (-76 C).
Lord Monckton: I have a question about the effect of spin on a planet with NO atmosphere… NO oceans… NO life… and an albedo of zero… 1 and then 0.5
I assume we agree that spin rate has no effect on temperature when there is no atmosphere and the albedo is 1. Also it has no effect when the albedo is zero.
Now let me state a null hypothesis: spin does not affect the mean temperature of a planet with no atmosphere and an albedo of 0.5
Can this hypothesis be rejected? If so, why?
The low surface temperature of the oceans in the tropics will cause cooling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
At 288 K, the Earths surface emits an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 is observed entering and leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
David, really?
Yes, really. Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
DA,
Out of Trenberth’s store of missing heat?
Or maybe from Schmidt’s juggling with figures?
Or you could try cleaning your spectacles – you seem to be seeing lots of things that don’t exist!
Cheers.
Poor appelly. He’s so confused about science.
Hint #1, for poor jelly: “Fluxes” are NOT conserved.
Hint #2, for poor jelly: There is NO actual surface spectral data.
Hint #3, for poor jelly: Even if there were actual surface spectral data, there is NO TOA spectral data that correlates exactly.
And, there are more “hints” to follow.
The “missing” 150 Watts/m^2 is a bogus smoke screen.
Poor jelly, his pseudoscience gets busted, AGAIN.
“The missing 150 Watts/m^2 is a bogus smoke screen.”
Would that be the smoke from burning coal ?
Fluxes are NOT conserved.
Energy is conserved. Hence, so is average global flux.
There is NO actual surface spectral data.
Wrong.
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
Even if there were actual surface spectral data, there is NO TOA spectral data that correlates exactly.
My statement was about global averages, not “spectral data.” Energy is conserved.
Where does the extra 150 W/m2 come from?
It’s a great day in climate-comedy!
Jelly the clown states: “Energy is conserved. Hence, so is average global flux.”
The hilarious clown has never heard of the “inverse-square law”.
No wonder he can’t understand “spectral” data.
Jelly just continues to amaze and amuse.
The inverse square law does not violate energy conservation, numbskull. Neither do the fluxes I’ve cited.
Your understanding of basic physics is very very poor.
Clown jelly, the flux leaving the sun is estimated to be about 63 million Watts/m^2.
Earth, at TOA, receives about 1360 Watts/m^2, average.
Since you don’t believe in applying the inverse-square law, what happened to the other 62,998,640 Watts/m^2?
Hilarious.
Jelly the clown never ceases to amuse.
Shows nightly.
Free admission.
Hilarious comedy.
g*e*r*a*n says:
Earth, at TOA, receives about 1360 Watts/m^2, average.
Since you dont believe in applying the inverse-square law, what happened to the other 62,998,640 Watts/m^2?
Are you really f-ing serious?
This is just a very dumb^5 question. SMH.
Exactly.
It’s meant to be dumb to show you how dumb your constant mention of the 150 W/m^2 is.
Maybe you’ve learned something.
But, we’ll have to wait to see.
That’s what it was meant for???
One has nothing to do with the other.
The fact that you don’t see this shows you’re a physics imbecile.
And it’s not fun to watch. It’s kind of sad to see you kick randomly around, like a fish that’s landed in a boat but is going nowhere.
Jelly, you being incoherent is about as funny as you acting like you understand physics.
Both are fun to watch.
You are confusing the Earth’s average incoming/outgoing flux with the least squares law.
Do you really have no clue that one doesn’t say anything about the other??
Jelly, you are so unaware of the laws of physics, you should apply to be associated with the IPCC.
You have no clue about the incoming/outgoing fluxes. In your clown routine, you believe the 150 W/m^2 is meaningful.
That’s hilarious.
You have no knowledge of radiative heat transfer. One square meter of ice emits about 300 Watts. Do you believe that is the same as the emission from 3-100 Watt incandescent light bulbs?
Try holding one of the 3 bulbs with your bare hand for as long a hockey player might be on the ice. Which would have the most 3rd degree burns?
You’re such a clown!
150 Watts on a square meter isn’t meaningful?
And here I thought energy was something that could be measured…. But you’re saying no, it can’t be measured, right?
Where do your ice and light bulb numbers come from? Neither is a blackbody….
Finally, after his pseudoscience is debunked, Jelly wants to know the science.
Hilarious.
Jelly, ice is a nearly perfect emitter. Emissivity about 0.97.
An incandescent light bulb is a “heat source”. Filament temperatures are typically well over 2500 F.
Science–learn it, love it, live it.
Or, in climate-comedy, avoid it.
ice is a nearly perfect emitter.
Evidence?
An incandescent light bulb is a heat source. Filament temperatures are typically well over 2500 F.
A blackbody is defined as one that ABSORBS all radiation incident upon it.
A light bulb is made of glass. How much does it reflect?
Jelly, after you’ve studied physics, and light bulbs, then you can report back.
Not knowing what you are talking about just re-affirms your status as a clown, AGAIN.
Hilarious.
Let’s see the integrated emission curve number for
a) ice
b) light bulbs
Now apply that same interest to your pseudoscience.
That’ll be the day.
A blanket separates your body from the ambient air. Both convection and conduction are reduced. Your body is the heat source.
And the atmosphere separates Earth from space. Outgoing infrared radiation is reduced (by 150 W/m2) by GHG ab.sorp.tion. The Earth is the heat source.
Look at everyone doing everything but providing a scientific response. Very very typical for these deniers….
Yes. I believe we are seeing the very last writhings of the “in complete denial” species. It is very reminiscent of watching cockroaches after they have been sprayed. Their numbers are miniscule and must know they are about to become extinct.
jelly and pp, where have you been able to deal with the actual science?
You clowns can’t handle it.
It’s fun to watch.
We’re still waiting for you to provide “actual science.” And not the last few dumb things you’ve tried to pass off, which anyone who knows basic physics can see right through.
Jelly, does that mean you don’t have any “actual science”?
Who knew?
Hilarious!
Do you have any “actual science?”
None that I’ve ever seen — you skip out and resort to insults the moment any scientific response is called for.
Based on the things you’ve written, your understanding of basic physics is clearly very poor. You know this too.
Jelly the clown, when you can admit a toy train is NOT “rotating on its axis”, as it laps a circular track, get back to me.
You don’t understand the simplest physics. You believe Earth is warming the Sun! Yet you believe the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000 K!
I’ve even had to explain your own false religion to you. You weren’t even aware that the Arrhenius CO2 equation created energy out of thin air.
You’re a clown.
But, everyone loves a clown.
You are asking where the extra 150w/m2 is coming from. I doubt anyone here, including Monckton or Spencer is denying there is some kind of greenhouse effect. This discussion is not about that. This discussion is about sensitivity that gives rise to a greenhouse effect and by extrapolation what its possible sources are.
Monckton is advancing a terribly simple argument that based on AGW claims the climate if very sensitive because water vapor and other factors reacts to the heat that CO2 causes the surface to warm by melting ice, evaporating water, and whatever else they claim.
Monckton is simply arguing that if heat generates feedbacks then the energy from the sun when converted to heat must also generate feedbacks.
The concept of equilibrium of the planet at 255k is from primary solar forcing only without any consideration of the feedbacks that heat would generate. Its an equilibrium that can only exist on a planet without an atmosphere and water. Add water without CO2 and a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere and you are going to generate some feedbacks.
Monckton is being very conventional here. He is attacking the lack of schematics and physics being laid out about atmospheres with no CO2. The assumption is that all the water would be frozen, not sublimating, and you need some CO2 to add to recipe to make it cook.
In essence Monckton is calling the KISS principle, best science publicly available card on that recipe. Namely if heat generates feedbacks where are the feedbacks from the solar sourced heat?
The world is not exposed to a heat source of 240w/m2 its exposed to a heat source that reaches the ground at all rates between zero and over 1,100 watts/m2. Shine 1100 watts on your ice experiment for a few hours, check if you have any evaporation, and check back here on the results.
Bill: SEVERAL people here are denying there is a greenhouse effect.
And not one of them can explain where this extra 150 W/m2 comes from.
Bill, you have to remember that the IPCC claims that CO2 can “heat the planet”. That makes CO2, in their heads, a thermodynamic heat source. None of the Alarmists, Warmers, or Lukers, will admit that simple fact. They all try various means to justify the nonexistent “heating”.
They try everything from invalid experiments to re-defining 2LoT. Some even claim that because an IR thermometer can “read” the temperature of the sky, that proves the GHE!
It’s fun to watch.
You appear somewhat dubious of AGW. Ask for the physics for how CO2 can warm the planet. CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT “trap heat”. It can NOT heat the planet.
They can never supply, in 100 words or less, without violating the laws of physics, how CO2 can “heat the planet”.
That’s why it’s fun to watch.
Bill, your observation that ” I doubt anyone here, including Monckton or Spencer is denying there is some kind of greenhouse effect. This discussion is not about that.” is correct in the main, but overlooks the existence of some old, lonely, ignorant, uneducated souls who seem to make the most noise here. They get in the way of any decent discussion.
Bill wrote:
The world is not exposed to a heat source of 240w/m2
That is the average sunlight over the Earth’s entire surface.
The average outgoing energy flux must match that, or else there’s global warming.
….the IPCC claims that CO2 can heat the planet. That makes CO2, in their heads, a thermodynamic heat source.
False.
It’s no more a heat source than is the blanket you sleep under at night.
So why do you sleep under a blanket if it’s not a heat source?
Clown jelly, my blanket is not a heat source. It can NOT heat my house. Just as CO2 can NOT heat the planet.
Your pseudoscience smacks you in the face again.
That makes for great hilarity.
Please continue.
I said your blanket wasn’t a heat source.
So why do you sleep under a blanket if its not a heat source?
Jelly, your blanket is NOT a heat source. It can NOT heat your basement apartment. CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT heat anything.
More of your ineffective, but humorous, pseudoscience, please.
Again, I already said your blanket isnt a heat source.
So why do you sleep under a blanket if it’s not a heat source?
profp…”Their numbers are miniscule and must know they are about to become extinct”.
The amazing thing to me is that Australia has survived despite people who think like you.
Jelly, what is your fascination with blankets? You agree they are not a heat source. And obviously they have no relevance to the atmosphere.
Did you lose your favorite “blankie”?
Poor clown.
bill…”Monckton is simply arguing that if heat generates feedbacks then the energy from the sun when converted to heat must also generate feedbacks”.
I read recently an estimation by Boltzmann that the atmosphere absorbs 1/3rd of the solar energy at TOA. I read the same in an engineering textbook recently that supports the AGW theory.
Why are we missing that? If the atmosphere absorbs 1/3rd of TOA energy then it has to be converted to heat on the way in.
Talk about an inconvenient truth. If N2/O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere are not absorbing energy from somewhere in the very broad solar spectrum, why are they not? How can those gases be immune to SW solar energy?
We know O2 in the stratosphere absorbs UV. N2 and O2 have known absorp-tion bands between the IR region and the UV region.
I don’t think water vapour and CO2 at an overall concentration of 0.31% of atmospheric gases can explain that. Clouds modeled as pure water absorbers might help explain it but clouds seems to be generally regarded as reflectors of solar energy.
A blanket isn’t a heat source.
So how does one keep you warm?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why are we missing that?”
Who is saying we miss that?
Time and time again, Gordon, you assume your ignorance means the world’s scientific community is ignorant.
This is often what ignorant people think.
simple…”Bill, your observation that I doubt anyone here, including Monckton or Spencer is denying there is some kind of greenhouse effect. This discussion is not about that. is correct in the main, but overlooks the existence of some old, lonely, ignorant, uneducated souls who seem to make the most noise here. They get in the way of any decent discussion”.
***********
By ‘decent discussion’, I presume your are referring to consensus between alarmists. I have provided plenty of basic physics and chemistry to rebut the GHE and AGW, information that can be verified, and I have yet to receive anywhere near a decent discussion on the facts. All I get are ad homs and appeals to authority.
If you have some good science to discuss, let’s hear it. Your ad homs are not a good form of discussion.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Why are we missing that? If the atmosphere absorbs 1/3rd of TOA energy then it has to be converted to heat on the way in
In all your studies, have you ever seen anyone write that the Earth’s albedo is 0.7??
What do you think that means?
See:
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
Why are we missing that?
Who is saying we miss that?”
*********
You are such a butt-kisser to authority you could not conceive of the notion that the atmosphere might warm from the outside in. You believe that energy from the Earth is warming the Sun.
Gordon Robertson says:
I have provided plenty of basic physics and chemistry to rebut the GHE and AGW
Wrong. You ignore radiative transfer in the atmosphere.
By now you know that. Now you are just lying.
Gordon Robertson says:
…you could not conceive of the notion that the atmosphere might warm from the outside in.
What is the evidence of that?
Jelly, how many times has this been discussed?
A blanket separates your body from the ambient air. Both convection and conduction are reduced. Your body is the heat source.
This real situation is perverted in GHE pseudoscience. The attempt is to use real-world situations to justify imaginary concepts. The result is ongoing silliness where clowns perform nightly.
It’s fun to watch.
This real situation is perverted in GHE pseudoscience.
How so?
There are some that try to claim the atmosphere is a blanket.
A blanket redirects some heat as it leaves your body.
The atmosphere redirects some heat as it leaves Earth.
So where does the extra 150 watts come from? Well it doesn’t come from CO2. Even the best scientists don’t claim it as coming from the CO2. Slowing cooling doesn’t mean its coming from CO2.
Still looking for an answer:
At 288 K, the Earths surface emits an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 is observed entering and leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
Still hilarious.
You still have no answer.
DA,
And you still have no testable GHE hypothesis, and no clue.
Back to Stupid U for you, David.
Your’e only appearing really, really, stupid and witless at present. With enough effort, you could look really, really, really stupid.
Cheers.
MF, you don’t get any more replies, because you either (a) complain that it’s a “gotcha,” or (b) you claim not to care about my opinion, or anyone else’s opinion.
You made your smelly bed. Lie in it.
Jelly, I don’t care about your immature, uneducated opinions either.
Could you not reply to me also?
You made your pathetic life, Live it.
Sure you do, because you respond to everything I write.
DA,
Promises, promises. Who asked you for a reply? Do you believe you are so important that I would actually give a toss about what you claimed to think?
Show a testable GHE hypothesis, and many people might start to believe you have more substance than the usual Warmist windbag.
Of course you cannot, so you have not.
Feel free to not reply as much or as often as you like. I look forward it, stupid one.
Cheers.
MF: See what I mean?
No discussions with you. Piss off.
DA,
In response to your bizarre and uncouth demand – no. Why should I?
In what strange fantasy world do you imagine I might feel compelled to dance to your tune?
Carry on, David.
Cheers.
A surface which absorbs 1/2 as much sunlight as blackbody surface and then emits 1/2 as much IR as blackbody surface at given temperature, would be same temperature as a blackbody surface.
The amount of energy absorbed is not related to it’s temperature.
What absorbing 240 watts and emitting 240 watts tells you is that earth isn’t generating much heat. Or if planet is emitting more watts per square meter, than it’s absorbing from sunlight, that could mean the planet is cooling or it has significant amount of internal heat being generated.
Or it’s normal for most non gas giants to have it absords the same as they emit.
So a blackbody surface emitting 240 watts is about -18 C, but anything not blackbody is warmer than this.
And also anything under an atmosphere is not is not a blackbody in a vacuum.
If Earth was ideal thermally conductive blackbody in vacuum, it would have a uniform temperature of about 5 C.
The Moon is roughly a blackbody but isn’t vaguely a ideal thermally conductive body and so moon indicates what blackbody in vacuum looks like, such as hot in sunlight’s and cold in night (not an uniform temperature).
And if moon had metallic reflective surface it could absorb less energy and have higher surface temperature.
And if add atmosphere to this metallic moon, the convective loss to atmosphere could lower the metallic surface temperature in daylight by considerable amount and since reflective surface absorbs little sunlight the atmosphere would not warm up much.
gbaikie says:
A surface which absorbs 1/2 as much sunlight as blackbody surface and then emits 1/2 as much IR as blackbody surface at given temperature, would be same temperature as a blackbody surface.
It’s unclear what this means. What is the “same temperature” as “a blackbody surface?” Which BB surface?
But I don’t think so.
For a BB, T = (f/sigma)^0.25, where f is the absorbed/emitted flux.
If f is 1/2 the original flux, the temperature is 0.841 of the original temperature, in Kelvin.
DA,
Are you really thick, or just pretending?
Do you really not know how a “black body” is defined in physics?
How many kinds of “black body” do you think there are? Which type of BB do you refer to in your formula?
Learn to read. Then learn physics – the real sort, not the bizarre pseudo-science variety spouted by the likes of Hansen, Schmidt and Mann, and slavishly regurgitated by such as yourself.
Cheers.
No discussions with you.
You know why.
DA,
Obviously, you are incapable of practising what you preach.
I wasn’t expecting any cogent response from you, of course. My question was of a rhetorical nature, intended to show your vacuity.
Others may form their own opinion of your pseudo-scientific ratbaggery.
Have you figured out how to boil water by wrapping ice in many, many, overcoats, yet? If one overcoat is supposed to heat the Earth, surely many overcoats would work even better for something as small as a cup full of ice, wouldn’t they?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Instead of being the irrational and illogical poster why not change and actually start thinking instead of mindlessly chanting your mantras.
You come up with one of the stupidest comments I think I have read. You usually come up with these stupid illogical points. I like to ignore them. I believe I am making a critical error in judgment to hope you might have a little sane and rational thought in your wasted brain. I doubt it but I am hoping.
If you have a heat source adding energy to the water constantly. The water that is surrounded with many overcoats will get much hotter than the same heated water with no overcoats if the surroundings are colder than the water temperature. There are pipes that have 900 F steam in power plants. They can reach this temperature because of good insulation that only allows a small amount of heat transfer.
Your points are very bad, not logical, and if you comment to this, rather than think and admit your posts are foolish and poor quality, you will probably come up with a zombie brain dead response. If you could think even a little (which evidence suggest your are not able) you might understand your comments are really dumb!!
Con-man, as usual, you’re confused.
Mike Flynn’s point was that insulation, by itself, can not make something warmer. Of course, you fell flat on your face: “The water that is surrounded with many overcoats will get much hotter than the same heated water with no overcoats if the surroundings are colder than the water temperature.”
The water will NEVER get hotter, just be adding insulation. Insulation does NOT add energy to the system. If water, at a temperature of 200F is added to a tank, the temperature will not exceed 200F, even if you insulate the tank. You just don’t have the physics background to understand.
But, keep whining. It’s fun to watch.
.
g*e*r*a*n
Roy Spencer already explained to you that you are obfuscating and I was not directing anything for you to fill with your bumbling mindless idiocy. I come here to learn and you hog the blog with your complete juvenile stupidity. Hundreds of comments proving you are a persistent dunce.
Reread what Roy Spencer told you.
Roy Spencer: “This is the problem I run into with people like g*e*r*a*n if you dont explicitly list every assumption (things which most of us pick up on as being necessary inferences) in making a simple point, they jump all over you.
Ugh. Here we go again
We are talking about HEATED systems that are warmer than their surroundings. Like a car engine. A pot on the stove. The Sun. The human body. Your house in the winter
the CLIMATE SYSTEM.
This is why g*e*r*a*n has asterisks in his namehes been banned before, and continues to obfuscate.
Cmon dude. You are only fooling the ignorant.”
I am looking for valuable science, not your stupid posts. If nothing else let Mike Flynn answer. I have zero interest in your endless stupid comments. I can read one and the next hundred are duplicates (copy and paste).
You are a idiot and please do not post your idiocy anywhere near my name. Smart people will start thinking I might be as stupid as you. You are very stupid and a bother. You are like the stupid kid that needs constant attention so you jump right in when no one is even the least bit interested in what you have to say. Get lost creep! You are an insult to all people on this blog and a complete idiot. Go away. Leave me be, dunce!
That’s a great whine, whiny.
It must be so frustrating not to be able to spew your pseudoscience, without getting caught. Maybe if you learned to appreciate truth, rather than run from it?
Nah, we’d miss your comedy.
More, please.
Norman,
The Earth has definitely cooled since its surface was molten.
It has cooled since the first liquid water appeared.
It still cools at night, and after the Sun reaches its zenith.
Facts.
So where is this wondrous and magical heat source you claim increases surface temperatures?
It isn’t the Sun, that’s assuredly external!
You are just being silly, repeating the nonsense uttered by such as Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth – all clueless second taters with delusions of grandeur. Not a testable GHE hypothesis between the lot of them, eh?
Bad luck for you!
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n
No you have not exposed anything about my science at all. I know mine is based upon established physics (including the Moon’s rotation). You expose you are an imbecile who needs constant attention and is highly repetitive. If you think I am whiny don’t respond to my posts. I ask you not to. I do not like you at all nor your stupid childish behavior. I think most have had enough of your idiocy and hope you quit posting. You really need to suck your thumb. You act like it. Now please go away. Even zombie Mike Flynn is much more interesting than you. You are the most unpleasant and stupid poster on this blog. Roy Spencer kindly is asking you to quit being an idiot but you are such a foolish person you think you are cute with your lame behavior. You waste a lot of space when you puke your vomitous garbage. Read you posts again and you maybe will see why you are a complete idiot on this blog. Now can you go away and not jump into conversations where you are not welcome. Tell someone who cares about your idiotic and unscientific ideas. I am not interested in them at all.
Mike Flynn
Yes the Earth’s surface cools at night but then the following day it warms back up doesn’t it. It cools so much then stops and warms and it cycles around some average value.
As for the molten state, we have been here before but you do not have a good enough memory to remember the conversation.
You do not have to go back in time to find parts of the Earth that are even now molten lava. The molten rock cools rapidly and once it reaches a equilibrium temperature with the surroundings it no longer cools but cycles between warming at day and cooling at night. I really do not know what point you are trying to make. They do seem like a waste of time. They are not brilliant revelations and I have no idea how they apply to the fact that if you wrap water that is heating in insulation it will reach higher temperatures than uninsulated water that is heated by the same amount provided the surrounding in both cases are cooler than the water itself.
You just post stuff that has no bearing on a logical conversation.
There is not a magical heat source, you have a warmer surface is less energy gets out really similar to heated water that is insulated vs heated water that is not. Are you dense purposefully or have you always had a hard time with logic and reason?
Another long, whiny, ramble from Norm. No science, no facts, and no logic, just endless pounding on his keyboard, clogging up the blog.
It’s fun to watch.
“The water that is surrounded with many overcoats will get much hotter than the same heated water with no overcoats if the surroundings are colder than the water temperature.
The water will NEVER get hotter, just be adding insulation. ”
Of course it will, G*. As usual you ignore inconvenient facts to serve your beliefs.
Notice the word ‘heated’ and the phrase you left out “If you have a heat source adding energy to the water constantly.”
MF “Not a testable GHE hypothesis?’
Asked and answered many dozens of times by myself and others.
Why does he keep asking the same question over and over and over as if its never been asked and answered?
He’s obviously insane.
Different materials in space and same distance from the sun, in sunlight have different temperatures.
And hottest material is not blackbody surface which would absorb all the energy from the sun- because in a blackbody surface, also, emits the most energy.
Earth does absorb a lot of the sunlight energy but it does not have a blackbody surface.
So,anyhow an ideal thermally conductive blackbody absorbs all sunlight of disk area of sphere and radiates this energy uniformly over area 4 times the area of this disk area.
So, 1360 / 4 is 340 watts which if blackbody surface equals about 5 C.
What happens if add atmosphere which reflects 30% of sunlight.
What happens if change blackbody into something which absorbs 70% and reflects 30% of sunlight and like ideal thermally conductive blackbody absorbs 70% and reflect 30% of all wavelength, and that means it emits 70% of what a blackbody emits at given temperature.
30% of 1360 is 408 and leaves 958 watts and divide 4 is 239 watts.a
And 70% of 340 is 238, so if emitting 239 watts it’s about 5 C.
Of course no material absorbs and emits the same on all wavelengths, and this is merely a model.
But it seems to me that ideal thermally conductive blackbody gives a rough idea that planet at earth distance from the sun should be about 5 C.
And it seems to me, that Earth is about 5 C (roughly speaking). And idea that it should be -18 C (and needs warming of 33 K) is incorrect.
Let look at other examples or models.
Suppose one had planet with surface of concrete which had surface like a blackbody. And earth distance from sun with earth’s tilt and rotation. And without an atmosphere.
It shouldn’t reflect much sunlight and appear like the Moon which is dim compared to shining Earth.
Now, if you add earth like atmosphere to it, it reflects more sunlight. But without considering it having greenhouse gases, would the addition of atmosphere increase or decrease the average temperature?
It seems that without an atmosphere, about 1/4 of planet would be warm and 3/4 of planet would be quite cold.
And when an atmosphere is added, the 3/4 of planet is warmer and warm 1/4 is cooler.
Or the addition of atmosphere and its increased reflection is not something which makes any planet colder but rather a significant aspect is atmosphere will cause a more uniform temperature.
David Appell loves posing gotchas implying clothing is worn purely to maintain body temperature in cold conditions. Of course, the man’s a fool, and totally ignores physics.
“Why do Bedouins wear black robes in hot deserts?” from Nature, indicates the nature (pardon the pun) of David’s attempt to bend nature (another pun) to his will.
Nope. Insulators work equally well in both directions. No Hansenesque retention of energy on one side of a magical greenhouse insulator.
Still no GHE. Still no evidence that David Appell is other than delusional.
So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
If the air circulation is latitudinal in the tropics (La Nina), then the temperature in winter in medium latitudes can not rise above the norm.
“Where The Warmth Is”?
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ceres-decadal-temperature-trends-20171.png?w=635&h=613
ren…”Where The Warmth Is?”
Interesting. Kind of what I figured, the extreme northern and southern hemispheres are offsetting each other while the trend over the mid latitudes is flat.
I figured that from the UAH global maps. Interesting to see it plotted.
CO2 could not do that but I’m sure some alarmist will be by to claim it was predicted by models. Actually, Roy pointed it out recently, that circulation patterns related to the Atlantic may be causing warming in the Arctic regions. Maybe the same applies in the southern hemispheres, which are mostly ocean.
Look at Antarctica.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_s_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png
“That collage revealed thousands of nests where 751,527 pairs of Adelie penguins were living more than the rest of the entire Antarctic Peninsula region combined.
Adelie penguins are the smallest species of penguin in the Antarctic, weighing just 3 to 6 kg. They live all over the continent, but in recent years, their populations have been dwindling due to climate change.
Between 2010 and 2017, for example, 18,000 Adelie chicks on the other side of Antarctica died of mass starvation after thick ice made feeding too difficult.
But the WHOI says the super-colony discovered on the Danger Islands seems to be doing rather well, with a population that has likely been stable for decades.
Not only do the Danger Islands hold the largest population of Adelie penguins on the Antarctic peninsula, they also appear to have not suffered the population declines found along the western side of Antarctic peninsula, study co-author Michael Polito, from Louisiana State Universitys department of oceanography, said in a statement.
Study co-author Stephanie Jenouvrier, a seabird ecologist at WHOI, says its important to now understand why the population of Adlies on the islands is so different from the west side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
We want to understand why. Is it linked to the extended sea ice condition over there? Food availability? That’s something we don’t know,” she said.”
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/drones-help-reveal-undiscovered-mega-colonies-of-penguins-on-antarctic-islands-1.3829003
Interesting ren. Penguins are dying because it’s too cold!
ren…”Adelie penguins are the smallest species of penguin in the Antarctic….”
I feel badly for the penguins in Antarctica. I have seen movies of them in mid-winter huddled together against the cold, hundreds of them. We should be down there building shelters and wind breaks for them rather than wasting time discussing AGW pseudo-science.
Eco-alarmists would have no interest in that, they are not even interested in human survival. They are opposed to us exterminating mosquitoes that spread malaria, which kills millions globally, and have no interest in penguins who harm no one.
Gordon Robertson says:
We should be down there building shelters and wind breaks for them rather than wasting time discussing AGW pseudo-science.
Oh Jeez….
Penguin species are 10-15 million years old. They are well adapted o their environment. They don’t need or want human intervention. Humans are the biggest threat to the species.
smh
Cockroach. Get me the spray.
Typical pointless, irrelevant and stupid comment from a typical factless fool.
Probably stupid enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a world class scientist, or that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize!
What a loser!
Cheers,
simple…”Get me the spray”.
You picked a good new nym, simple. Or is that a typo, maybe it is pimple?
Old man – tell me once more how the thermometer is not affected by greenhouse gases.
Myki,
You can see why President Trump has cancelled funding to people believe as you do, can’t you?
So sad. Too bad.
Cheers.
Strong frost returns to Hudson Bay.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00962/o7sn5x2wm5ow.png
ren ….”Strong frost returns to Hudson Bay”.
Not a good place to hang out…polar bears in winter and clouds of mosquitoes and flies that tear chunks of skin off you in summer.
We had malaria at one time in Canada.
https://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/canada/malaria-canada/
The voyageurs, who traveled by canoe south of Hudson Bay and sometimes up around it to the north, complained about areas being infested with mosquitoes and black flies, which are much larger than a house fly and bite small strips of skin off you.
Here in the Vancouver area on the Pacific Coast, we seldom see mosquitoes. We started spraying swamps and breeding grounds back in the 1960s and they all but disappeared. Along the rivers you get a few but nothing like it was years ago.
I have lived on the prairies for short periods and the mosquitoes there can get out of control, even in major cities. If you walk through a grass field, great swarms of them arise. When we played the occasional soccer game, we had to cover exposed skin with Deep Woods Off, an insect repellent.
Old man – tell us some more stories about last century.
Myki,
Last century, some people thought that Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth, should be believed.
Now they know better.
Oh, how we laughed!
How many more fairy tales do you want?
How about the one where Gavin Schmidt dreamed he was a world famous climate scientist?
Cheers.
Heavy snowfall is approaching eastern Germany and Poland.
The CERES data have an average of about 0.5 C/decade cooling for the period nominated: Mar 2000 to Feb 2017, for the Antarctic region.
Gordon Robertson took this at face value, as did ren and others. No questions.
So I checked the UAH data: 0.06 C/decade cooling. Virtually flat for the same period. Over a century that’s a difference of half a degree or 5 degrees. CERES is the larger.
According to the favoured data set here, CERES is way out. Gordon prefers UAH over everything else, is on record numerous times saying so.
So then I wondered why that particular time frame had been chosen. The post was written last month, so there is a whole year of data that could be added. And why start in March 2000? Was there a reason given, or did that selection produce a preferred result?
Anyway, I added the latest data from UAH to bring it up to Feb 2018 (making full twelve-month series, rather than finishing on 13 months, or just one – we stick to the convention in the graph).
-0.05 C/decade
Not much different.
So I checked from the canonical 1998 (Mar) to present.
+0.02 C/decade
Even flatter. But definitely not -0.5 C/decade.
Robertson doesn’t seem to notice that even with this very short time frame selection and the dubious CERES data (in that it is not as good as UAH!) that trends are positive for most latitude bands over the Earth. With the UAH data, even more of the latitude bands are positive, and the Antarctic region is flat at best.
But what made me notice was the blind acceptance of the data. Even though it is markedly different from UAH, ‘skeptics’ didn’t think to question it. Because it told them the story they wanted to hear.
Mr. Monckton,
It seems to me (nobody special) that there is a logical problem with the idea that only changes which significantly effect the previous supposed state of “energy equilibrium” of the climate system, are treated as forcings, whence feedbacks somehow commence occurring . .
I believe that what you proposing can be (crudely) likened to the hypothetical construct of a car system being spoken of as at energy equilibrium, because it is moving at a certain speed down a (level, windless) road, shedding heat at about the same rate that it enters the car system . .
If the car encounters a slight incline, downward for instance, and the relative air speed is hence increased, which in turn causes more system output (and hence decreased total system heat), then one can (in climate-change lingo) refer to that change in relative air speed as a forcing . . but what of the relative air speed up till that point? Clearly it was having an effect on the cooling of the system . . just less . .
The speed of the car was already resulting in a form of “feedback”, and while the change in speed generates what in climate system lingo qualifies it as a “forcing”, the physical effect that classification is justified by (in climate system logic-land ; ) did not commence at that moment.
If we calculated the total cooling “feedback” relative airspeed was generating, right after the “forcing” occurred, and attributed it all to that increase which we are calling a “forcing”, we would be making a logical blunder, it seems rather obvious to me.
(I can’t be sure, but I suspect this is on purpose blunder, so to speak. A word game is being played, and it’s a bit more sophisticated than I can comfortably accept occurred by accident)
Norman,
You claim that insulation in the form of an atmosphere raises the Earth’s temperature.
It hasn’t for four and a half billion years! The surface temperature has dropped from molten, to what it is now.
Antarctica used to be free of ice, not so long ago, geologically speaking. Now, temperatures there drop to -90 C.
You must believe this is due to global warming. I believe you would have to be stupid and ignorant to claim so.
Cheers,
Old man – tell us what is was like when Antarctica was ice free.
Myki,
There was plentiful flora and fauna.
I know you are too lazy or stupid (or both) to find this out for yourself, so I will let others know.
Anybody with the brains of a pangolin, even a mentally defective pangolin, would be aware of such basic facts. With much effort and time, you might be able to rise to such a level of knowledge.
I understand why you respect my superiority, young Myki. You will never attain my level, but you may aspire to same, if it makes you happy.
Cheers.
M,
I know I shouldn’t go out of my way to help those too lazy or stupid to help themselves, but –
“During the Oligocene Epoch, which extended from 23 million to 34 million years ago, vegetation primarily consisted of southern beech and conifer-dominated woodlands and tundra.”
It has certainly cooled a lot since then!
Believe or don’t believe, oh young and foolish Myki. It matters not.
Cheers.
Old man – gee are you that old? Your brain must have fossilised by now.
Young Myki,
That’s for me to know, and for you never to find out, because you are too stupid and ignorant.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Old man – how come you call everybody stupid?
Young Myki,
Why do you ask? Are you too stupid and ignorant to be able to narrow the scope of your question to something that could be construed as other than a stupid and ignorant attempt at a “gotcha”?
Press on.
Cheers.
Mikie, Where was Antarctica located when it had the vegetation you describe? Specifically, at what latitude was it located in the known history of continental drift?
https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap1-Pioneers-of-Plate-Tectonics/Alfred-Wegener/Fossil-Evidence-from-the-Southern-Hemisphere
E,
Why do you ask?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The atmosphere GHE raises the temperature to a higher equilibrium level than it would be without such an effect.
The Earth, after cooling from a molten state, would be cooler today without a GHE. The raise in temperature is a relative state and exists in terms of different conditions.
Without a GHE Antarctica would get much colder during its six months without any incoming solar energy.
Norman,
So you say Norman. When the average surface temperature was above the boiling point of water, what do you figure it should have been?
And now, when temperatures on the Moon reach above 100C without an atmosphere, why are temperatures on Earth (which you say should be hotter) less than 100 C? Magic, perhaps?
You don’t need to answer, if you think answering would make you look stupid and ignorant.
Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Tell me again that climatology doesn’t need to follow normal scientific methods, because its based on magic, why don’t you?
Cheers.
Sorry Norm, but you’re still getting it wrong.
Your wording “The atmosphere GHE raises the temperature” indicates you don’t understand the physics involved. The atmosphere does NOT heat the planet. The planet heats the atmosphere.
You’re still trying to treat the atmosphere as a “heat source”. You’ve got to get those mis-conceptions (worms) out of your head. They are causing you to be very frustrated.
Hope that helps.
But what cools the atmosphere? It cannot just be heated.
The atmosphere emits heat energy to space, continuously. If the atmosphere temperatures increase, the rate of emission increases.
What cools atmosphere?
Mostly the land surface.
Wind can cause evaporational cooling and conventional cooling.
With evaporational cooling it will make a surface cooler and it is “difficult” to cool a ocean because the ocean surface- meters deep – has a high energy content. Or wind over ocean surface which remains fairly warm (such as with hurricanes) can cause warming effect because evaporation cooling is not cooling the surface to low enough temperature.
gbaikie, I’m sure you could properly express yourself in your native language, but you don’t always do so well in English. That still makes you far ahead of me. I have studied French, Spanish, and lived in Germany. I can properly order wine and beer in all three countries. But, that’s it! I could never carry on a technical discussion in a foreign language.
The “land surface” does not cool the atmosphere, at the “macro” level. You may be referring to certain localized events. I was referring to the planet, in toto.
(If you don’t mind me asking, what is your native language?)
Canadian.
Which is British and Canucks doing their own thing.
So you think atmosphere cools by radiating it’s kinetic energy into space.
You realize that the energy gas is only kinetic energy, as in, only the average mass and its average velocity of gas.
So how does radiant loss slow down gas molecules?
I believe the pseudo science mentions that in higher portion of troposphere that this is where atmospheric heat is lost and
this is related to CO2.
Where in atmosphere do you think most of heat is lost?
Do we agree that land surface radiating energy into space?
Do we agree land surfaces are always radiating energy into space. And during the day when land are warmer, land surface radiates more energy into space as compared to when land surfaces are cooler.
And that when land is warmer than the air above it, it also transfer it warmth to atmosphere via convection. And surface land surface conduct heat to cooler ground below a warmed surface via conduction.
And a wet land surface can be cooled by evaporation.
Land surface can have a ground temperature of 70 C, and land surface of 70 C radiates more energy to space than a ground which is -20 C.
And 5 km up is colder by about 6.5 C, or 5 times 6.5 C is 32.5 K. And about 5.5 km elevation is at level of about 1/2 the atmosphere?
Canadian. Which is British and Canucks doing their own thing.
That must translate to French-Canadian. Which is somewhat close to the Cajuns, in south Louisiana. It’s a small world,