Pielke Sr. on new Spencer and Braswell paper

http://nola2010.hamptonu.edu/EarthBalanceGSFC.gif

Earth Balance - Source: Allison, Mead A., Arthur T. DeGaetano, Jay M. Pasachoff. /Earth Science/. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2006.

Reposted from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s blog

New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011

There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

==============================================================

Dr. Spencer has a pdf available.  He discussed the findings here.

About these ads

203 thoughts on “Pielke Sr. on new Spencer and Braswell paper

  1. Faster water cycle manifested in surface pressure redistribution negates most if not all additional energy in the air from more CO2.

    That about sums it up.

  2. So the past ~ 15 years has everyone back peddling as fast as they can now………………

    It’s the wind, it’s the ENSO, it’s the ice, it’s the economy, it’s China….
    …it’s RGates and the hydrological cycle
    …no, it’s the computer games are too sensitive

    Fool me once……………………………

  3. Well, I suppose it has to be written by doctorates before any of the sciency folk will believe such stuff, but it is common knowledge that “make too hot forecasts of global warming“. Why? Because, ““There are simply too many variables……” and our “inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

    I admire Dr. Spencer for going through the laborious motions to prove this posit, but anyone that’s thought about this issue much already knew what was shown in the paper.

    We don’t know all of the mechanisms involved nor when they engage nor do we know the proper weightings of the ones we do know about.

    Until there is a near universal acknowledgment of this, our models will continue to be wrong, as well as the general climate assessment by climatologists.

  4. Sounds like the rate at which energy is released is dependent upon the latitudinal orientation of the sun….I know there are many singing “Je tu le dit…Oui sais sa je tu le dit….I told you so I told you so”

  5. Reposted from Dr. Poger Pielke Sr’s blog

    Perhaps this should be Roger?

    :)

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

  6. So where will governments in a world spending itself to death get their tax revenue if it’s decidedly shown that CO2 isn’t something that can be taxed because it isn’t something that’s causing warming? Prospects of reining in a global monetary collapse now don’t look good. We’ll see how this plays out particularly in Australia as a test case of lunacy in government ripped asunder.

  7. James Sexton says:
    July 26, 2011 at 11:08 am


    Until there is a near universal acknowledgment of this, our models will continue to be wrong, as well as the general climate assessment by climatologists.

    The forcings used by climatologists were always just sufficient to cause a tipping of the research grant trough in their general direction.

  8. It will be interesting to watch how the climate modelers will react. Especially Kevin Trenberth who’s still searching for the missing heat.

  9. It’s nice to see REAL data come into the fray, instead of just computer simulations crafted by the hands of people. That the Earth is better at shedding off heat, and does it sooner than thought, completely changes the game, and nicely fits in with what we’ve actually been seeing in the real world.

  10. Oceanic surface tension means that thereis no chance that physical heat can be transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean. Surface tension blocks heat from entering the ocean only radiation can enter the ocean. Water is a class act.
    This means that the ocean is controlled by the suns radiation and nothing else. the two things that govern the climate are the sun and the ocean, the atmosphere is just piggy in the middle. If you doubt me about surface tension get a bucket of water and a heat gun and try to heat the water.

  11. gail king says:

    July 26, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Je tu le dit…Oui sais sa je tu le dit….I told you so I told you so”
    Je te le disais oui, je le sais que tu m’a dit.

    I told you it yes, I know that you have told me. !!!

  12. So as I understand this, the climate system is even more self-regulating than we thought? This reduces the CO2 sensitivity even further?

  13. Anthony, I thought you were going to take a break! I tried, but you and others, as well as an exciting last quarter with the “team ” getting the **** beat out of them and sent on the road to retirement just won’t let me go! The fans are on the edge of their/our seats and cheering! There is no hockey stick in this game now. Seems that the corrupt referees have been exposed and the “team” is going to have to play by the rules. Watch for errors on the scoreboard. Maybe the ‘team” is on drugs. I bet most of their fans are stoners or CAGW pushers!

    Sorry about the above thought, it just hit my mind.

    I am pleased to see a paper based on common sense, which most could relate to, that will have a profound effect on those who have a difficult time understanding the complex issues that are discussed here and elsewhere in depth.

    Anthony, would you and Steve McIntyre consider being the next USA presidential real team. I don’t believe that a US birth cert. would be an issue. LOL!

  14. ” If you doubt me about surface tension get a bucket of water and a heat gun and try to heat the water.”
    Evaporation can take heat from the ocean into the atmosphere.
    Trenberth’s heat is missing because it never got into oceans, the trade winds whipped it away as vapour to feed the Earth’s air-conditioner, Willis’s tropical cu-nims.

  15. I feel for Spencer and Braswell. They’ll be catching “heat” from the AGW community and have a lot more trouble getting government grants. At the University where I teach part time there is very little tolerance for the “heresy” of being a AGW skeptic. Lots of peer pressure the other way. (nod, nod, wink, wink)

  16. Preempting the groans about HadCRUT: This result uses the short term “wiggles” of temperature not long term trends. The wiggles of the satellite and surface data match, although the satellite wiggles are significantly larger, so the “wiggles” of the data from month to month and year to year are probably right, so anyone who says “oh based on HadCRUT, automatically crap” you might have a point if the long term trend was under consideration here. But the analysis is based on individual warming and cooling events, which again HadCRUT probably does well.

  17. Well recycle the IPCC/cagw coffin now!

    Put it in the container marked “metal” because it contains more nails than wood!

  18. Ok. But what’s wrong with the math?

    Outgoing radiation adds up to 100% (or so it appears).
    70% reradiated as long-wave radiation plus 30% scattered/reflected back to space.

    Incoming radiation adds up to 100% (or so it appears).
    51% absorbed at the surface (land+sea) plus 21% absorbed directly by the atmosphere plus 30% scattered/reflected back into space.

    Ok. That all seems fine, but of the 30% scattered/reflected back to space that seems to be divided up into 6% atmospheric scattering plus 20% cloud scattering plus 9% land/sea scattering.

    Can someone check my math? I can’t seem to make those add up.

    Thanks,
    Merrick

  19. 1. Use the IPCC data, i;e. HadCru, that even NASA says is the one to use.
    2. Use the IPCC models.
    3. Use the satellite data available, which NASA says is “infereior” to the GISTemp he quotes.
    4. Come to a conclusion different from what NASA/Hansen claims.
    5. Get ignored.

    I hear the approach of a great wall of silence.

  20. “Brian H says:
    July 26, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Negative feedbacks RULE!”

    Yes they do. Earth system processes are ruled by the Second Law through Maximum Entropy Production (MEP). Forget about those simple First Law energy budgets, these will tell you nothing about the direction and speed of the processes, and have nothing to do with established temperatures. MEP seems to be the rule for all nonlinear fluid systems with entropy production due to turbulent dissipation (atmosphere and ocean) with many degrees of freedom in a steady state (from equilibrium).
    Enjoy reading the next papers:
    Nonequilibrium
    thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system

    THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE SYSTEM
    Titan, Mars and Earth :
    Entropy Production by Latitudinal Heat Transport

    Also MEP is part of Miscolczi’s theory, the conversion of SWR to LWR proceeds following MEP (see 4.2.1) .
    MEP is the auto feedback in earth thermodynamic processes.

  21. What is so sad about this is that it is all so obvious. If CO2 is considered a major driver of climate and feedbacks are positive (as they are assumed to be in the IPCC models) then our atmosphere would indeed be unstable and catastrophic man-made global warming would be a real danger! This is because the solubility of CO2 in the ocean decreases with increased temperature. Therefore any positive feedback mechanism would necessarily cause runaway warming as oceans released more and more CO2 causing more heating, causing even more CO2 release until eventually the ocean could no longer release any more CO2 to the atmosphere (some kind of new equilibrium found due to the lack of any more CO2 being available to add to the atmosphere).

    We know this doesn’t happen!!!!!!!!!!

    So all IPCC models fly in the face of the actual observations over any historical time periods one cares to examine. For whatever reasons (science not settled yet), there are negative feedbacks which ultimately prevent runaway warming or atmospheric CO2 itself is simply not important enough compared to other (unknown) more influential factors. These negative feedback mechanisms must exist and/or CO2 is just a minor factor (not a driver) !! We can be sure of this because our atmosphere would have long ago moved to another much hotter equilibrium (a kind of Venus situation with thicker gases and with a very high CO2 content).

  22. @Hans says: July 26, 2011 at 2:09 pm
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Hans,
    Your link to the second paper: The Second Law of Thermodynaics and the Global Climate System is not working. Can you a different link/reference as I would like to have a look at that paper.
    Thanks

  23. For people who like this paper.

    1. You accept Hadcrut? even on short scales ( which add up to long scales)
    2. You accept averaging temperatures over great distances?
    3. You accept the notion of a global mean temperature
    4. You accept the physics MODELS that are used to produce satillite data products. Ya, that’s right satillite data is heavily processed. ( with AGW approved physics models)

    Accepting those 4 kinda puts you in the Lukewarmer camp. Also, you will note that the low senstivity models did much better than high sensitivity. What’s that tell you?

  24. Short term analysis like this is fraught with issues, not the least of which are the varying thermal inertia of different components of the climate (very little time for response) and the seasonal cycle. They only measure the very fastest climate response, not slower changes (ocean temperature, vegetation/ice albedo, and the like).

    I find the short term (months) estimates unreliable as a result – paleo estimates and those based on data such as the 11 year solar cycle are (IMO) rather more trustworthy. And those all come out to about 3C/doubling of CO2…

  25. These two articles explain nhow the entire system works unless someone has a better idea:

    http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html

    and:

    http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html

    I’ve been pushing these articles for a while now with no sign of any rebuttal or suggestions for improvement.

    My earlier post in this thread says it all.

  26. As Dr. Nahle has again proved that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exist, maybe you should go back to ground zero and take out all references to “greenhouse gases” and maybe you might start to get something right!
    The Experiment that Failed and can save the World trillions.
    Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
    By Berthold Klein P.E November 16, 2010 revision 11-19-2010 REVISED STARTING JULY 4,2011

    PREAMBLE: After hearing from a Ph. D in mechanical engineering and a teacher of environmental studies that they could not follow this experiment it is necessary to rewrite this experiment. It is necessary that anyone that can read to be able to understand this experiment and what it means. I made a mistake in the first edition as it is created as I thought about it and did the experiment. This edition is for everyone -the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control and the Ph. D in social studies or science.
    I have been communicating with some ordinary people and some Ph. D’s and I realize that my mission is a “Mission Impossible” being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend and that having a Ph. D means that their ego and arrogance will get in the way of comprehension. I will do my best with the help of those that edit the new version , so here goes.
    Before this is released it will have been reviewed and edited by knowledge individuals most will have minimal science education but do understand that the “Greenhouse Gas effect” does not exist.
    There are several words or terms used in this revision that need some explanation:
    IR= infrared radiation is a form of radiation(invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sun light and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature.
    IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of radiation (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR , there construction will not allow them to absorb the IR, they may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRags. The words “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary.
    Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth’s fortunate location in the universe ,it’s temperature varies from a low of-90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water can change from a gas at all temperature ,to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above,and a solid below 32 F.(0 C). Many people who pretend to be scientists choose to ignore these facts and call Water/l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” As we go through this experiment it will become clearer why this is bad science.
    CO2= a gas that is breathed out by every living mammal and most other living creature,it is absorbed by plants and algae and is them converted back to oxygen which we need to live. Most process that produce mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2( carbon dioxide) A very important and necessary part of live on this planets.
    CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes ,cook food and run engines as cars,buses and trucks,etc .It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air(atmosphere) at very tiny amounts.( part per billion) While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone(O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight.(this reaction is documented by a paper in the EPA library) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. Its from swamps,rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leave piles etc. It is a part of natures process of recycling.
    NO2= a gas formed by nature when there is lightening. It is also formed in any high temperature burning including engines. The gas is washed out of the atmosphere in every rainstorm. It is used by plants, and is very necessary for their growth.
    To demonstrate if the “greenhouse gas effect exists it is necessary to define it.
    The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases including
    Water/vapor/liquid/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” A term developed by a renowned physicist as a theoretical way to compare radiation. There are only a few materials and conditions that approach these theoretical properties. (The earth and its atmosphere is not one of them.).
    How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRag’s absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy.
    This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect”
    as has been said the truth is in the details therefore anyone that wants to get into more of the details,please join in.
    As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” lets start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor,solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRag’s as CO2 ,Ch4,NO2 and others gases -the IRag’s will be dealt with first.
    Critical features:
    1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
    2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
    3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
    4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”.Thus CO2 is supposed to be from 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ and CH4 (methane) is 1000 times that of CO2 Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a IR spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).This is a very important feature of the “ghg effect”
    5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the temperature of the Earth and “global atmospheric temperature will also increase.
    6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
    7. Where does this lead?
    We all know that the “greenhouse” effect exist. Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day.(summer or winter). Has walked into a store with south facing window , its temperature will be much higher than a car ,or window in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating- this was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955.
    What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ”greenhouse gas effect exists.
    All the AGW point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models. The problem with “computer models” is that unless all the factors that effect the atmosphere are included into the program it is “garbage in is garbage out”. When this is tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors. Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To data no one has come up with the “right model” More than 20 different “models of weather /climate program have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now ,let alone a hundred years from now.

    Using the list of “critical factor” lets see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist.
    To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today. In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “scale models”” or models with similar factors that can be either up sized or down sized. That are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events. That generate data that can be compared to known conditions or events.

    As the amount of heating that is supposed to be added by the “greenhouse gas effect” is on the order of fractions of a degree per year-( some claim the change to be 1 to 3 degrees/ year) we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does demonstrate the effect then the Concept does exist. If the concept does works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached. However if the concepts does not work at High Concentrations of IRags then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud.

    Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million( 1×10+6) . Another way to put it is if there are 1 million soldiers in the army and only one has a gun ,he better have a lot of bullets if he is going to defend the country. The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. If the effect exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate that “back radiation” Is causing a heating effect on the earth. .
    Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2,thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4 ,the effect should be 57500 time stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 time more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 X the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere
    As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB ( 2 X 10 -9)in the atmosphere , a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.
    . Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.
    The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove. Now 100 % CO2 is available for several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any Paint ball supply store, another is from a supplier of Dry ice. Do not use Alka Seltzer as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.
    The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable.

    How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that contained the IRags is glass containers then they measures the increase in temperature of the gas which had increased, they claimed this increase was do to the “ghg”effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was do to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. ( A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request). Another failure of these tests were their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating)
    The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter(major diameter) were chosen. If you want you can use larger ones to contain larger numbers of IRag molecules.

    Now lets discuss the experiment.
    1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags ,and one with dry air as a control.
    2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade.
    3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data.
    4. Take a large black mate board or a large black cloth or sheet and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature as it raises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5.
    5. Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially. Record the temperature.
    6. Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows” of the balloons.

    Now lets repeat the Critical factors and note the result of my test to the critical factor.
    Critical features:
    1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer. The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature.
    2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface. The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below)inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface.
    3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. The balloons did not warn any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the Bohr Model.
    4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed) As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
    5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
    6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
    Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1
    cost about $60.00. many other models available.
    I have thought about several refinements, but it would not change the bottom line that the “ghg effect” is a fairy-tale.

    I’m sure that the AGW’s will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.
    As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was place one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.

    Now lets talk about water( H2O/lvs):
    Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. Of course tomorrow it may be sunny and clear. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change. Now the “climate” has not changed for the last 300 years just ask the Indians.
    Any way lets look a H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it ‘s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy( Heat of condensation), if the general air temperature is low enough ( below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.
    This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” can not get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non are correct.
    Now lets add the next variable- solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon , the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors ) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am when there is measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.
    There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation have an effect on cloud formation,this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.
    There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”

    The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.
    Mann-made global warming is a hoax,because the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy -tale.

    Berthold Klein P.E.

    November 19, 2010
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    ILE
    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:

    http://ssrn.

    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
    Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
    Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)

    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
    I am in the process of editing the text so it is more understandable And adding two more balloons for O2 and N2 but in it current text it should be usable.

  27. Could any of the warmists enlighten me enough to suggest how an object with the mass of the co2 in the atmosphere can heat something, retain heat, insulate, or otherwise prevent heat transfer from an object with several hundred million times it’s mass?
    So a little back of the envelope calculations….
    The atmosphere has about the same mass as the first 30 feet of ocean water.
    The co2 in the atmosphere has the mass of .0003% of the atmosphere or 3 mm of water.
    So if all the if all the co2 in the atmosphere was to be heated to the projected temperature of the corona of the sun….. 2 Million degrees. Would the co2 plasma contain the heat capacity to heat the ocean 1 degree…. Maybe. How about 2? Not so much.

    The atmosphere retains heat due to it’s limited mass. There simply isn’t enough molecules to transfer the heat quickly. AGW is nonsense.

  28. Jeremy says; “We know this doesn’t happen!!!!!!!!!!”

    And so too does climate science. A doubling of CO2 is predicted, with feedbacks, to cause around 3C warming. That’s it! Not “runaway” global warming. You can’t just wave your hands at it, you have to run the numbers and that is what they say.

  29. Stanb999 says:
    July 26, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    The atmosphere retains heat due to it’s limited mass. There simply isn’t enough molecules to transfer the heat quickly. AGW is nonsense.

    ————–

    Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it is nonsense. CO2 and other greenhouse gases d o not retain the heat, they re-radiate it. Some of the re-radiated heat goes back down to the surface and warms it a bit more than if the greenhouse gsaes were not there. The greenhouse effect (rather poorly named, I’ll admit, since real greenhouses work in a somewhat different way) has been understood for about 150 years.

    Start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

  30. “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

    As I’ve been trying to say for quite some time there is no significant GHG warming over the ocean. The physical properties of water don’t permit it. You can’t slow down the rate of heat loss in a body of water by shining long wave infrared light on it from above. The effect only happens over land. It comes as no surprise to me at all there’s a large discrepancy between GCM predictions of surface temperature and actual measured temperatures but the discrepancy is only over the ocean. The GHG physics only work over land. Any model that doesn’t take this into account is going to overestimate global temperature rise in response to GHG increase by a factor of 3. The average model prediction is around 2.4C per doubling. The actual rise if it only occurs over land would be 0.8C per doubling. The measured response is about 0.7C. Hansen et al is off on a wild goose chase looking for the “missing heat” in the deep ocean when in fact it never entered the ocean in the first place. It was rejected at the surface and carried away in latent heat of vaporization. He needs to turn his gaze upward looking for that missing heat not downard.

  31. Stanb999
    Start here:

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

    It’s pretty simple. the gases in the atmosphere ( like water vapor, methane, c02) are opaque (more or less depending on the gas ) to IR. What’s that mean? That means radiation doesnt simply pass through them. Lets take an example from engineering. You have an IR source in the clear air, say a hot plane. An IR seeker will see it and an unlucky pilot may die. Now put that plane behind a cloud. nice, IR doesnt penentrate the cloud as easily. Some of the IR gets through, some gets absorbed, some gets reflected. have that plane put out a bunch of c02 as a defense mechanism.. same thing, the plane can be shrouded in C02. How do we know this? well we’ve studyied the propogation of radiation through the atmosphere for over a century. So, I can tell you how the radiation from a cell tower will propagate, how radar waves propagate, how they reflect off different things. The physics of radiative transfer is common engineering nowdays. We know these things well enough to make nearly invisible planes. Back in the 80s we knew this. We also knew how IR travels through gases. We had to. Our countries defense depended on it.

    In an atmosphere with more IR opaque gases, the altitude at which the planet re radiates to space is raised. Since the earth re readiates from a higher colder temperature, the surface must COOL more slowly. That’s simple energy balance. Cooling more slowly, means that it is warmer than it would be otherwise.

    Have you ever used a space blanket? that thin silvery stuff, reflects IR back at you. You cool less rapidly. You still, over time, will chill. But less rapidly than you would without that re radiation. you feel warmer because you are losing heat via radiation less rapidly than you would if the blanket were not there. the blanket doesnt “hold” heat. It reflects radiation and you lose heat less rapidly. eg you are warmer than you would have been otherwise.

    nothing magical.

    feedbacks are another matter. but Ghgs warm the planet, or rather the planet cools less rapidly

  32. steven mosher said July 26, 2011 at 3:04 pm:

    For people who like this paper.

    1. You accept Hadcrut? even on short scales ( which add up to long scales)
    2. You accept averaging temperatures over great distances?
    3. You accept the notion of a global mean temperature
    4. You accept the physics MODELS that are used to produce satellite data products. Ya, that’s right satellite data is heavily processed. ( with AGW approved physics models)

    Accepting those 4 kinda puts you in the Lukewarmer camp. Also, you will note that the low senstivity models did much better than high sensitivity. What’s that tell you?

    Actually I don’t have a problem with pointing out when and how the (C)AGW-pushers own data doesn’t support their claims. Saves the additional headaches of defending better data sources as well as the conclusions. And your post, with its similarities to other recent strident posts you’ve made, tell me you could likely benefit from having more fiber in your diet. ;-)

  33. Yes, but according to Australias chief scientist, there is no debate about the level of AGW, as he presents the Prime Minister with a document “The Critical Decade”, meaning we have to introduce a carbon tax. Pity they dont look at the data anymore.

  34. hagendl and Richard Verney,

    Just a reference to
    a paper
    that investigated solar-, lunar- and earth orbital cycles signals on Earth’s latitudinal insolation / temperature gradient. The authors conclude that: LTG sensitivity to LIG can be explained by Maximum Entropy Production theory, but this hypersensitivity appears poorly reproduced in climate models.
    They also did a paper on glacial-interglacial cycles based on the latitudinal insolation gradient (LIG), and conclude: that LIG forcing of the LTG explains many criticisms of classic Milankovitch theory.

    These papers strengthen MEP papers that suggest MEP as a possible explanation for the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

  35. John B, you did not understand Jeremy’s argument at all. The wamists theories assert that positive feedbacks dominate the system, however they don’t explain how it will stop. Running things to their logical conclusion results in all the CO2 being driven out of the oceans and into the atmosphere where it will stay. There is no mechanism to return things to “normal” because of the positive feedbacks. In engineering speak the system is “unstable”. Since the earth’s climate has not swung to this extreme over the last billion years or so, it is highly unlikely that positive feedbacks dominate. It’s much more likely that negative feedbacks dominate since we know that such systems are inherently stable, like the climate.

  36. John B says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it is nonsense. CO2 and other greenhouse gases d o not retain the heat, they re-radiate it.
    —————————————————————————————

    Whatever amount it could “re-radiate” would also be meaningless. It can’t radiate more than it’s mass affords as well. Tiny mass = tiny energy potential = tiny energy potential means little energy is absorbed = Little energy available to be transferred.
    A warm drop in a cold ocean does “heat” it. But it also like the affects of co2 on it can’t be measured.

    AGW is non-sense and violates basic physics, because you have been misinformed about VERY basic physics makes you wrong.

    P.S. Yeah, I’ll check wiki. ;-)

  37. steven mosher says (July 26, 2011 at 3:04 pm): “For people who like this paper.”

    My answers to your questions:

    1. With reservations (see #2 & #3).
    2. The same way i accept averaging ZIP codes.
    3. The same way I accept averaging the numbers in a phone book.
    4. With reservations. In an earlier thread (this month?), when a commenter claimed the MWP was warmer than today, you contrasted the limited proxy coverage from that time with the more extensive (though still limited) coverage today. Like you, I prefer more data points with better geographic coverage, and I understand the satellite data give a less incomplete picture of the atmosphere than existing ground stations. I’m also under the impression that the sat data have been more extensively critiqued by the alarmist establishment than the ground data have, and Dr. Cristy et al have made appropirate modifications in response. So I distrust the satellite data marginally less than I distrust the ground data.

    To answer your real question, I think the value of this paper is that it uses the climate establishment’s own (dubious) data and comes to a different conclusion. I suspect the paper will be ignored, but I hope it receives very loud and public scrutiny.

    “Also, you will note that the low senstivity models did much better than high sensitivity. What’s that tell you?”

    That if the IPCC must continue relying on climate models to “project” the future, it should seriously consider using models with much lower “gain”?

    BTW, I’m a lukewarmer–OK, more of a luke-lukewarmer–who deliberately moved closer to the equator decades ago and hasn’t regretted it. If CO2 can “move” me even closer, bring it on! :-)

  38. steven mosher says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Stanb999
    Start here:

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

    I’m fully aware of the GW hypothesis.

    My issue with it is the atmosphere simply doesn’t have the mass to retain much heat. It can “re-radiate” it all it wants as I said above it’s a “wash”.
    The radiation like all energy transferred from one place to another is limited by simple physics.
    1. A molecule in a lower state can’t excite one at a higher state to a higher state. Do you disagree with this?

    2. More collisions cause atrophy. The “energy” we are discussing is heat and as stated above heat can’t move from cold to warm. Heat is the measured result of excited molecules. An “energetic” particle moving from a cool molecule to a warm one will diminish the energy of the more energetic one. To put it in more simple terms…

    You have two bowling balls. One moving at 100 KPH and one moving at 50 KPH (in the same direction for illustration). What GW is suggesting that when the 100 KPH ball runs into the ball going 50 KPH the energy is transfered from the 50 KPH ball to the 100 KPH ball making a total of 150KPH of traveling energy.. Then “energy” retained in the balls is the same as it was prior due to it’s continued existence. When in reality both balls are now traveling at the same speed. So the two molecules are the same “temperature” AKA. 75KPH. You lost speed so you lost energy. Dithering about where the energy from the ball going 50KPH ended up is moot. Down, up, or sideways.
    3. Adding more bowling balls “GHG”…. increase collisions thus the rate of atrophy.. Temperature fall is increased. True, more energy moves higher in the atmosphere…. But with less total energy.

  39. This is what I love about this site. An interesting article filled with fresh thinking, documentation and cited sources. Very stimulating read. Then come the comments. All — or at least most — thoughtful and relevant to the subject. Ideas being bounced around with everyone learning in the process. Mosher being told to eat more oats. All good stuff. Now if only we had more pictures… I like reading the pictures.

  40. steven mosher-“1. You accept Hadcrut? even on short scales ( which add up to long scales)”

    On short timescales certainly (all data sources show that the short term wiggles occur, although their magnitude is larger in the troposphere) issues with any of these datasets are mostly matters of long term trend estimates. Over the oceans we have satellites that measure the SSTs in recent years, and these are probably pretty good.

    “2. You accept averaging temperatures over great distances?”

    For what purpose? This is a vague statement, personally I prefer if we preserve the spatial structure as it may be informative but for the purposes of the radiative budget we want that closed, so the whole Earth makes sense.

    “3. You accept the notion of a global mean temperature”

    Arguendo, sure. The question here is, how does this measure really relate to the energy flow? What Roy has shown is that there is a relationship, so there is some thermodynamic meaning to the “average temperature”. That doesn’t make it the best way to measure actual heat, and it remains the case that it is a poor measure of such.

    “4. You accept the physics MODELS that are used to produce satillite data products.”

    A Physics model (whatever “AGW approved” means…) presumably meaning based on fairly basic physics (and herein I should make it clear I consider GHE as included under “basic physics”) which you seem to want to use innuendo to connect to GCMs to the analysis of satellite data. Not gonna let you get a way with that ;) they are two different things.

    “Accepting those 4 kinda puts you in the Lukewarmer camp.”

    Kinda is pretty vague. One can surely accept your points and believe in too little AGW (ie very low sensitivity) to really qualify as a “lukewarmer”…This group gets more vaguely defined by the day. This is why although I sympathize greatly with many people who consider themselves “lukewarmers” and agree with many things that at least some of them say, I would never be so presumptuous as to declare myself in said group, and I cringe whenever someone calls themselves a member of said group, as I often wonder how closely their views really align with others going around using the term.

    “Also, you will note that the low senstivity models did much better than high sensitivity. What’s that tell you?”

    “Much” is something of an over statement. in fact, both the least sensitive models and most sensitive models are actually quite distant from the data (look at the figures!) I don’t want to jump to conclusions but I would argue that this is probably strong evidence that the sensitivity of the models is too high. My own analysis of the satellite data suggest that the sensitivity is less than 1 K for a doubling of CO2 (forcing of 3.7 W/m^2). From what I hear this is too low to make me a “lukewarmer”, maybe a full-blown d-word.

  41. B.Klein says: “[Yatta-yatta-yatta].”

    I never read comments that are all in caps or extend past two screens. Sorry.

  42. So the Earth’s atmosphere is more like a giant layer of pingpong balls. The pingpong balls move with the energy being re-reradiated by the surface.
    If you increase the re-radiated energy, the balls move faster.
    If you increase the # of balls without increasing the energy, the balls move slower.
    If you increase both, you have more balls moving faster.
    The atmosphere is very efficient at sucking the energy off the planet, which drifts in cold, dead space on one side, and a blazing fusion ball on the other. If it weren’t for the density of atmosphere plus the ocean energy silos we currently have now, we’d go cyrogenic at night and burn to a crisp by day.
    Well, fortunately, we have an atmosphere and stabilizing oceans.
    Just hope the incoming downwell radiation doesn’t suffer a lapse of rate. That efficient atmosphere will shed the excess ocean silo energy until equilibrium is reached.
    It’s 8:33 PM PDT. Do you know where your W/M^2 are?

  43. Great work. Enormous contribution. The satellite research continues to be very important.

    Error correction. Now reads: The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]

    Should issues be issued?

    The pdf links aren’t working at present. They are all timing out. The Blog link works. In addition, do you have a link to the U of Alabama site, where the info is posted? Thank you.

  44. Hans at July 26, 2011 at 2:09 pm
    provided a link to a paper by Dr. Noor van Andel which discusses Maximum Entropy Production (MEP) as it relates to Miskolczi theory. The link does not work likely due to the ‘s in the file name. I uploaded the file without the ‘s in the file name at

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Note_on_Miskolczi_theory_25-05-2010.pdf

    In section 4.2.1 Dr. van Andel writes, “The fluxes at this EU/SU =0.507 set point are controlled in order that the conversion of F0 into OLR proceeds with the lowest surface temperature possible, i.e. with the highest entropy production, as with all thermal dissipation. We find maximal entropy production [MEP] in all thermal dissipation processes”.

  45. Stanb999 says:

    AGW is non-sense and violates basic physics, because you have been misinformed about VERY basic physics makes you wrong.

    With all due respect, Stanb999, there is some very basic physics about which you have been misinformed.

    1. A molecule in a lower state can’t excite one at a higher state to a higher state. Do you disagree with this?
    This statement is fuzzy, so it is hard to know what you mean. Could you define what “states” you are talking about and what it means for them to be “excited”?

    If you mean “energy states of orbiting electrons” then you are wrong. A molecule in a low energy state could emit a photon. If that photon has the right energy, could be absorbed by an atom that is already in an excited state to move it up to a higher yet energy state.

    If you simple mean molecules of a cool gas cannot add energy to a molecule of a warmer gas, then this is also wrong, because of the distribution of energies will mean that the high energy particles in the cool gas will have more energy than the low energy particles in the warm gas.

    2. More collisions cause atrophy.
    Did you mean “entropy” ? Once a system is in equilibrium, then more collisions will not change the entropy, so more collisions would not necessarily increase entropy.
    Or perhaps you mean that collisions cause energy to “waste away”?

    The “energy” we are discussing is heat and as stated above heat can’t move from cold to warm. Heat is the measured result of excited molecules.
    This is a very vague (and not especially correct) definition of heat. “Heat” in thermodynamics refers to energy in motion. Heat could be “the measured result of the interaction of molecules.” More generally, heat is the net flow of energy between two systems. Energy can and does move from cool systems to warm systems, but there is always more energy moving the other way.

    An “energetic” particle moving from a cool molecule to a warm one will diminish the energy of the more energetic one.
    Any photon that is emitted by a any particle (warm or cool) that is then absorbed by any other particle (warm, or cool) will remove energy of the first particle and raise the energy of he second. The actual temperatures of the two are immaterial.
    So an “energetic” photon moving from a cool molecule to a warm one will INCREASE the energy of the more energetic one.

    You have two bowling balls. One moving at 100 KPH and one moving at 50 KPH (in the same direction for illustration). What GW is suggesting that when the 100 KPH ball runs into the ball going 50 KPH the energy is transfered from the 50 KPH ball to the 100 KPH ball making a total of 150KPH of traveling energy.. Then “energy” retained in the balls is the same as it was prior due to it’s continued existence. When in reality both balls are now traveling at the same speed. So the two molecules are the same “temperature” AKA. 75KPH. You lost speed so you lost energy. Dithering about where the energy from the ball going 50KPH ended up is moot. Down, up, or sideways.

    In the situation described above (assuming the two bowling balls are traveling along the same line and the collision is elastic), then physics predicts that the faster ball will slow to 50 KPH and the slow ball will speed up to 100 KPH (ie they exchange speeds). So both the answer you incorrectly attribute to “GW” and the “correct” answer you provided are wrong. The only way for the bowling balls to both go 75 KPH is to have a completely inelastic collision (ie stick together). But such a collision does not happen for bowling balls or for colliding molecules.

    And “dithering” about where the energy goes IS NOT moot. Conservation of energy is a key foundation of all of science (including climate science). Knowing where energy goes is always valuable and important.

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

    In fact, you could in a sense say that the original post is “dithering” about energy. The observed energy balance and the modeled energy balances do not match. The difference is not large in absolute terms, but is large enough to have large implications. The climate may not be as sensitive to changes as had been thought, which is an important concept to understand for climate change discussions.

  46. B.Klein says: July 26, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    “As Dr. Nahle has again proved that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exist … “

    The post is very long, but let me point on one key error. Dr. Nahle describes an experiment to see if CO2 absorbs IR from sunlight. The problem is that he does not distinguish between different wavelengths IR. GHGs absorb primarily “thermal IR” (with wavelengths greater than a few microns. The sun, on the other hand, emits an insignificant fraction of its energy at these wavelengths. Thus a balloon filled with CO2 or other GHGs would not not be expected to absorb an appreciable amount the solar radiation.

    Ironically, he PROVED a point of GH effect as he was trying to disprove it! Solar energy can easily pass thru the gases to get to the surface, while thermal IR from the ground gets blocked!)

  47. Stanb999;
    much as I agree with you that the warmist position tries to double-count heat energy, please stop trying to post physics comments. You really haven’t clue 1 what you’re talking about. Therm 2 is a law of net bulk flows, and does not pertain to the fate of a particular photon or molecule.

  48. July 24th, 2011 it was 86 deg. F at 6 PM but darker buildings were 99 degrees warmer at 185. Solar interaction with absorbent building exteriors is causing the problem and we are responding to the symptoms with massive energy waste. Air conditioning is refrigeration and requires a big electrical load.

    Heat rises and the generated heat mixes atmospherically contributing to climate change. Here is what it looks like in infrared. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=73
    The same is happening in every city, every province, state and country.

  49. Good to see some of the regulars (e.g. Brian H, Tim Folkerts) pointing out errors in others’ posts. My respect for this site just went up.

  50. Stanb999.
    You obviously didnt read the link. And i’m afraid with your physics acumen we would not have let you design any systems to protect this great country. Sorry, I have no time for people who deny the very physics we depend upon day in and day out. have a nice day.

  51. Spencer and Braswell (SB11) must be right here. All matter above absolute zero emits long wave radiation. The warmer the temperature the more radiation it emits. There is no known physics that can delay emission. SB11 says that the ocean/atmosphere starts emitting more radiation as soon as it warms up. The climate models have no increase in emission until after the warming event is over and the system starts to cool down again. That must be wrong. If there was 100% cloud cover that might be true but not with so many holes in the cloud cover. But, there again, no surprise there. Positive feedback (from water vapor) only appears to work at the limit cases of 0% or 100% cloud cover.

  52. @steven mosher says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:27 am
    “You obviously didnt read the link………Sorry, I have no time for people who deny the very physics we depend upon day in and day out.”
    ———————————————————————
    I did – thank you for your time

  53. Steven Mosher (july 26, 2011 at 4:00pm)

    It’s not so simple at all. Reflection of non-visible radiation is non-existent with clouds. Co2 shrouding planes (in flight) as a defense mechanism? Where and when is that taking place? If you shroud a plane in CO2 (which is impossible) that pilot will be toast. If you want to talk propagation then talk to someone like me who has nearly four decades of practical radio, but you may not like it. Nearly invisible planes have nothing to do with IR or CO2.

    ” In an atmosphere with more IR opaque gases, the altitude at which the planet re-radiates to space is raised.” Really, and what observed proof is there? What is a “higher colder temperature”? If an object is in the process of heating or cooling there is no energy balance.

    A space blanket is essentially a non permeable barrier for entrapment of air. When you put a blanket of any kind around you the result is reduced air exchange. The same thing that happens in a real greenhouse. What really happens is that the human body heats the small pocket of air via thermalization. You and all other warmers seem to think that reflection is backradiation, which it isn’t. And if you think radiation is all that then cut one or two 6 inch slits in your space blanket and see how long you stay warm.

    The temperature we experience at the surface is due solely to the very high absorbing power of water vapor to the sun’s IR as CO2 is a feeble absorber when compared to water vapor.

  54. @Mosher: “the gases in the atmosphere (…) are opaque to IR”.

    That’s BS. CO2 isn’t remotely opaque to IR. Any individual CO2 molecule is only opaque to one specific frequency or IR radiation, depending on its specific orientation and excitation at the time. Multiple CO2 molecules at different orientations and excitations absorb a somewhat wider band of IR radiation, but it is still a tiny proportion of the whole bandwidth of IR being emitted by planet earth.

  55. Both authors are established scientists with PhDs. The paper was peer reviewed. That modellers assumption of zero emission until the peak temperature has occurred is clearly completely without scientific foundation. Temperatures were taken from established data sets accepted by the warmists. Yet I doubt whether this interesting paper will have any impact on the mainstream IPCC or the politicians it feeds. Eyes will be covered, ears will be plugged, CO2 will still be designated as a pollutant Wind farms will continue to spread over the countryside and industry in the developed world will be further screwed. So very sad.

  56. The reason AGW is BS is clearer if you look at that energuy chart. It is obvious from that chart that most of the enrgy reaches the land and sea. This energy doesn’t penetrate far into the land and sea because it is visible light and IR energy which has little penetrative power. So the land and sea is more energised than the atmosphere, which is only receiving about 20% of the energy and that is distributed throughout the atmosphere. Now at this point Stanb999 is roughly correct, despite his sarcastic detractors. Whilst individual molecules may impart energy hither and thither, the lwas of thermodynamics tell us that on average the energy of molecules within one body will transfer only to a cooler body and not vice versa. So if the atmosphere has less energy than land and sea then the energy of land and sea must transfer to the atmosphere, on average, and not the other way around. How does it do that? Well partly through re-radiation of the energy but also due to something conveniently missed out of the chart – conduction and convection. The land and sea will conduct energy to the bottom layer of the atmosphere which will then convect the heat up to cooler layers in a continuous cycle. This is what drives “weather” and therefore “climate” – the continuous cycling of energy absorbed by land and sea from the sun, then conducted into the lower atmosphere and causing convection with clouds forming and condensing. CO2 really can’t play much of a part in what happens below the cloud layer. That would be like suggesting a pressure cooker would work better if you suspended some glossy red balls from its lid to reflect some of the IR back to the stew. Everything interesting about life on earth happens below the cloud layer where CO2 has little impact.

  57. Re Peter @2.34, Im not so sure that this will be ignored. It is a direct refutation of Dessler’s recent paper and cant be dismissed so easily. What is nice about it is that it actually supports Dessler’s conclusions if the reference point is at zero lag. So unless there is something fundamentally in error, it will be seriously looked at.

  58. steven mosher says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Stanb999.
    You obviously didnt read the link. And i’m afraid with your physics acumen we would not have let you design any systems to protect this great country. Sorry, I have no time for people who deny the very physics we depend upon day in and day out. have a nice day.

    Kind sir,
    With your physics we have in fact solved the energy crisis. Instead of dithering with coal fired power plants we can have CO2 powered ones. Yahoo!

    Heat can NEVER be exchanged in such a way that a cold body warms a hot one. Will never happen in real life. Tho, one can do it on paper. Just like perpetual motion.

  59. Ryan says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:15 am

    @Mosher: “the gases in the atmosphere (…) are opaque to IR”.

    That’s BS. CO2 isn’t remotely opaque to IR. Any individual CO2 molecule is only opaque to one specific frequency or IR radiation, depending on its specific orientation and excitation at the time. Multiple CO2 molecules at different orientations and excitations absorb a somewhat wider band of IR radiation, but it is still a tiny proportion of the whole bandwidth of IR being emitted by planet earth.

    ——-

    Yes, it is a tiny proportion, but it is not zero. IPCC say it results in 3C warning per doubling of CO2. Spencer and others say about 1C. But none of them seriously say the effect does not exist.

  60. Paul Penrose says:
    July 26, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    John B, you did not understand Jeremy’s argument at all. The wamists theories assert that positive feedbacks dominate the system, however they don’t explain how it will stop. Running things to their logical conclusion results in all the CO2 being driven out of the oceans and into the atmosphere where it will stay. There is no mechanism to return things to “normal” because of the positive feedbacks. In engineering speak the system is “unstable”. Since the earth’s climate has not swung to this extreme over the last billion years or so, it is highly unlikely that positive feedbacks dominate. It’s much more likely that negative feedbacks dominate since we know that such systems are inherently stable, like the climate.

    ————————-

    Warmists don’t say that at all! Here is an explanation of how positive feedbacks start and then stop. I know skepticalscience isn’t best liked around here, but as you are saying “warmists theories assert”, I think it is appropriate here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-basic.htm

  61. @steven mosher says July 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    “…Have you ever used a space blanket? that thin silvery stuff, reflects IR back at you. You cool less rapidly. You still, over time, will chill. But less rapidly than you would without that re radiation. you feel warmer because you are losing heat via radiation less rapidly than you would if the blanket were not there. the blanket doesnt “hold” heat. It reflects radiation and you lose heat less rapidly. eg you are warmer than you would have been otherwise.
    nothing magical….”
    //////////////////////////////////////////
    Steve,

    I have seen you make these comments (and remarks on how igloos keep you warm) many times, but I consider your comments to be an over simplification and only partly correct. Materailly, the blanket and the igloo do not work simply by radiation.

    First and foremost in the case of the igloo (and this is also true of the blanket) it shields one from windchill. Second, (and this is probably the first order factor with the blanket) is that it traps air which is heated by conduction and convection. It is this air that insulates the ‘injured’ person and keeps them warm additionally reducing loss of heat through evaporation.

    Consider your blanket. Lets assume that it is like a toilet roll, 1m diameter and 2 m tall. The ‘injured’ person stands inside the roll. The blanket is stiil effective but far less effective than when simply wrapped around the ‘injured’ person because convection carries away heat being radiated by the injured person. The blanket does not trap the heat because it is an open roll.

    Now consider the blanket as like a toilet roll but this time with a 5m diameter. The ‘injured’ person stands in the centre of the roll but this time the blanket is completely ineffective. The same anmount of reradiation (reflected radiation) whatever you want to call it is supplied by the blanket but now this ‘energy’ is incapable of keeping the ‘injured’ person warm In this example, radiation fails.

    In most instances (in the absence of a tuned frequency that excites particular atoms) radiation is a weak form of energy transfer and other forms of heat transfer (conduction, convection, evaporation) are far stronger. In the real world, these other factors dominate in the workings of our atmosphere.

  62. Steven, with respect to my recent post, I meant to call you Steven (not Steve). Sorry for the typo.

  63. Ryan says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:48 am
    The reason AGW is BS is clearer if you look at that energy chart. It is obvious from that chart that most of the energy reaches the land and sea. This energy doesn’t penetrate far into the land and sea because it is visible light and IR energy which has little penetrative power. So the land and sea is more energized than the atmosphere, which is only receiving about 20% of the energy and that is distributed throughout the atmosphere. Now at this point Stanb999 is roughly correct, despite his sarcastic detractors. Whilst individual molecules may impart energy hither and thither, the lwas of thermodynamics tell us that on average the energy of molecules within one body will transfer only to a cooler body and not vice versa. So if the atmosphere has less energy than land and sea then the energy of land and sea must transfer to the atmosphere, on average, and not the other way around. How does it do that? Well partly through re-radiation of the energy but also due to something conveniently missed out of the chart – conduction and convection. The land and sea will conduct energy to the bottom layer of the atmosphere which will then convect the heat up to cooler layers in a continuous cycle. This is what drives “weather” and therefore “climate” – the continuous cycling of energy absorbed by land and sea from the sun, then conducted into the lower atmosphere and causing convection with clouds forming and condensing. CO2 really can’t play much of a part in what happens below the cloud layer. That would be like suggesting a pressure cooker would work better if you suspended some glossy red balls from its lid to reflect some of the IR back to the stew. Everything interesting about life on earth happens below the cloud layer where CO2 has little impact.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    Now taking the same step into the upper atmosphere…

    Thermodynamics is simple in the regard to Mass. If an object is of little mass it can’t “hold”, transfer, or dissipate a lot of heat. 1 ft cube of cast iron v/s a 1 ft cube of marshmallow. Any heat in excess of it’s total capacity would pass through and “heat” what is “beyond” it. Kinda how a torch works with a piece of plate steel. GHG theory suggests that only the thickness of the steel plate makes a difference. This is just as false. If the torch flame zone is heated further due to “retained”, reflected, or transitory heat. The base of the steel will heat faster and burn through at a faster rate. Does one really need to point out such non-sense? It’s not as if the earth is incapable of transmitting heat to space.

  64. Further to Stanb999 comments at: July 27, 2011 at 3:02 am wherein he comments upon what
    steven mosher says:July 27, 2011 at 12:27 am
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    There are many people who question whether in the real world in which we live in, CO2 plays any significant role in producing current temperaturess. There are other, who accpet the 1deg C per of warming per doubling ofCO2but do not acce4pt the additional positive feedbacks and therefore consider that temperature rise will be limited to 1degC.

    Of those that remain unconvinced as to whether in the real world, doubling CO2 will result in any significant increase in temperature, for the main part do not dispute (i) that all bodies above absolute zero radiate (ii) that CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb IR at certain bandwidths, and (iii) that CO2 (and other GHGs) re-emit/re-radiate in all directions the formaerly absorbed IR. The laboratory experiment on that is not in question. What is in question and this is on which no experiment has been conducted, what is the effect of this in the real world when other forms of energy transfer (often much more powerful eg., convection, evaporatiion, changes in latent heat through phase changes of water etc) are at work. Added to this, is the probability that DWLWIR is not absorbed by the oceans and does not in any way heat the oceans.

    No one doubts that hot jet engines or say a BBQ has an IR signature which can be seen and measured a long way from the source. But does this mean that the IR being radiated can do sensible work? Take the BBQ for example. Heat is being radiated in all directions. In particular exactly the same amount of heat is being radiated upwards as is being radiated to the side of the BBQ. We all know that you can cook your food, 9 inches to a foot above the hot coals, but cannot cook food 9 inches to a foot to the side of the BBQ. Why is this? The answer is that IR radiation is weak and convection drowns it. Convection carries the hot air column that has been heated by the IR being radiated from the surface of the coals upwards so that when you are cooking the food above the BBQ, the food will cook by convected heat. As regards, the IR being radiated sideways, convection carries the hot air generated from this upwards and away before it reaches the food such that there is insufficient hot air being ‘fanned’ sideways to cook the food and IR in itself is insufficient.

    According to the Trenberth energy diagram, more ‘energy’ is being received from DWLIR than by solar radiance. IF this DWLWIR had sensible energy, the worlds energy problems would be solved. Why bother with solar which only works during the day (and on sunny days at that) when you can have DWLWIR which works 24 hours a day come cloud, rain or shine?

    If DWLWIR had any ability to do work, someone would have designed a machine that could tap into that energy source. Or at any rate, there would be significant research programs into this, since whoever can tap this source of energy would become a billionaire (it would make Exxon, BP, Chevron etc largely redundant and would mean that the West would no longer be beholden to the Middle East for their energy needs) . However, as far as I am aware, no one is researching into this. This tells you that specialist physicists do not consider that there is any energy in the DWLWIR. There is nothing to be extracted.

    If I was interviewing Paul Nurse, this would probably be my first question to him. If there is all this DWLWIR and if this DWLWIR has any ability to do work (ie., to warm in some way an object that is warmer than it), why are we not tapping this limitless and universally available source of power? I would love to know his answer.

    When the dust is settled, in 20 or 30 years time, I suspect that this DWLWIR either does not exist as set out in the Trenberth diagram, or that if it does exist it is simply a signature incapable of doing any work (in which I include warming the atmosphere), In effect, ‘just pie in the sky’. .

  65. Stanb999 says: July 27, 2011 at 3:02 am

    “Heat can NEVER be exchanged in such a way that a cold body warms a hot one.

    The point that you seem to miss is that there are other flows of energy involved besides the exchange between atmosphere and surface.
    * The atmosphere can never raise the temperature of the surface higher than ~ 270 K
    * Outer space can never raise the temperature of the surface higher than ~ 3 K
    * The sun can never raise the temperature of the surface higher than ~ 5800 K

    The combination of the three will raise the surface temperature so somewhere between 3K and 5800 K. Exactly where the temperature falls within that range depends on how well “connected” the surface is to each of theses three systems. Clouds “disconnect” the surface from the sun (by reflecting away the light) and “connect” the surface to the atmosphere (via IR radiation), which provides the well known cooling by clouds.

    GHGs “disconnect” the surface from outer space and “connect” the surface to the atmosphere. Since the surface is in better thermal contact with 270 K and is in worse thermal contact with 3 K, it will not lose as much energy and will get closer to the 5700 K temperature of the sun.

  66. @JohnB: “Yes, it is a tiny proportion, but it is not zero. IPCC say it results in 3C warning per doubling of CO2. Spencer and others say about 1C. But none of them seriously say the effect does not exist.”

    OK, I’m going to give you a model which will explain why doubling CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere will not increase the temperature of the earth by 3Celsius. Absolute zero is almost 300degrees C less than the Earths present temperature so what Team AGW is saying is that by doubling this trace gas you can increase Earth’s temperature by 1%.

    OK, lets imagine that the earth is modelled by a CFL lamp putting out a lot of light but not much heat. Then imagine that this is completely surrounded by a lampshade made of shiny ball bearings. You can imagine that not much of the light is going to escape – almost all the light is reflected back to the bulb. This is what happens on planet Venus, there is so much of the CO2 that none of the IR at specific frequencies can escape. But that is not what Earth is like. On Earth CO2 is a trace gas. We can consider what this is like by imagining that the lampshade is not made of a solid shell of ball bearings, but the shell is in fact made up of shiny ball bearings spread throughout the space that was occupied by the lampshade – all at different distances from the lamp itself. Now no light has a direct path beyond the lampshade, but how effective is this new lampshade at blocking the light (i.e. reflecting the light back to the lamp). Not very effective at all. The vast majority of the light simply bounces off of different ball bearings at odd angles and ends up reflected back out into space. But this is still not a good model, because this implies the CO2 is 100% CO2, i.e that almost all the outgoing light will come into contact with one of those shiny CO2 balls. This isn’t the case. In reality the vast majority of the light emitted by the lamp should go straight through, so we need to thin out the balls in the lampshade a lot to account for CO2 only being 0.03% of the gas in the atmosphere. Oh, this still isn’t right, because the molecules in a gas are not densely packed one next to the other- in fact they are about 1000x further apart than their own diameter. But it still isn’t right. Because CO2 only absorbs about 1% of the IR radiation because it only absorbs at a specific frequency. The rest of the radiation goes straight through. So now we have to model the CO2 molecule as an optical glass bead with a spec of shiny red dust at the center. Even this model overstates the power of CO2 to reflect IR energy back to earth because CO2 does not “reflect” the IR at all – it absorbs it and then re-radiates it back as light at other frequencies (a bit like having a solar cell that absorbs IR and then uses it to power a white LED).

    I think that anyone can understand that a CO2 lampshade like this wouldn’t prevent 1% of the light escaping the lampshade. But that is what Team AGW is telling us that CO2 is doing right now above planet earth.

  67. richard verney says: July 27, 2011 at 6:14 am

    “If DWLWIR had any ability to do work, someone would have designed a machine that could tap into that energy source. Or at any rate, there would be significant research programs into this, since whoever can tap this source of energy would become a billionaire (it would make Exxon, BP, Chevron etc largely redundant and would mean that the West would no longer be beholden to the Middle East for their energy needs) . However, as far as I am aware, no one is researching into this. This tells you that specialist physicists do not consider that there is any energy in the DWLWIR. There is nothing to be extracted.”

    This is partly correct. Any energy has the ability to do work. However, to use thermal energy to do work requires a temperature difference if you want to run a heat engine. An electric power plant has coal to create a hot side and cooling towers to provide a cold side. “Hot” is relative — in ocean thermal energy conversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion), the “hot” side is ambient temperature and the cold side is the deep oceans.

    To extract the energy of the DWLWIR using a heat engine to generate electricity would require a heat sink well below the temperature of the atmosphere. Since there are no such heat sinks handy, this is not a practical course to pursue.

    So, yes, there is nothing to be extracted as you say. But there IS energy there, and that energy CAN help slow the cooling of the earth.

  68. stanb999 says:
    July 27, 2011 at 5:32 am

    “Thermodynamics is simple in the regard to Mass. If an object is of little mass it can’t “hold”, transfer, or dissipate a lot of heat.”

    Depends on how you want to define your terms. It takes over 1000 BTUs to turn a pound of water at 212F into a pound of steam at 212F. It takes only 1 BTU to raise the temperature of a pound of water or a pound of steam by 1 degree F when no phase transition is involved. Few if any substances have such a high latent heat of vaporization as water. In that context water vapor can hold an inordinate amount of heat and indeed this property along with a few other unique properties of water is why CO2 won’t work as insulation over water because one of water’s other properties is that it is opaque to LWIR. LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of water at the surface which only serves to excite a few more molecules than otherwise beyond the latent energy boundary between liquid and vapor. The excited molecule then leaves as vapor which, being lighter than air, rises by convection. And because the energy is latent it causes no increase in surface air temperature but rather remains hidden until the vapor condenses back into liquid again which is generally at the cloud deck when adiabatic cooling reaches the dew point. At the cloud deck the underlying GHGs now serve to insulate the ocean surface by making it more difficult for downwelling LWIR from the cloud to make it back to the surface and, having been carried aloft a few thousand feet, has an easier radiative path out to space.

    The same DOES NOT hold true for a land surface which will happily absorb that downwelling LWIR which in turns slows the rate at which the heated solid can radiate the absorbed energy.

    I believe the climate boffins are well aware of this and they thus made up a just-so story about how the increased water vapor rising from the ocean due to GHGs causes more clouds and the clouds are what causes the surface temperature increase. This is the so-called “water vapor amplification”.

    Water vapor amplification has always been the nut of this controversy among those with enough understanding of basic physics and properties of materials involved to understand what’s going on. And even a casual observer knows that clouds serve to make nightly low temperatures higher and daytime high temperatures lower. It’s the position of the AGW climate boffins that the surface warming effect of clouds at night, which limit radiative transfer rate from surface to space, is greater than the daytime cooling effect of high albedo tops reflecting sunlight back out into space before it gets a chance to warm the ocean. Real world observations appear to indicate that there is no imbalance but rather clouds are a self-regulating phenomenon. More retained heat at night generates more clouds but less energy arriving at the surface during the day causes fewer clouds. So we end up with a relatively constant average cloud cover over the globe regardless of amount of non-condensing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    The water cycle is the key to all this. Once you have a planet covered, or mostly covered by a liquid ocean, the water cycle takes over as the big driver of surface temperature and it has a self-limiting ceiling on maximum temperature through negative feedback engendered by huge difference in albedo between cloud tops and water surface. The ocean is, for all intents and purposes, black and absorbs all visible that reaches it. Cloud tops are, for all intents and purposes, mirrors which reflect all visible light that reaches them.

    If ever the global ocean, for whatever reason, becomes largely covered by ice then the water cycle effectively shuts down and a runaway cooling results. This has happened more than once in the earth’s history. Non-condensing greenhouse gases are then believed to become very important. In a frozen scenario the carbon sinks that normally take up CO2 from volcanoes cease functioning and, over the course of millions of years, builds up until it’s enough to begin an ice melt which then rapidly accelerates as low albedo liquid ocean surface replaces high albedo ice cover. Personally I think volcanic soot darkening the frozen surface also plays a large role in ending a so-called snowball earth episode.

    One thing that’s uncontested is that earth has been in an ice age for the past several million years where the ice reigns for 100,000 years and goes into retreat for 10,000 years. The only tipping point the planet is near is tipping back into the part of the cycle where ice has the upper hand. The current interglacial period is already over 10,000 years old and is overdue for an ending. That is what any sane informed person fears. Ice is very bad news for the biosphere while warmth and lots of CO2 is very good for it. Plants and everything higher up the food chain trive in warmth and high CO2 concentrations and do very poorly in freezing temperatures and low CO2 concentrations.

  69. Tim Folkerts says: July 26, 2011 at 10:26 pm
    “…Energy can and does move from cool systems to warm systems, but there is always more energy moving the other way….”
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Tim
    I am unconvinced that we know for certain whether energy truly flows in both directions, or whether the energy flow from the cool system simply impedes the energy flow from the warm system such that the resultant energy flow from the warm system is less than it would otherwise have been. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I am not convinced that you are correct. If you can refer me to an actual reported experiment clarifying this, I would appreciate reviewing the experiment and its results.

    Consider the position where there is a large dam constructed like a kitchen sink containing a huge volume of water with a depth of say 100 feet. It has a sluice exit at the bottom (just like the drain in the kitchen sink). The dam has a fill up point a few feet above the designated ‘full’ water level (a little like the overflow at the top of the kitchen sink), ie., say 103 feet above the bottom of the dam. At the foot of the valley some 1000 feet below the foot of the dam is a lake (this is therefore some 1100 feet from the water level in the dam). There is a pump house by the lake and the pump has just sufficient power to pump the water from the lake through a relatively small bore pipe up the hillside and out through the fill up point situated a few feet above the high water level in the dam (ie., it can pump water through a relatively small bore pipe some 1103 feet but not to any further height – that is the limit of its power). The sluice gate is connected through a large bore pipe which runs down to the lake and ordinarily feeds a generator situated adjacent to the lake at the valley floor.

    Now suppose that the sluice gate is opened and a substantial volume of water gushes out and by the time it gets to the bottom of the valley, it has considerable kinetic energy (and is now ‘high energy’ water). Now lets suppose that the pump is rerouted and at the same time as water is gushing down the mountain (through the large bore pipe) into the lake, the pump seeks to pump water from the lake back up the same large bore pipe which is channelling the substantial ‘high energy’ water from the dam.

    The question is: Does the pump succeed in pumping water from the lake against the flow back up the mountain and begin to fill the dam from the bottom sluice gate, or does the pump simply result in water being pumped from the lake impeding the downward flow of water from the dam but not resulting in lake water being pumped up the mountain and into the bottom of the dam?

    Lets dye the lake water red and see what if any of this red dyed water is pumped into the dam.

  70. Emissivity and absorptivity are equal in gases like CO2. So, if the CO2 can absorb radiation energy from the surface and warm the atmosphere (the warming effect) it also emits energy (the cooling effect) already in the atmosphere. If you increase CO2 BOTH effects increase. The net effect is probably very close to zero.

  71. richard verney says: July 27, 2011 at 6:14 am

    “If DWLWIR had any ability to do work, someone would have designed a machine that could tap into that energy source. Or at any rate, there would be significant research programs into this, since whoever can tap this source of energy would become a billionaire (it would make Exxon, BP, Chevron etc largely redundant and would mean that the West would no longer be beholden to the Middle East for their energy needs) . However, as far as I am aware, no one is researching into this. This tells you that specialist physicists do not consider that there is any energy in the DWLWIR. There is nothing to be extracted.”

    Downwelling LWIR, or upwelling too for that matter, is too low in temperature to heat anything hot enough for a practical heat engine. LWIR is in the range of 300 Kelvin, well below the boiling point of water, and you can’t radiatively heat anything hotter than the radiative source. Sunlight on the other hand is in the neighborhood of 5000 Kelvin so concentrators have a theoretical limit of heating something up to 5000 Kelvin with sunlight. Even then we have great difficulty in engineering cost-effective concentrators with sufficiently high heating capacity to drive a heat engine. Theoretical maximum efficiency (Carnot Efficiency) of any heat engine is 1 – Ta/Ti where Ta is the ambient temperature and Ti is the intake temperature both givin in Kelvin. So given you can’t heat anything higher than the source temperature by any means then you’re in a situation where Ti is limited to about 300K and Ta is also near the same temperature. 1 – 300/300 is zero efficiency. No work can be accomplished.

  72. steven mosher says:
    July 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    “have that plane put out a bunch of c02 as a defense mechanism.. same thing, the plane can be shrouded in C02.”

    That will not work. CO2 only blocks a few particular ranges of IR radiation. Simply tune the IR sensors on the missile to other bands where the IR can get thru. Modern missiles use this approach (if wikipedia is to be believed).

  73. Richard M says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:16 am

    “Emissivity and absorptivity are equal in gases like CO2. So, if the CO2 can absorb radiation energy from the surface and warm the atmosphere (the warming effect) it also emits energy (the cooling effect) already in the atmosphere. If you increase CO2 BOTH effects increase. The net effect is probably very close to zero.”

    Disproven by experiment circa 1850 by John Tyndall. Get used to the fact that GHG effect is real. It’s the basis for every modern digital CO2 sensor in the world today. Not only fact but fact that is employed in countless millions of working CO2 sensors. You just appear like a physics illiterate by denying it.

  74. Tim Folkerts says:
    July 27, 2011 at 6:57 am

    The point that you seem to miss is that there are other flows of energy involved besides the exchange between atmosphere and surface.
    * The atmosphere can never raise the temperature of the surface higher than ~ 270 K
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    The atmosphere can never heat the surface at all. The fact that the atmosphere is colder precludes it. Postulating If the ground was at absolute zero is moot. It’s not. The rest of your post has no bearing on the conversation.

    If your going with the insulation model of GW theory. Which isn’t what AGW promotes. AGW expects a cold object to “heat” a hot one.

    How exactly do you square the fact that if the ground was heated it would radiate more. Being that the mass of co2 in the entire atmosphere isn’t enough to raise the temperature of the ground or ocean much. Think it takes a bunch of energy to heat the ocean… Heat the ground. It’s on average 3 times as dense. As the simple back of the envelope math I pointed out above. How will it be able to store more heat that it currently is? I know how well GHG other than water vapor works. It takes about 62 miles to retain the heat of the last 2 miles of water vapor rich air. Ever fly in a plane? What was the temperature outside? Was it rather cold? Wasn’t it as rich in co2 or other GHG’s as the rest of the atmosphere?

    Insulation is a funny thing… The greater the temperature difference the less effective it is.

  75. @Steven Mosher

    “Andrew you waffled on all those questions. Hpw very CRU like of you.”

    No, he didn’t. His answers are clear and concise. I see no waffling, and completely agree with them.

    The physics used to interpret what the sensors on a satellite are saying are not the physics used in a GCM. They are completely unrelated. The satellite is electrical information based on the engineering of the sensors, what they are sensitive to, and what it actually means when x amount of electrical current is generated upon sensing what it’s sensitive to compared to some reference x amount. How does electronic engineering have anything to do with GCMs? Data is deciphered based on the physical constants of the equipment itself; which has been determined experimentally and calibrated before launch and calibrated afterwards. Maybe it’s this calibration that you are insinuating is related to GCMs in some single component way, as x to x range of electrical signal has to be matched to x to x range of whatever is being sensed to monitor temperature (Terra uses 14 different electromagnetic wavelengths http://terra.nasa.gov/About/index.php ).

    But again, this has nothing to do with the hypotheses that a GCM is built around for simulating in silico the Earth system (and no, the data isn’t mysteriously adjusted for radiative physics theories as used in GCMs — the data is what it is, and is itself a test of these theories, not a product of as with a simulation. When I measure the physical interactions of two macromolecules using surface plasmons, I don’t adjust the data according to what I think the kinetic rates and association constants should be based on a computer model of the physics theories relating to the electrostatic surface maps of the molecules. Rather, the plasmon data is what’s real, and is what adjusts the computers, not vice versa! In biology, we are very well aware that no matter how well we’ve determined the theories and physics of things to simulate, computer models are -always- wrong by a biologically relevant magnitude — they only provide a place to start and guide initial experiments, at best. No computer can accurately simulate the folding of a protein, and that’s far simpler, far more straightforward physics than the Earth’s climate). Furthermore, is a satellite’s data modified for hypothetical effects of volcanoes? Carbon sequestration by forests? Ice-albedo? Oceanic currents? Land use changes? (all components of a GCM) No, this is what the Terra satellite is literally, physically measuring, and is actually testing our theories about. It is not being adjusted by theories, its data is what adjusts the theories. So what in the world are you talking about? And what does “AGW approved” even mean? Certainly that has nothing to do with science itself!

    And, Steven, if you look at the paper, even the least sensitive GCMs were highly off the mark (far more similar to the high sensitivity GCMs than to the physical satellite data).

    I’m sorry, but physical data trumps computer models, as any scientist or rational individual will tell you.

  76. richard verney says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:02 am

    I am unconvinced that we know for certain whether energy truly flows in both directions, or whether the energy flow from the cool system simply impedes the energy flow from the warm system such that the resultant energy flow from the warm system is less than it would otherwise have been. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I am not convinced that you are correct. If you can refer me to an actual reported experiment clarifying this, I would appreciate reviewing the experiment and its results.

    Heat: A Mode of Motion, John Tyndal, 1879

    Available free in its entirety:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=3DUJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Also see:

    “Theory and Operation of NDIR CO2 Sensors”

    http://v2010.raesystems.com/~raedocs/App_Tech_Notes/Tech_Notes/TN-169_NDIR_CO2_Theory.pdf

  77. Richard M says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:16 am

    Emissivity and absorptivity are equal in gases like CO2. So, if the CO2 can absorb radiation energy from the surface and warm the atmosphere (the warming effect) it also emits energy (the cooling effect) already in the atmosphere. If you increase CO2 BOTH effects increase. The net effect is probably very close to zero.

    ——————–

    Wrong. GHGs do not warm the atmosphere, at least not significantly. They re-radiate IR, some of it downwards, which warms the surface. They act more like tiny mirrors than a blanket. But mirrors that are transparent to the radiation coming from the Sun.

    And this is not “team AGW”, it is “team physics”. From the wikipedia link: “The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.”

    I’m pretty sure those guys weren’t members of team AGW :-)

  78. Tyndall’s 1850 laboratory experimental setup to investigate the longwave absorptive properties of gases occupied a space the size of a basketball court. A modern NDIR CO2 sensor is essentially Tyndall’s apparatus reduced to the size of a walnut with modern technolnogy and far greater precision and accuracy than Tyndall was able to achieve with 1850’s bleeding edge technology.

    This is SO factual and so old it beggars belief that anyone with a pulse, a triple digit IQ, and some time to do some reading would argue with it.

  79. From Stanb999 on July 26, 2011 at 6:02 pm:

    You have two bowling balls. One moving at 100 KPH and one moving at 50 KPH (in the same direction for illustration). What GW is suggesting that when the 100 KPH ball runs into the ball going 50 KPH the energy is transfered from the 50 KPH ball to the 100 KPH ball making a total of 150KPH of traveling energy.. Then “energy” retained in the balls is the same as it was prior due to it’s continued existence. When in reality both balls are now traveling at the same speed. So the two molecules are the same “temperature” AKA. 75KPH. You lost speed so you lost energy. Dithering about where the energy from the ball going 50KPH ended up is moot. Down, up, or sideways.

    In classical mechanics, when traveling much slower than the speed of light so relativistic mechanics is not invoked, the equation for kinetic energy is one-half times mass times velocity squared. Also the direction something is traveling is important as well. To avoid the hassle of vector math, we’ll go with both balls traveling in the same direction as you’ve said.

    If both masses are the same, then when the 100 kph ball hits the 50 kph ball from behind, the total kinetic energy would be (m=mass):
    1/2*m*[(100kph)^2] + 1/2*m*[(50kph)^2] = 1/2*m*(10000+2500 k^2/h^2)
    = 1/2*m*(12500 k^2/h^2)
    = 1/2*m*[(111.8kph)^2]

    If all of the kinetic energy of the 100kph ball would transfer to the 50kph ball, the first would stop dead while the second speeds off at about 112kph. If both balls start traveling together, each having 1/2 of the total kinetic energy, their speed would be about 79kph. Closer to reality, depending on the properties of the material of the balls, the split will most likely be somewhere in-between, with the formerly-50kph ball moving away from the slower formerly-100kph ball.

  80. John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Wrong. GHGs do not warm the atmosphere, at least not significantly. They re-radiate IR, some of it downwards, which warms the surface.
    ———————————————————-
    Logic bomb… Take an ice cube and boil a glass of water for me.

    You really said that out loud and you weren’t joking?

  81. @Richard Verney

    That is not a good analogy, mainly because photons do not “impede” each other. Better to ask “can water flowing from the lake at the top of a hill pump water up to a level higher than the lake surface?” Answer, yes! A large volume of water driving a pump can easily raise a smaller volume of water to a greater height than the large volume came from. In fact this principle is used in the “hydraulic ram”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram

    “A hydraulic ram, or hydram, is a cyclic water pump powered by hydropower. It functions as a hydraulic transformer that takes in water at one “hydraulic head” (pressure) and flow-rate, and outputs water at a higher hydraulic-head and lower flow-rate. The device uses the water hammer effect to develop pressure that allows a portion of the input water that powers the pump to be lifted to a point higher than where the water originally started. … it requires no outside source of power other than the kinetic energy of water. “

  82. More on heat engines. The highest efficiency attained in any practical heat engine is about 60%. If Ta is 300K then to overcome the 40% loss in the best heat engine ever made Ti must be greater than 1.6 x 300K or 480K or 404.6F. That temperature is where you just begin being able to extract some useful work after parasitic losses in the heat engine. Indeed the output temperature of steam in modern steam turbines at electrical generation plants is right around 500F which is still hot enough to avoid condensation in the final, very high speed turbine stage. Water droplets in that final stage wreak havoc slamming into the turbine blades at supersonic velocity and because temperature pressure distribution isn’t the same everywhere within the turbine enclosure the steam has to be kept much hotter than boiling point to avoid all condensation.

  83. John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Wrong. GHGs do not warm the atmosphere, at least not significantly. They re-radiate IR, some of it downwards, which warms the surface. They act more like tiny mirrors than a blanket. But mirrors that are transparent to the radiation coming from the Sun.

    By atmosphere I was referring to the complete surface-atmosphere system. So, yes, they do warm the system. That is the so-called greenhouse effect. However, they also do not necessarily immediately re-radiate the energy. Often the energy is kinetically transferred to another molecule in the atmosphere. In addition, when the energy is radiated it does not necessarily go all the way to the surface.

    However, you ignored the key point. GHGs also cool the atmosphere-surface system. GHGs are the primary source of energy leaving the system.

  84. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:51 am

    If both balls start traveling together, each having 1/2 of the total kinetic energy, their speed would be about 79kph. .
    ——————————————————————————————-
    And this is exactly why perpetual motion works and we utilize it today to perform all types of work.
    ;-)

    The example I gave wasn’t about an object in motion. It was convient… It was about the “energy” of the object.

  85. stanb999 says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:57 am

    John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Wrong. GHGs do not warm the atmosphere, at least not significantly. They re-radiate IR, some of it downwards, which warms the surface.
    ———————————————————-
    Logic bomb… Take an ice cube and boil a glass of water for me.

    You really said that out loud and you weren’t joking?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Reality bomb. Downwelling IR doesn’t warm the surface. It reduces the rate at which the surface*** can cool. For practical considerations the difference between ‘reduction of cooling rate’ and ‘warming the surface’ is pedantic.

    ***doesn’t apply to all surfaces. It doesn’t apply to liquid water, for instance, which in this case is a very important caveat and the main reason why this controversy lingers on. In the case of water LWIR only serves to increase evaporation rate. Increased evaporation in turn causes more clouds. More clouds at night traps more energy in the lower atmosphere than fewer clouds but conversely more clouds during the day reflects more sunlight away before it gets a chance to warm the ocean. The AGW boffins insist, without proof and contrary to all observations, that the warming effect of clouds at night is greater than the cooling effect of clouds during the day thus by a round-about mechanism they use this so-called water vapor amplification to turn a 1C surface temperature increase over land per CO2 doubling into a 3C rise over the oceans. Satellite measurements of air temperature over the ocean disprove the myth about water vapor amplification. There is no, or at least not signficant, GHG effect over the ocean. It only happens over land which has far different absorptive and emissive properties than seawater.

  86. John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 9:06 am
    @Stanb999

    Sorry mate, you really need to go learn some physics.
    —————————————–

    The atmosphere actually contains less heat energy than the surface. Always. Heat moves from warm to cold.

    Do you not accept this? IS this “magic”.

  87. Tim Folkerts (july 26,2011 at 3:20pm)

    Co2 certainly does absorb the sun’s IR but it does so feebly and at a total concentration of .039% by volume you can forget about it. The absorption of water vapor on the other hand when compared molecule for molecule is thousands of times more powerful.
    And now for the greatest lie. The sun’s thermal power lies in the infrared and NOT in the visible.
    Of course having everyone believe that visible light is responsible for heating the surface is the cornerstone of the fictional greenhouse effect. Unfortunately it’s not true. The sun does not emit an insignificant fraction in the IR range but is in fact the complete opposite.
    “Solar energy can easily pass thru the gases to get to the surface, while thermal IR from the ground gets blocked!”, should read, visible light for the most part can easily pass through the atmosphere but is still subject toscattering, reflection (internal), diffusion, astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction while the sun’s IR is absorbed by water vapor, on the way down AND on the way up (no blocking).

  88. @Dave Springer says: July 27, 2011 at 8:25 am
    ////////////////////////////
    If DWLWIR could potentially heat something to 300K then you could extract plenty of work. You could take a lump of ice and heatit and there would be a lot of energy release.

    My neighbour has an air heat pump. In winter the ambient air temperature at night may be 2 to 8 degC (ocassionally even below zero – very rare). Even when only 2 deg C, this will produce hot water for underfloor heating capable of maintaining a room temperature of 28 to 30 degC.

  89. Dave Springer says:
    July 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
    Reality bomb. Downwelling IR doesn’t warm the surface. It reduces the rate at which the surface*** can cool. For practical considerations the difference between ‘reduction of cooling rate’ and ‘warming the surface’ is pedantic.
    ——————————————

    Dave,

    Does “most” soil not contain moisture as well? As this evaporation takes place does one expect it to behave the same? I’ve seen how farmers in the warmest driest regions need to apply several inches of water thru irrigation a day to avoid a total dry out does this count? What about the water coming directly from the leaves of plants. Does this evaporation count?

    Fact is most of the land is evaporating water as well. Just not nearly to the extent of the oceans. But one might even suggest that due to the higher temperatures on land the moisture on land is evaporated more quickly. For instance to make salt, sea water can be damed into a small lake and it evaporates rather quickly.

  90. Thunderstorms = tower heatsinks (like the kinds you see on certain memory DIMMs and CPUs).

  91. richard verney says:
    July 27, 2011 at 9:31 am

    My neighbour has an air heat pump. In winter the ambient air temperature at night may be 2 to 8 degC (ocassionally even below zero – very rare). Even when only 2 deg C, this will produce hot water for underfloor heating capable of maintaining a room temperature of 28 to 30 degC.

    ———————————–
    Thermodynamics prove how that “heat” pump works… The heat from outside is added to the very cold expanding gas. It never works the other way. Simply amazing.

  92. @Dave Springer says: July 27, 2011 at 8:39 am
    //////////////
    On what page does Tyndal set out an experiment showing that heat flows from cold to hot As opposed to a reduction in the net outflow from the hot body)?

    I fail to see the relevance of the “Theory and Operation of NDIR CO2 Sensors” especially as it does not explain how the product records results without the aid of an external energy source such as a battery.

    Is there any photo-electric cell which rather than being tuned to the bandwidth of solar radiance, is instead tuned to the bandwith of IR emissions from GHGs? If not why not? After all, such photo electric cells could provide energy at night which is one of the limitations of solar photo-electric cells. Even if such cells were not that powerful, with such a cell, one could have completely free street lighting (substantial expense is incurred in providing street lighting in cities, towns and trunk roads) and of course all domestic lighting.

  93. Ged says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:34 am

    “No computer can accurately simulate the folding of a protein”

    True. At least for any interesting protein.

    “and that’s far simpler, far more straightforward physics than the Earth’s climate”

    I wouldn’t go that far. There are many dimensions involved in protein folding. They are generally the placement of hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids as well as electrostatic forces to consider. Compounding that is the varying speed at which the unfolded chain emerges from the ribosome. Think of it like grease coming out of a grease gun. Changing the speed of the grease changes the shape it folds into. Redundant RNA triplets that all code for the same amino sequence are not processed at exactly the same speed by the ribosome and it’s also dependent on the exact structure of the ribosome. One thing that used to confound attempts to get bacteria to produce mammalian proteins (like say, insulin) is codon preference. An identical RNA sequence going through a eukaryote ribosome would produce a properly folded protein but going through a prokaryote ribosome produced a useless insoluble product that precipitated out of solution even though it’s amino acid sequence was a perfect copy – it didn’t fold right. What was discovered was that redundant codons matching the prokaryotic ribosome codon preference had to be substituted into the DNA-resident gene coding for that protein so that the polymer folded properly.

    More recently it has been discovered that there’s a vast array of helper molecules some of which are called siRNA (small interfering RNA) and miRNA (microRNA) which temporarily bind with the emerging polymer to help it fold properly. These very small RNA molecules composed of just a small number of amino acids, can be translated from a gillion different sites on the DNA molecule and don’t require any of the standard start/stop sequences or adjacent upregulating regions to be transcribed. Moreover these same small RNA sequences can also attach themselves to the DNA molecule itself changing the transcription rates of genes and/or they can bind with transcribed RNA molecules on the way to a ribosome to block the production of the protein they code for. Even more complication is that these small RNAs are heritable from mother to daughter cell during cell division. The kind and ratio of these small RNA molecules floating around in the cytoplasm vary by cell type, cell health, environment, and God only knows how many other ways. When the cell actually divides a portion of the cytoplasm is given to the daughter cell so it’s heritable via that mechanism. Lamarckian evolution, the inheritance of characteristics acquired during the lifetime, long thought disproven has been resurrected in ways we have only begun to understand. The central dogma of molecular biology which states that the flow of information is from DNA to RNA to Protein has been turned on it’s ear by all this which generally falls under the classification of epigenetics. I studied this stuff for several years between 2000 and 2006. There is seemingly no end to the complexity of life at the molecular level and the more we learn the more we discover how little we actually do know. Other deep mysteries are that many genes produce functional proteins when transcribed in one direction, produce a wholly different functional protein when read in the opposite direction, and produce yet other functional proteins when the reading frame is shifted by one or two nucleaic acids. This is known as polyfunctionality and how the hell something that complex ever “evolved” by accident beggars belief. Yet more (I’m just scratching the surface) is exons and introns which are regions in eukaryote genes which direct the transcription to proceed by a snippet from this gene and a snippet from another gene to gather together an ensemble of small portions of many different genes and/or partial collections of an existing gene. Then there is the three dimensional aspect of DNA folding where the insertion of meaningless “junk” such as a retrovirus remnant or repetitive sequences changes the distance between genes in three dimensions which can have large effects on transcription rates for those genes. Then there’s the conservation problem which was discovered about 5 years ago. Used to be it was axiomatically accepted that when DNA sequences are conserved between species with large reproductive isolation the DNA must have some important function that caused its conservation. So knowing that so-called junk (non-coding) DNA actually has a lot of functionality some enterprising researchers cut out a chunk 1.5 million base pair chunk of non-coding DNA from a mouse that has been conserved between mice and humans with the reasonable expectation that with 100 million years of reproductive isolation between mice and men there must some important functionality in that conserved DNA and when they raised the GM mice they’d find all sorts of genetic abnormalities that would help with identification and treatment of human genetic disorders. To the very great surprise of the researchers they couldn’t find a single thing wrong with the GM mice which pretty much trashed the notion that conservation requires function. The list goes on and on and on. The climate system seems like a tinkertoy construction in comparison.

  94. richard verney says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:16 am
    @Dave Springer says: July 27, 2011 at 8:39 am
    //////////////
    “On what page does Tyndal set out an experiment showing that heat flows from cold to hot As opposed to a reduction in the net outflow from the hot body)?”

    Wherever he describes the experimental setup which basically consists of a LWIR heat lamp (he used a black copper plate heated by boiling water) a mirror finished brass tube with rock salt windows on each end, and a galvonmeter on the opposite side. Tyndal then used different tube lengths, different gases, and different pressures to record the difference in energy received by the galvanometer. If he used say oxygen in the tube the galvanometer reading was no different than a vacuum in the tube. If he used say methane or water vapor in the tube the galvanometer reading was greatly reduced. This raises the question of what’s different between oxygen and methane. As we know now the difference is that methane absorbs some of the energy coming from the heat lamp and emits it back towards the heat lamp whereas oxygen or a vacuum absorbs nothing and just passes the energy straight through.

    An NDIR CO2 sensor uses a light source either generated or filtered to a wavelength in CO2’s primary absorption band. It then splits the beam and directs it through two tubes where one tube contains a hermetically sealed air sample with known CO2 concentration and a tube filled with ambient air. Photo-transisters at the end of each tube produce a voltage commensurate with the energy in the output. The difference in voltage between the two is formulaically compared to determine the CO2 concentration in the ambient air. It’s highly accurate and precise, much more so than Tyndall’s primitive setup but the theory of operation is precisely similar – CO2 absorbs some fraction of the energy travelling down the tube and reemits a portion of it back towards the source and the reduction in energy coming out the far end of the tube is proportional to the number of CO2 atoms in the test chamber.

    If you don’t understand that I can’ t help you and you need to go take a high school physics book and read it until you do understand. It’s painfully obvious at this point that you know about as much physics as a fifth grader.

    I fail to see the relevance of the “Theory and Operation of NDIR CO2 Sensors” especially as it does not explain how the product records results without the aid of an external energy source such as a battery.

  95. Dave Springer,

    Interesting post on protein folding, thanks. I wouldn’t compare computer models of the climate with protein folding, though, but rather with something like the stock market. Better yet, with a much simpler universe, say, a specific commodity like wheat, where the variables are mostly known. With Google Earth the prospective crop can be accurately determined, and the demand estimated based on prior years and population growth.

    But even with that information available, there is no computer model extant that can predict the future wheat price accurately enough to make a financial killing. If there was the programmer would corner the market in short order. Yet the alarmist crowd hangs their hat on computer climate models, which have been shown to be consistently wrong. The climate is much more complex than a simple commodity.

    Empirical evidence along with the null hypothesis is the gold standard of the scientific method – not computer climate models, which are based on many unkown factors, and programmed by people with a vested interest in the outcome.

  96. Brian W says: July 27, 2011 at 9:24 am

    “Co2 certainly does absorb the sun’s IR but it does so feebly and at a total concentration of .039% by volume you can forget about it.
    You have the right answer, but the wrong reason. CO2 absorbs solar IR poorly because solar IR is mostly shorter than 3 um, while CO2 absorbs IR mostly at wavelengths above 3 um. See http://oz.deichman.net/uploaded_images/molecular_absorption_spectra-739540.gif.

    The 390 ppm CO2 are quite able to absorb nearly 100% of the IR in the ranges that CO2 can absorb. IR detectors pointed up from the surface and down from space clearly show this effect. Some graphs can be found here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/

    And now for the greatest lie. The sun’s thermal power lies in the infrared and NOT in the visible.
    Of course having everyone believe that visible light is responsible for heating the surface is the cornerstone of the fictional greenhouse effect.

    Anyone who studies this knows that ~ 10 of the sun’s energy is UV, ~ 40% is visible, and 50% is IR. No one in the field would claim that visible light is the only contributor, nor that this belief is a cornerstone” of the greenhouse effect. The sun’s power indeed lies almost equally in the IR and the visible.
    Strawman arguments are not effective.

    “Solar energy can easily pass thru the gases to get to the surface, while thermal IR from the ground gets blocked!”, should read, visible light for the most part can easily pass through the atmosphere but is still subject toscattering, reflection (internal), diffusion, astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction while the sun’s IR is absorbed by water vapor, on the way down AND on the way up (no blocking).
    Again this seems like a combination of a red herring and incorrect science.
    1) It is well known that some of the sunlight (both visible and IR) gets reflected, scattered, etc before reaching the surface. The rest (both visible and IR) gets absorbed and heats the surface. So the discussion about scattering is correct, but not really germain since everyone already agrees– ie a red herring
    2) As explained above, the sun’s IR (mostly 0.7 – 3 um) DOES mostly get thru the CO2 and H2O and CH4 to reach the ground. The earth’s IR (mostly 4- 60 um) does get at least partially blocked by CO2 (mostly in a band around 15 um).

  97. An alternate method of building an electronic CO2 sensor that would be much more expensive would be to use an electrically heated pair of lamps like Tyndal’s with thermocouple feedback to keep the temperatures exactly the same and shine the beams one through the control chamber and the other through the ambient chamber. The amount of electricity needed to keep the two lamps at exactly the same temperature would differ according to the amount of so-called greenhouse gases in the two tubes. I have no idea how I’d discriminate between different species of greenhouse gases in that setup but it would certainly work well to determine aggregate amounts. I’d also have to somehow calibrate the two lamps to account for any difference in conductive heat coupling through the mounting hardware. It’s far easier to do it by comparing the output energy from a split beam from a single lamp tuned to the absorption frequency of CO2 (or the absorption frequency of any other gas of interest).

  98. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:51 am

    “1/2*m*[(100kph)^2] + 1/2*m*[(50kph)^2] = 1/2*m*(10000+2500 k^2/h^2)
    = 1/2*m*(12500 k^2/h^2)
    = 1/2*m*[(111.8kph)^2]“

    Since the balls are the same mass, we can drop the “m” and just look at specific energy, and specific momentum as well. Let v10 = 100 KPH be the faster ball gaining on the slower one with speed v20 = 50 KPH. After the collision, the first ball is going at v1f, and the second one at v2f. Assume the collision is inelastic with an energy loss of dE which manifests as heat in the balls. The energy balance is

    E = 0.5*v10^2 + 0.5*v20^2 = 0.5*v1f^2 + 0.5*v2f^2 + dE

    We calculate E = 6250 KPH^2. Now, we do the momentum balance

    p = v10 + v20 = v1f + v2f = 150 KPH

    Suppose dE = 1 KPH^2. The final velocities are

    v1f = p/2 – sqrt(E-dE-(p/2)^2) = 50.02 KPH

    v2f = p/2 + sqrt(E-dE-(p/2)^2) = 99.98 KPH

    The final kinetic energy is 0.5*v1f^2 + 0.5*v2f^2 = 6249 KPH^2. One KPH^2 has been converted into heat.

    Now, suppose the collision is not only inelastic, but there is no rebound, i.e., the balls stick together. Then, the energy balance is

    E = 0.5*v10^2 + 0.5*v20^2 = vf^2 + dE

    where vf is the speed of the combined balls (which has double the mass). From momentum conservation, vf = (v10+v20)/2 = 75 KPH. Therefore dE = 0.5*v10^2 + 0.5*v20^2 – vf^2 = 625 KPH^2 which has been converted into heat. This is the maximum dE which can occur, as anything greater would make the square root in the equations above for v1f and v2f imaginary.

    Didn’t really want to take sides in your discussion, just wanted to help out a little with the math.

  99. What amazes me in all of this, and I may be wrong on this, but it appears that despite the huge research grants, no one is carrying out empirical experiments.

    For example, an obvious experiment to conduct would be to take two square slabs of like material and dimensions (say 1m x 1m a 1cm) but with one coated mirror shiny white, and the other matt black. Cool these slabs to 273K. On a night when the ambient air temperature is 300K, place the slabs in an open top enclosure made of material that is opaque to IR at GHG bandwidth and which is filled with air at 273K. Measure the IR temperature of the sky above the open top enclosure and measure the temperature of the slabs over time and see how this changes. repeat the experiment this time covering the top of the enclosure with glass which is transparent to IR at GHGs bandwidth. Repeat the experiment but this time enclose the top of the enclosure with glass that is opaque to IR of GHGs bandwidth. Keep track of ambient air temperature as well as the air temperature in the enclosure, over time. Evaluate the results.and compare the results with what would be expected if the matt black slab is behaving like a black body receiving ‘X’ w per sq m of DWLWIR (‘X’ being the w per sqare m as measured when looking up at the sky above the enclosure).

    The theory being that the mirrored white slab will absorb less 300K DWLWIR due to its albedo and reflective characteristics and the matt black slab will absorb more 300K DWLWIR. Lets see whether DWLWIR can heat the black slab more than the white slab and how this compares with the theoretical energy available.

    Of course, such an experiemnt does not take into account the real world phenomena such as convection, evaporation, phase change etc, but it would look at some of the theoretics. I would like to see the 300K DWLWIR heating something in the absence of assistance by conduction from ambient air.

    I am sure that there are many better experiments since I have given no real thought to this and there are many far more competent than I to design a relevant experiment.. .

  100. With an as yet undetermined appendage Verney writes:

    “Is there any photo-electric cell which rather than being tuned to the bandwidth of solar radiance, is instead tuned to the bandwith of IR emissions from GHGs? If not why not?”

    Sure. They’re cheap and there’s millions of them. They’re called infrared thermometers.

    Here’s one of lord only knows how many brands.

    Less than $50 and has free super-saver shipping too! What a deal.

    You can point it up at a clear night sky when the air is dry and read one temperature then repeat the experiment another night when the air temperature is exactly the same at the surface but the humidity is higher. It’ll give you a higher temperature on the humid night because the greater amount of water vapor is absorbing some of the upwelling radiation from the ground and reemitting it downwards into the window of the IR thermometer.

    I doubt you want to undertake this experiment as you seem to revel in your ignorance.

  101. Dave Springer (july 27, 2011 at 8:16pm)

    “Disproven by experiment circa 1850 by John Tyndall.” Hey Springerdude instead of handwaving Tyndall’s work why not give an example. What experiment? Where? What work? What page?

    (july 27, 2011 at 8:02am)
    Here we go again handwaving Tyndall’s work. Hey bud why don’t you answer Richards question with a real answer. By the way its circa 1873 not 1879 and the library received its copy in 1895.

    (july 27, 2011 at 8:49am)
    “Tyndall’s 1850 laboratory experimental setup to investigate the longwave absorptive properties of gases occupied a space the size of a basketball court. The size of a BASKETBALL COURT! Woohahaha! Go ahead point me the way to a picture or a description.
    “This is so factual” Oh yeah, I bet it is. Pulses and IQ’s. Uh, let’s not go there! By the way if you think Tyndall was inaccurate with what he had then check out the appendix to chapter one page 18 and look at how he calibrates the galvanometer.

  102. stanb999 says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:30 am

    “If your going with the insulation model of GW theory. Which isn’t what AGW promotes. AGW expects a cold object to “heat” a hot one.”

    But, I guess I should take sides. This is hooey. The atmosphere isn’t doing the heating, the Sun is. The steady state temperature of the Earth’s surface depends on how fast it can dissipate the input energy from the Sun. That rate of dissipation depends, in part, on the makeup of the atmosphere. There are real problems with the CAGW theory, because the rate of dissipation depends on a lot of other stuff, too, particularly the reflectivity of clouds. Violation of the 2nd law is not one of the problems.

  103. richard verney says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:11 am

    “What amazes me in all of this, and I may be wrong on this, but it appears that despite the huge research grants, no one is carrying out empirical experiments.

    I suspect that no big research grants are going to this because the science is well understood and this is an engineering project/high school science project.

    This is not exactly what you were proposing, but here is one experiment that shows the reality of DWLWIR heating/cooling.

    http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/docs/CMMAP/tenthings/SpaceFridge.pdf

  104. Tim Folkerts says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:03 am

    “You have the right answer, but the wrong reason. CO2 absorbs solar IR poorly because solar IR is mostly shorter than 3 um, while CO2 absorbs IR mostly at wavelengths above 3 um.”

    Mostly shorter is an understatement.

    Power at 550nm (visible, yellow) is nearly 2w/m^2/nm while power at 2000nm is less than 0.2w/m^2/nm. 2000nm (2um) is the first IR absorption band of CO2 and it’s very weak even there. There’s essentially nothing left to absorb from insolation by 3um which is the first strong CO2 absorption band. The earth doesn’t emit much of anything at 3um either so it’s of very little interest. 3um is a total overlap with water vapor absorption band too. The only band of significant interest is 15um which only partially overlaps with water vapor and is relatively close to peak power frequency of LWIR emission from the earth’s surface.

  105. Dave Springer says: July 27, 2011 at 10:49 am
    richard verney says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:16 am
    @Dave Springer says: July 27, 2011 at 8:39 am
    //////////////
    “On what page does Tyndal set out an experiment showing that heat flows from cold to hot As opposed to a reduction in the net outflow from the hot body)?”
    //////////////////////////////////////
    Dave
    Your answer does not appear to address the point regarding energy flow. As you will have noted from an earlier post of mine, I have no problem that certain gases absorb IR (and also re-radiate the IR which they had earlier absorbed) and I have no problem with the contention that when a hot IR lamp bombards IR absorbing gases with hot photons those gases heat up. But that tells you nothing about whether heat can flow from a cold body to a hot body or whether there is simply a reduction in the flow rate from hot to cold.

    I have no problem that there are products on the market that can detect CO2. But that does not mean that IR being radiated from CO2 can be used as a power source. As I understand those devices, the collector does not independent of an applied power source (battery or mains) collect/convert the IR being emitted by the IR radiating gas into electricity or some other form of work. The comparator to which you refer “Photo-transisters at the end of each tube produce a voltage commensurate with the energy in the output. The difference in voltage between the two is formulaically compared to determine the CO2 concentration in the ambient air.” relies upon an applied energy source from within the equipment (battery or mains power). If it did not rely upon an applied power source, then the NDIR sensor could be scaled up on an industrial scale and could generate electricity on an industrial scale.

    I am not challenging what you are sayinng, it just does not addres or answer the question raised. You will note from one of my earlier posts that I am not actually denying that may be heat flow is a 2 way street and that a warmer object can absorb and be heated by a cooler photon (at least for some fraction of a second before the warmer object radiates a photon which photon now has an even slightly higher temperature than it would otherwise have had but for the absorbibg of the cooler photon) . I am just saying that I have seen no experiment establishing this and as such it must remain a moot point. If you know of a real experiment proving that a warm object actually absorbs cooler photons (and not simply that a cool object radiates cool photons in all directions) thereby ever so slightly raising its temperature (which increased temperature is then cooled down by the warm object radiating an even warmer photon) then I would like to review it.

    I have watched the Ferryman lectures on photons and read a fair bit about them but their properties still appear to be a mystery.

    Incidentally, whilst I am sceptical of some of the underlying physics, I note that we have rather similar views on a water world and the effects of convection, evaporation and phase changes in water etc and that the water cycle is the key to the AGW debate, As regards DWLWIR and the oceans, this (and not the underlying physics) is my prime reason behind my sceptism to AGW (as well as being a firm believer that warm is good and the fact that we are here blogging some 4.5 millions after the earth was created means that within reason there are no catastrophic tipping points although it is inevitable that we shall at some stage revert to an ice age which of course would be a calamity), You may have noticed in many older comments that I have made on different articles, that I would go even slightly further than you do, since I consider the top few microns of the oceans to be predominantly spray and wind swept spume. It is this spray/spume layer which is immediatey evaporated by DWLWIR. Given the wavelength, I can see no mechanism whereby the oceans can absorb any significant DWLWIR and as you say, the oceans are essentioally opaque to this. Further the temperature of the air above the oceans is controlled by the ocean itself and that is why there is rarely a diurnal temperature difference over the oceans. The ocean is a massive heat reservoir continually giving up the solar energy that it has stored over a lengthy period and the Earth is essentially one large heat pump with ocean currents (which in turn cause air strems/jets) pumping the heat around the planet. .

  106. Anonymous coward Brian W says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Dave Springer (july 27, 2011 at 8:16pm)

    “Disproven by experiment circa 1850 by John Tyndall.” Hey Springerdude instead of handwaving Tyndall’s work why not give an example. What experiment? Where? What work? What page?

    Beginning on page 323. Figure 100.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=3DUJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA323

    “Here we go again handwaving Tyndall’s work. Hey bud why don’t you answer Richards question with a real answer. By the way its circa 1873 not 1879 and the library received its copy in 1895.”

    The first edition was 1869. The actual experiments on gases took place beginning in 1859. Like that makes much difference. I said the experiments were circa 1850.

    “Tyndall’s 1850 laboratory experimental setup to investigate the longwave absorptive properties of gases occupied a space the size of a basketball court. The size of a BASKETBALL COURT! Woohahaha! Go ahead point me the way to a picture or a description.

    See above. The basketball court size includes the setback distance from which Tyndal read the galvanometer. It was sensitive enough that a human body near the apparatus skewed the galvanometer reading so he read it from a distance using a telescope.

    “This is so factual” Oh yeah, I bet it is. Pulses and IQ’s. Uh, let’s not go there! By the way if you think Tyndall was inaccurate with what he had then check out the appendix to chapter one page 18 and look at how he calibrates the galvanometer.

    I’m quite familiar with how he calibrated his galvanometer. He used an adjustable aperture to keep it in its most sensitive, linear mid-point needle range with widely varying amounts of power emerging from the sample tube. It struck me as ingenius but I suppose to an anonymous buffoon it’s something to mock.

  107. Dave Springer says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:24 am
    //////////////////////////////////////////////
    Does it need a battery?
    Can I use it to power my house lighting when I point it up at the night sky?
    I suspect that you are confusing circuitry that can detect IR signals from thiose that produce power when bombarded by IR.

  108. Bart says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:37 am

    “The steady state temperature of the Earth’s surface depends on how fast it can dissipate the input energy from the Sun. That rate of dissipation depends, in part, on the makeup of the atmosphere.”

    Just a small part on a water world. The big Kahuna is the global ocean. In the big picture the sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is cooled by deep cold of empty space. Energy from downwelling IR from GHGs are rejected by the ocean surface as fast as they arrive through increased rate of evaporation and carried back aloft in latent heat of vaporization. The whole CAGW theory hangs on cloud modeling which presumes that clouds cause more warming at night than they do cooling by day. Empirical evidence indicates they do not. The most recent contribution here by Roy Spencer points out the large discrepancy between GCM prediction of troposphere temperature over the ocean and good agreement with prediction over land. “Water vapor amplification” is the big fiction. It just doesn’t exist.

  109. richard verney says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:21 pm
    Dave Springer says:
    July 27, 2011 at 11:24 am
    //////////////////////////////////////////////
    “Does it need a battery?”

    Only if you want to be able to read the LCD display. If you wanted you could read the voltage off the thermoelectric pile with a battery-free analog voltmeter but why would you want to?

    Stop digging, Richard. You just appear more and more foolish and ignorant with each successive comment.

  110. And yeah, Richard Verney, you could power your house lighting with thermoelectric piles at night. It would take about a thousand of those employed in infrared thermometers to light up a single christmas tree bulb you could read a book by it. I suggest it be an introductory physics book.

  111. richard verney says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Can I use it to power my house lighting when I point it up at the night sky?
    I suspect that you are confusing circuitry that can detect IR signals from thiose that produce power when bombarded by IR.

    —————————-

    No, of course you can’t. There just isn’t enough energy coming back down. There is energy, i.e. the greenhouse effect is real, but it is not enough to use as a power source. Who on Earth ever said it was?

  112. Tim Folkerts says: July 27, 2011 at 11:55 am
    //////////////////////////////////
    I take it that your reply was meant rather light heartedly, rather than as a serious comment since no doubt you will have appreciated from my previous comments that i have no problem with (i) 5800K solar radiation being able to warm an object at a temperature cooler than that; (ii) 3K or 250K or 290K radiation being able to cool something that is at a temperature hotter than those temperatures.. What I do have a problem with, is whether something which is at say 280K can warm the air or ground that is at 300K.

    The solar oven deals with (i) which I have not been joining issue with. The solar fridge deals with (ii) which once again, I have not been joining issue with. You say “This is not exactly what you were proposing, but here is one experiment that shows the reality of DWLWIR heating/cooling.” That summary would appear incorrect; the article/experiment shows solar heating, and DWLWIR cooing.

    Neither the solar oven nor solar fridge deals with the third point namely whether the DWLWIR in which we are basking in which is said on average to be more than the solar energy being received can be used to do some real work. .

  113. Smokey says:
    July 27, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Dave Springer,

    Interesting post on protein folding, thanks. I wouldn’t compare computer models of the climate with protein folding, though, but rather with something like the stock market. Better yet, with a much simpler universe, say, a specific commodity like wheat, where the variables are mostly known. With Google Earth the prospective crop can be accurately determined, and the demand estimated based on prior years and population growth.

    But even with that information available, there is no computer model extant that can predict the future wheat price accurately enough to make a financial killing. If there was the programmer would corner the market in short order. Yet the alarmist crowd hangs their hat on computer climate models, which have been shown to be consistently wrong. The climate is much more complex than a simple commodity.

    Empirical evidence along with the null hypothesis is the gold standard of the scientific method – not computer climate models, which are based on many unkown factors, and programmed by people with a vested interest in the outcome.

    ————————

    Smokey, climate is not like the stock market. The stock market reacts instantly to new information. As soon as, say, the weather that will effect this year’s wheat harvest is known, prices jump immediately to take account of that information. Same for interest rate changes and anything else that affects prices. That is why the only sure way to make money on the stock market is to know the news and act on it before it becomes public – i.e. insider trading, which is illegal. Physical systems, including climate, simply don’t work that way. Forcings take time to have an effect and the effects can be modelled. The difference is not one of complexity but in the totally different nature of the beasts.

  114. Settle down, John B. It’s an analogy, and a better one than comparing a model predicting protein folding with climate models. If a model can’t accurately predict the price of a commodity, whether it’s wheat or silver of oil, then no model can accurately predict the climate, which has more variables. And in fact, not one of the multi-million dollar GCMs correctly predicted the past 14 years of flat to declining temperatures. They were all wrong.

    And your efficient market hypothesis has plenty of skeptics. The stock price of companies often trends far above, and far below the company’s intrinsic value, sometimes for years at a time. That’s not very efficient stock pricing, is it?

  115. John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    No, of course you can’t. There just isn’t enough energy coming back down. There is energy, i.e. the greenhouse effect is real, but it is not enough to use as a power source. Who on Earth ever said it was?
    ———————————————-

    Then the question is how is it going to heat the oceans and land areas?

    Simply it can’t.

  116. Smokey says:
    July 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Settle down, John B. It’s an analogy, and a better one than comparing a model predicting protein folding with climate models. If a model can’t accurately predict the price of a commodity, whether it’s wheat or silver of oil, then no model can accurately predict the climate, which has more variables. And in fact, not one of the multi-million dollar GCMs correctly predicted the past 14 years of flat to declining temperatures. They were all wrong.

    And your efficient market hypothesis has plenty of skeptics. The stock price of companies often trends far above, and far below the company’s intrinsic value, sometimes for years at a time. That’s not very efficient stock pricing, is it?

    —————————-

    But it is a poor analogy. And your following sentence, “If a model can’t accurately predict the price of a commodity, whether it’s wheat or silver of oil, then no model can accurately predict the climate, which has more variables” is a non sequitur. It is not the number of variables that prevents predicting the stock market. It is the fact that even if you know 100% that, say, a poor harvest will push up the price of grain, as soon as it becomes known that the harvest will be poor, the price jumps before you can take advantage of that knowledge.

  117. Stanb999 says:
    July 27, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    No, of course you can’t. There just isn’t enough energy coming back down. There is energy, i.e. the greenhouse effect is real, but it is not enough to use as a power source. Who on Earth ever said it was?
    ———————————————-

    Then the question is how is it going to heat the oceans and land areas?

    Simply it can’t.

    ———————-

    Simply, it can! It may be only a small amount of heat, but it is *extra* heat, on top of what is arriving from the Sun. So it has an incremental effect. Why is that so hard to understand?

  118. Dave Springer,

    I think I have a simple experiment to test your hypothesis that thermal IR does not raise the temperature of water — aim a CO2 laser at some water. The laser operates around 10 um, so it is very similar to the wavelengths of DWLWIR. It should he relatively easy to adjust parameters like depth of the water or W/m^2 of the laser. You could add is some artificial wave motion. Then it would be easy to see if the temperature of the water changes in response to the laser.

    Medical CO2 lasers output ~ 20 W, which would be ideal; there are also industrial versions that tend to be higher power. Unfortunately I don’t have access to a suitable laser. But it should be an easy experiment with the right equipment.

    I saw a couple videos of lasers being used to boil water. Unfortunately, the set-up was not clear enough to know exactly what was happening (eg what was the wavelength of the laser? what was the power of the laser? was the laser heating the water or the glass? was the water getting heated throughout or jsut at the surface?).

  119. Smokey says:
    July 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    “And in fact, not one of the multi-million dollar GCMs correctly predicted the past 14 years of flat to declining temperatures.”

    I’d say that is a failure of the models and the errant assumptions built in, rather than an indication that the climate system is incapable of being modeled..

    John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    “But even with that information available, there is no computer model extant that can predict the future wheat price accurately enough to make a financial killing. “

    They can, and they did, before everyone got in the game and squashed the differential between reality and expectation down to where it is difficult to do anymore. I knew one of the “rocket scientists” who went to Wall Street in the late 80’s and did it.

  120. @John B says: July 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    /////////////////////////////
    Noted and yet Trenberth would have one believe that this has energy of some 333 w per sq. m compared to only 161 w per sq m for solar (absorbed) or if you include the 23 w per sq m reflected, the 184 w per sq m of solar received by the earth. WUWT?

  121. Bart,

    I’ve subscribed to Forbes for 35 years and to The Economist for close to thirty, and I don’t recall ever reading about a computer program that beat the market enough to make the programmer fabulously wealthy. Got a link? I’d like to read about it.

  122. John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Simply, it can! It may be only a small amount of heat, but it is *extra* heat, on top of what is arriving from the Sun. So it has an incremental effect. Why is that so hard to understand?
    ——————————————————–
    0 + .000000000000000000000000000000001 = in the real world still = 0

    1. You see not only do you need to prove the “energy” exists. It’s not in contention. Tho you choose to muddy waters about it. On and on in fact. All I said was it is tiny. Now you agree!

    Next
    2. You need to prove it can do something. Cause heating of the ground! Not likely

    See we are at point 2. same as the point of my third? post on this story. You seem to have forgotten the post or must have missed it. The fact that even if the atmosphere was several degrees hotter. It wouldn’t contain the heat energy to heat the ground or ocean. Your postulating a tiny amount of energy potential from a trace gas can have energy available that can do more than that. Take a gander at the image of the earth at the top of the page.. The thin skin will heat what is below it. Sure on paper. Not in the real world. Good luck with it!

    Later….
    3. The insulation now in place. Will the greater temperature diminished returns…
    Basically the need to prove that the ground now “hotter” doesn’t simply radiate more and offset any difference. Good luck with this as well.

  123. The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

    Other than at a few skeptical blogs, where has this debate taken place??

    The one thing AGW advocates have been consistent throughout, has been their refusal to debate. Consensus became their argument and they locked it in by refusing debate. MSM happily ignored proper skepticism favoring political socialistic leanings. GK

  124. Smokey – every large financial firm employs armies of quants to forecast all manner of economic and market variables. As you might expect, they don’t generally share their methods widely. You can get a little insight starting here.

  125. Tim Folkerts (july 27, 2011 at 11:03am)

    “CO2 absorbs solar IR poorly because solar IR is mostly shorter than 3 um, while CO2 absorbs IR mostly at wavelengths above 3 um. Solar IR is mostly shorter than 3um. Is it now? Another prerequisite for Agw? The solar IR in fact reaches its maximum in the 2um – 4um area. Now what does the true spectrum of the sun look like. Does it look like the blackbody spectrum that warmers like to wear on their sleeve? Or is it a different looking curve?

    Your kidding me right? You refer me to Ira juicetruck Glickstein whose first line is “Solar “light” radiation in = Earth “heat” radiation to Space out! Well, where’s the reference to IR. Then look under the graphic which says Solar “light” energy in is equal to Earth “heat” energy out, which is most certainly not true. All greenhouse explanations harp on the same thing — shortwave in, longwave out and completely ignore IR.

    The 10%uv, 44.8% visible and 45.2% IR are the percentages measured at the SURFACE. So what are the numbers just outside the atmosphere? The total is supposed to be 1366w/m2. If you can’t come up with any I can. ” The sun’s power indeed lies almost equally in the IR and the visible. The wattages are nearly the same but like I have been saying the calorific power or ability to heat is weak compared to the non visible portion. A watt is Not a watt (contrary to Ira’s belief).

    I’d be careful with that “seems like”. Many things aren’t what they seem to be including Agw physics (if thats what you call it). Scattering was not even a point I was making. There’s no fish of any kind involved (lol). If I was to make a point I would be referring to refraction not scattering.
    “The rest (both visible and IR) gets absorbed and heats the surface.” Yes, but do they do so equally? What’s up with the blocking thing? Do you mean blocking like in football?

  126. What a non surprise. The founding work in atmospheric radiation done by Walt Elsasser from Harvard would have come to the same conclusion. CO2’s radiation has an insignificant effect and is dwarfed in the earth atmospheric system by the hydrological cycle and the effects from water vapor. If you add more CO2, you cool the troposphere and limit water vapor’s optical depth, negating the effects of CO2. Take away the water vapor with the little CO2 and limited absorbing bandwidth there is and watch the earth become a frozen tundra at mid and high latitude.

    Climate models became a frivolous application of science the day these clowns tried to say they have or can successfully model the climate system of the earth. They are now just a political tool being used to tax and regulate the bejesus out of every citizen with an income.

  127. Brian W says (July 27, 2011 at 3:27 pm): “The 10%uv, 44.8% visible and 45.2% IR are the percentages measured at the SURFACE. So what are the numbers just outside the atmosphere?”

    Wiki has a nice illustration of the solar spectrum at the top of earth’s atmosphere and at sea level showing absorption regions for H2O, CO2, O2, and O3:

  128. John B says: July 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    “No, of course you can’t. There just isn’t enough energy coming back down. There is energy, i.e. the greenhouse effect is real, but it is not enough to use as a power source. Who on Earth ever said it was?”

    I would say that differently. There is indeed a LOT of energy coming down from the atmosphere to the surface (~ 325 W/m^2) — in fact it is more than the energy coming directly from the sun to the surface (~ 170 W/m^2). (And no, that does not violate conservation of energy.)

    The problem is that the energy from the atmosphere is diffuse and “low quality”. It is thermal energy at a temperature below that of the ground, so it cannot be fed into a heat energy to produce work. It is already coming from every direction, so a mirror or lens cannot focus it to make it more concentrated (the way sunlight can be focused with a magnifying glass to burn wood).

  129. Dave Springer (july 27, 2011 at 12:15)

    “Beginning on page 323. Figure 100″ Uh, nice try Davy figure 100 is on page 405. So you think you are funny trying to send me on an 82 page wild goose chase. Do you think I would call you on this stuff if I hadn’t already studied this particular work as well as his short companion piece “On Radiation”. The accuracy of the dates of course is entirely irrelevant in this case and I was simply giving you a hard time.

    HOWEVER, I did find this basketball court sized experiment: page 335-336, under; Absorption in Free Air, Fig. 92. “The whole arrangement was surrounded by a hoarding, the space within which was divided into compartments by sheets of tin, and these spaces were stuffed loosely with paper or horse-hair. These precautions, which required time to be learned, were necessary to prevent the formation of local air-currents, and also to intercept the irregular action of the external air. The effect to be measured here is very small, and hence the necessity of removing all causes of disturbance which could possibly interfere with its clearness and purity. Yes sir, basketball court sized!
    On your last point, “He used an adjustable aperture….”. Since when does a galvanometer have an aperture?

  130. Bart,

    Thanks for the links. But I wanted confirmation showing that an individual has produced a stock market model that made him fabulously wealthy, by accurately and consistently predicting future market actions. I think if that had been done, people would still be writing about it. You say you knew such a person. Got a link?

  131. Brian W says: July 27, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    “The solar IR in fact reaches its maximum in the 2um – 4um area.”
    <bNot even close! 90% of the suns energy is below 1.6 um (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law), so there is ~ 5% of the sun's energy in the range you quoted.
    Or use Wein's law to show that the peak is very close to 500 nm = 0.5 um.

    "Now what does the true spectrum of the sun look like. Does it look like the blackbody spectrum that warmers like to wear on their sleeve? Or is it a different looking curve?
    I guess I will have to be proud ro be called a “warmer” if they believe correct physics like the spectrum of the sun is (to a good approximation) a blackbody curve with a temperature of ~ 5770 K. The sun’s spectrum drops a bit below the BB curve for wavelengths around 100-300 nm, but above 300 nm the fit is really quite good.
    See http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/09/05/sunspectrum_resources/spectrumgif.gif

    All greenhouse explanations harp on the same thing — shortwave in, longwave out and completely ignore IR.
    In this context, “shortwave” would be anything up to ~ 4 um, ie the wavelengths the sun emits. THIS INCLUDES IR in the range of 0.7 – 4 um
    And “longwave” is ~ 4 -100 um, which is ENTIRELY IR. How can you say that IR is ignored???

    The 10%uv, 44.8% visible and 45.2% IR are the percentages measured at the SURFACE.
    I suspect those are actually the numbers at the TOP of the atmosphere (“TOA”). For one thing, only 10% of the energy at the top is UV, and most of the gets blocked before it reaches the ground. Here is a graph showing the TOA and surface solar spectra. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png While I can believe the TOA spectrum has 10% UV, I seriously doubt the surface spectrum is 10% UV.

    Perhaps you have a reference that supports your 10% surface UV claim?

    “The wattages are nearly the same but like I have been saying the calorific power …”
    Could you give a mathematical definition of “calorific power” that shows how to calculate it in some specific conditions?

    TF: “The rest (both visible and IR) gets absorbed and heats the surface.”
    BW: Yes, but do they do so equally?

    Well, different surfaces will certainly reflect different amounts of different wavelengths. But we were specifically discussing photons that did indeed get absorbed. If a surface absorbs 100 J of blue light or 100 J of red light or 100 J of IR, the result is always 23.9 cal of thermal energy gained by the surface.

    What’s up with the blocking thing? Do you mean blocking like in football?
    No, I clearly meant “the precise movement and positioning of actors on a stage in order to facilitate the performance of a play, ballet, film or opera”. /sarc

  132. Smokey says:
    July 27, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    “But I wanted confirmation showing that an individual has produced a stock market model that made him fabulously wealthy, by accurately and consistently predicting future market actions.”

    It doesn’t have to be terrifically accurate, and only more consistent than not. That’s the way they make money in Vegas and the insurance industry. But, you gotta’ have the capital reserves. Like Steve Martin’s advice on how to be a millionaire and never pay taxes – first step: get a million dollars.

    “Got a link?”

    No, I don’t. And, I lost touch with the fellow I knew back in the early 90’s. But, my understanding is that it is much harder now that everyone is in the game, because when everyone trades on the same cue, it creates feedback which fundamentally changes the dynamics of the market.

    Look at it this way: if you had such a system, would you advertise it?

  133. Related to the paper of dr. Spencer a Dutch study concludes that the upper ocean’s missing heat of the last 10 years was partly radiated to space, partly went into the deep ocean. You can find the results here: http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/99641/tracing_the_upper_oceans_missing_heat
    Their outlook is that the upper ocean will heat up again in the coming years.
    Well, observations indicate that the sea level rise increase is less than predicted by the IPCC models, so that would indicate that the majority of the heat was radiated into space, which would fit more closely with dr. Spencer’s results.

  134. I notice lots of stuff on this thread now about clouds and positive feebacks.

    Try holding a bowl of water above your head and look at how much light gets reflected back into space. All those H20 molecules all squashed together and they don’t seem to be stopping much do they? Why’s that then?

    Could it be something to do with the fact that atoms aren’t billiard balls and light isn’t made up of photons? Could it be that electro-magnetic waves of lights are travelling right through the atoms?

    Anyway, here is old blighty we have some nice thick clouds above us but some of the light is getting through and some not. Why’s that? H20 is only blocking the light through when its steam or in clouds. Turns out you need droplets of H20 to block light – sheets or pools of H20 won’t do it and neither will gaseous vapours.

    How any of this can be related to CO2 is anybody’s guess. It isn’t clear how H20 forming droplets of condensed water of given size leading to blocking of light can be connected to CO2. All the observations suggest that this process is relatively stable regardless of local perturbations and is only impacted by the level of incoming energy from the Sun.

  135. Brian W;
    You appear to be distinguishing IR and LW radiation. What is this marvelous distinction?
    Richard Varney;
    There is much unanimous evidence photons do not interfere with or affect each other, regardless of intensity or direction. So it’s in your court to prove, or even provide a smidgeon of evidence, that they do.

    Oh, and radiation from a cold body does not cool a warm one. That is such a bizarre idea one hardly knows how to respond. Are those nega-photons it’s emitting?

  136. John B says:
    July 27, 2011 at 8:41 am
    ….
    I’m pretty sure those guys weren’t members of team AGW :-)

    Yeah, they were; postumously dragooned, Shanghaied, and drafted. The AGW press gang dug ‘em up and shot ‘em full of Zombie Juice.

  137. A quick question: what king of energy is it being emitted from Earth? Could this be back scatter related to the recent paper on SO2, or is it more ground emitted IR?

  138. Brian H says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:09 am

    “Oh, and radiation from a cold body does not cool a warm one.”

    That is a general statement, but it actually only holds under specific conditions. This isn’t one of them.

  139. Joseph Ryan-This paper regards looking at cooling and warming events, so unless there were spikes of SO2 tightly connected to individual spikes in temperature, the findings of more SO2 (and from what I’ve seen, it’s very little additional material) in the atmosphere recently has little bearing on the results discussed here. But from my reading of Roy’s work prior to this paper, the fluxes are a mix of reflected solar radiation and the emitted (or un-emitted) infrared. The larger signal is in the reflected light, though. It appears to be directly linked to changing cloud cover in response to or causing temperature variations.

  140. Oh, well, my question was regarding the earlier paper that stated that the lack of warming in the last 15 years was do to China and India’s massive number of coal power plants. In that study they determined that the lack of warming was due to increased SO2 back scatter of solar radiation.

    I just wondered if the study had determined that it was ground emitted IR and not SO2 related back scatter.

  141. Dr. Roy Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, and on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. End thread.

    REPLY: Al Gore is on the board of Apple and Google and many other green enterprises. Unlike Dr. Roy Spencer, Gore published science fiction rather than science that has been peer reviewed, and has made millions of dollars pushing it, and has been far more influential than Dr. Spencer in shaping world opinion. Therefore, your point is denied. – Anthony

  142. Brian H says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:09 am
    Brian W;
    You appear to be distinguishing IR and LW radiation. What is this marvelous distinction?

    There is a difference between Near Infrared and Thermal Infrared – near is not thermal.

    http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

    http://www.webcitation.org/5y68yeeRD

    AGW has created a new physics, it’s science fiction. It claims that Thermal IR does not heat the Earth. Doesn’t even reach it.. Nonsense of course, the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, the same heat that the land and oceans get and which is what heats them up.

    AGWScienceFiction says Visible light converts land and oceans to heat, nonsense again. Visible light cannot heat oceans, regardless how far blue visible travels, it is not heating the water any more than visible light is heating the air, nitrogen and oxygen molecules scatter visible light. Water is a transparent medium for visible light, it is transmitted through it. The AGWScience is physically impossible, fiction.

  143. This isn’t about Al Gore. This is about a rogue “Climate Scientist” trying to convince people that Climate Change isn’t something we should be worried about. Most Climate Scientist know and accept that humans are influencing our climate for the worst. Somewhere around 97%.

    If there is any fiction here it’s creationism. Something that Spencer foolishly believes in.

  144. Brian says:

    “Most Climate Scientist know and accept that humans are influencing our climate for the worst. Somewhere around 97%.”

    You believe something that just ain’t so. Had you omitted “for the worst,” you could have at least had somewhat of an argument, even though your 97% figure is preposterous, and has been repeatedly debunked here.

    Despite a ≈40% increase in CO2, the planet has warmed a piddling 0.7°C over a century and a half, and most of that warming is due to the planet’s emergence from the LIA.

    The added warmth is good, not bad, as is the added CO2.

  145. Smokey says:
    July 28, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    “You believe something that just ain’t so. Had you omitted “for the worst,” you could have at least had somewhat of an argument, even though your 97% figure is preposterous, and has been repeatedly debunked here.

    Despite a ≈40% increase in CO2, the planet has warmed a piddling 0.7°C over a century and a half, and most of that warming is due to the planet’s emergence from the LIA.

    The added warmth is good, not bad, as is the added CO2.”

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/97-climate-scientists-humans-causing-global-warming.php

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

    http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/81275.aspx

    What you’re saying just isn’t true Smokey. The real Climate Scientist agree to the tune of 97%.

  146. Brian,

    You would do well to stop repeating the alarmist talking points emitted by envirostooge-Treehugger, the cartoonist who runs Skeptical Pseudo-Science, etc., and think for yourself. The Beliefs you stated have been discussed endlessly here, and they have been thoroughly deconstructed. Use some keyword searches and get up to speed. I have no desire to spoon-feed a newbie facts that anyone with an open mind can easily locate.

    Obviously you didn’t read this very article, which shows that climate models are wrong. We already knew that here. And you couldn’t get 97% of people to agree the Pope is Catholic. That number is debunked nonsensus. Science doesn’t operate by consensus. The word itself is anti-science, but the alarmist crowd clings to it like a drowning man clings to a popsicle stick; it’s all they’ve got. And now they don’t even have that any more.

    Carbon dioxide at current and projected concentrations is an essential minor trace gas that is beneficial and harmless. There is no evidence to the contrary, only computer climate models. And as we see in this article by Dr Pielke, those models are wrong.

  147. From Bart on July 27, 2011 at 11:10 am:

    Since the balls are the same mass, we can drop the “m” and just look at specific energy, and specific momentum as well. Let v10 = 100 KPH be the faster ball gaining on the slower one with speed v20 = 50 KPH. After the collision, the first ball is going at v1f, and the second one at v2f. Assume the collision is inelastic with an energy loss of dE which manifests as heat in the balls. The energy balance is

    E = 0.5*v10^2 + 0.5*v20^2 = 0.5*v1f^2 + 0.5*v2f^2 + dE

    We calculate E = 6250 KPH^2.

    A. From my high school physics teacher to my university professors, simply “dropping the m” is hardwired into me as abhorrent. You might get away with setting m=1 and ignoring it somewhat when possible, but don’t forget you did it if you work with other masses. Also, the quickie units notation you used is likewise verboten, it must be accurate and as clear as possible, and the mass is not represented which can cause problems later. Heck, I was stretching for illustrative purposes when I didn’t convert to meters per second.

    B) Bowling balls were specified, not tar balls. So why go with an inelastic collision? Indeed, by showing conservation of kinetic energy I was implicitly specifying an elastic collision. Also the example was an analogy for heat transfer. So why add in a heat loss component and muck things up?

    As it is, your result is in agreement with what Wikipedia says happens with a perfectly elastic collision between equal masses, they exchange velocities, even though you specified it as inelastic.

  148. Brian:
    1. That 97% number came from asking two questions that were so broad that even skeptics (including me) would have answered Yes to them.

    2. The restriction of the selected pool of 77 on the basis of their having published over 20 papers on climate biased the results. Naturally, a believer is going to blather on about his topic of interest more than a skeptic. E.g., an astrologer or phrenologist will have written more about his field of interest than a debunker. It doesn’t make him a better authority on the matter.
    3. Most climatologists went into the field because it gave them an outlet for their greenie finger-pointing. Climatology has become a branch of environmentalism, with its “don’t touch nature” bias and its knee-jerk precautionism. Similar biased selection occurred in the field of recovered memory therapy.

  149. Smokey,

    “James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News”

    That’s all I need to know about your link.

    I’m not a climate scientist, but I go with what seems to make sense the most.

    “Science doesn’t operate by consensus.”

    It does when the people that are paid to research the topic says it is. Why shouldn’t we listen to the most experienced people in the field? Unless you’re a climatologist, then it’s tough to see how you have a leg to stand out in comparison to guys like Hansen and Gavin.

  150. Cont.
    4. If they were skeptical and did enter the field, they would be unlikely to get grants, and so would be hard up for material to publish. If they nevertheless did write skeptical critiques of warmism, they’d have a hard time getting them published. (See the recent trouble Spencer had getting his paper published, or McIntyre et al.) OTOH, an alarmed alarmist is going to churn out all sorts of unlikely doomsday scenarios and get them published. (E.g., warming is causing bats to die off–a now-debunked thesis published twice in Nature, while papers skeptical of that idea were rejected.)

    5. Were those polled guaranteed anonymity? If not, that might well have inhibited a few skeptics from participating.

    6. “argusbargus” posted this here in January: “The AGW authors’ citation counts are inflated and many well cited non AGW authors are missing from the list.”

    PS to #1:
    Richard M says:
    July 7, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Zilla, the 97% number includes all those that believe that CO2 causes some warming. That includes Lindzen and about 95% of all skeptics. That’s right, most of the people who post here also fall into the 97% number. The number you fail to understand is that ONLY 41% believe in the “C” in CAGW. And, the survey itself was taken before ClimateGate so I’d expect that number would be less today.

  151. Bart says (July 27, 2011 at 10:28 pm): “Look at it this way: if you had such a system, would you advertise it?”

    So cosmology has “dark matter” and “dark energy”, climatology has “dark heat’ (hiding in the oceans), and now–not to be left out–the stock market has “dark millionaires”. :-)

    And here I am: just in the dark.

  152. Myrrh says:

    “AGW has created a new physics, it’s science fiction. It claims that Thermal IR does not heat the Earth.”

    Now there is an odd twist! Usually the claim is that AGW is inventing, not denying, the heating ability of thermal IR. The ~ 325 W/m^2 of “back radiation” is entirely thermal IR heating* the earth. The ability of thermal IR to help warm the surface is a CORNERSTONE of AGW theory.

    * I don’t really want to get into the whole debate about exactly what “heating” means. The thermal IR from the atmosphere to the surface (ie “back-radiation”) certainly does add energy energy to the surface, raising the temperature higher than it would be without that back-radiation.

  153. Brian says (July 28, 2011 at 7:20 pm): “Unless you’re a climatologist, then it’s tough to see how you have a leg to stand out in comparison to guys like Hansen and Gavin.”

    Wow! Ad hominem, appeal-to-consensus, and appeal-to-authority all in one thread! Must be some kind of record. If he can just manage to work in the Precautionary Principle, he’ll have a no-hitter!

    My God this is exciting!

  154. Brian,

    Your ad hominem dismissal of an individual simply because you can not refute his science tells us all we need to know about you. And I should remind you that the scofflaw James Hansen has made multiple predictions since the 1980’s — not one of which has turned out to be accurate.

    And the odious Gavin Schmidt is a U.S. government employee who uses his position to censor free speech. How do you excuse that anti-Americanism? Schmidt also famously lost his debate with Michael Crichton [risibly blaming his loss on Crichton's height], and now Schmidt lacks the cojones to debate any skeptic — just like most every other frightened climate alarmist. You are being led by the nose by cowards. How does that feel?

    If you actually want to learn about the issue at hand, read up on MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen, who has forgotten more about the climate than all the realclimate clowns combined. The choice is yours. You can believe what grant-seeking climate charlatans like Mann and Schmidt are spoon-feeding you, or you can learn some honest science. This is the place to learn real science, not at propaganda blogs like RC and skeptical pseudo-science.

  155. Smokey asks “Thanks for the links. But I wanted confirmation showing that an individual has produced a stock market model that made him fabulously wealthy, by accurately and consistently predicting future market actions.”

    Start with this – layman terms.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/01/fast-loose-and-out-of-control.html

    This type of trading is both common and profitable – and all driven by models/algorithms.

    If the point you are trying to make Smokey is that you can’t model complex things you need to look elsewhere since it is – as Bryan indicated.

  156. Smokey says “If you actually want to learn about the issue at hand, read up on MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen, who has forgotten more about the climate than all the realclimate clowns combined. ”

    Not sure I’d pick Lindzen as a poster child – lots of know issues with his statements. And that isn’t an ad hominem attack, it’s just being accurate.

  157. Bystander,

    That is simply front-running the markets. It isn’t a program that predicts future price movements. Nice try, but just another alarmist fail. And the internationally esteemed Prof Lindzen still knows more about the planet’s climate than the bozo clowns you worship.

  158. Zilla, the 97% number includes all those that believe that CO2 causes some warming. That includes Lindzen and about 95% of all skeptics. That’s right, most of the people who post here also fall into the 97% number. The number you fail to understand is that ONLY 41% believe in the “C” in CAGW. And, the survey itself was taken before ClimateGate so I’d expect that number would be less today.”

    May I ask where you got this from?

    “4. If they were skeptical and did enter the field, they would be unlikely to get grants, and so would be hard up for material to publish. If they nevertheless did write skeptical critiques of warmism, they’d have a hard time getting them published. (See the recent trouble Spencer had getting his paper published, or McIntyre et al.) OTOH, an alarmed alarmist is going to churn out all sorts of unlikely doomsday scenarios and get them published. (E.g., warming is causing bats
    to die off–a now-debunked thesis published twice in Nature, while papers skeptical of that idea were rejected.)”

    McIntyre shouldn’t have anything published. As far as I know, he is not a Climatologist. He doesn’t have the qualifications to stand next to scientist like James Hansen and Gavin S. If Spencer can’t get his papers published it’s because he’s found to not be credible.

  159. I also should know that there is nothing wrong with being an environmentalist. It appears that being one is a bad thing according to republicans/skeptics.

  160. Friends:

    Dear oh dear! So much fuss! And so much confusion!

    Let us get a few facts clear.

    Although there is nothing that is agreed by all people, the following facts are agreed by almost all ‘warmers’ and almost all ‘AGW skeptics’.
    1.
    An increase to surface temperature of a planet induced by the planet’s atmosphere is called the planet’s greenhouse effect (GHE).
    2.
    Greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere increase mean global temperature and this effect is the radiative GHE.
    3.
    Water vapour is the main GHG in the Earth’s atmosphere and causes about half of the Earth’s radiative GHE.
    4.
    GHGs other than water vapour in the Earth’s atmosphere are called ‘trace GHGs’.
    5.
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major trace GHG: it causes about half of the GHE from ‘trace GHGs’ that cause about half of the Earth’s radiative GHE.
    6.
    The GHE of CO2 is subject to a ‘law of diminishing returns’ in that almost all the IR absorbtion that CO2 can achieve in the atmosphere is achieved.
    7.
    An increase to CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere would slightly increase the Earth’s radiative GHE but the effect would not be direct because of ‘feedbacks’ that amplify (positively or negatively) the effect.
    8.
    If the ‘feedbacks’ are net positive then discernible and possibly harmful global warming may occur from increased atmospheric CO2, but if the ‘feebacks’ are net negative then any global warming from increased atmospheric CO2 would be too small for it to be discernible.

    The following points are matters of dispute between almost all ‘warmers’ and many ‘AGW skeptics’.
    A1.
    ‘Warmers’ think the radiative GHE is so dominant that all other contributions to the Earth’s GHE can be ignored.
    A2.
    Many ‘AGW skeptics’ think ‘warmers’ over-state the importance of the radiative GHE because other contributions to the GHE (notably the hydrological cycle) are significant.
    B1.
    ‘Warmers’ think an increase to CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere would significantly increase the Earth’s radiative GHE with resulting significant increase to the Earth’s surface temperature mostly because the net ‘feedbacks’ are positive.
    B2.
    Many ‘AGW skeptics’ think an increase to CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere cannot significantly increase the Earth’s radiative GHE with resulting significant increase to the Earth’s surface temperature because the net ‘feedbacks’ are negative.

    THE IMPORTANT POINT
    The paper by Spencer and Braswell (which is the subject of this thread) provides strong empirical evidence that the net feedbacks are negative.

    Hence, the paper by Spencer and Braswell is empirical evidence that an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration above existing levels would not induce global warming which is sufficiently large for it to be discernible.

    Richard

  161. A late comment from a confused layman. CO2, carbon dioxide, is identified by its spectral signature, specifically three bands at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron wavelengths. If we examine these three wavelengths with Wein’s Law we find the peak temperature at the 2.7 micron band is ~800C and the 4.3 band is ~400C and the 15 micron band is -80C. Yes, MINUS 80 celsius. Since the average global surface temperature (entirely due to global warming of course [/sarc) is 15C, it is highly unlikely that CO2 in the 2.7 and 4.3 bands is absorbing anything at all. The 15 micron band will, of course, be working fine.
    Therefore, it would seem, CO2 absorbs more infrared radiation from the sun than it possibly can from the surface but is extremely unlikely to radiate at any temperature above 60C. It appears to me that CO2 actually helps keep the daylight side cool while reducing temperature loss through the atmosphere at night.
    On examing the wavelengths for H2O, water vapour, the same argument applies. Only with knobs on! How these two gases are classified as “greenhouse” gasses is beyond my understanding.

    Somewhere there must be a spectrum of sunlight showing the DARK absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere. This alone should show that CO2 is not a “greenhouse” gas.

  162. @Richard S Courtney,

    While I doubt that everyone agrees entirely with your analysis, it is pretty close to “consenseus”. Sadly the skeptic camp is also populated with people who do not undertand or accept the basic physics, hence comments like “This alone should show that CO2 is not a “greenhouse” gas” (above). With friends like that, you don’t need enemies. :-)

    One important distinction I think you should have made is between condensing and non-condensing greenhouse gases. Water vapour is a powerful GHG, but “excess” water vapour will condense out, so it can be a powerful feedback but not a “forcing”. CO2 does not condense out, so will persist and can act as a forcing.

    As you say, the serious argument is about the sensitivity to that forcing.

  163. John B:

    The purpose of my post (at July 29, 2011 at 2:25 am) was to explain why the Spencer and Braswell paper is important to the debate of AGW. The above discussion seemed to have lost sight of that subject, and my post was a brief summary of the issue in an attempt to get the discussion back to its real subject.
    .
    Your post at July 29, 2011 at 4:06 am is a response to my brief summary of the importance of the Spencer and Braswell paper.

    Please note that my brief summary says;
    “Although there is nothing that is agreed by all people, the following facts are agreed by almost all ‘warmers’ and almost all ‘AGW skeptics’.”
    Hence, it provided a majority view (which, incidentally, I share).

    But science progresses by overthrow of majority views: it always has and it always will.

    So, it is important to always be aware that every one of us (including you and including me) could be wrong.

    Hence, I strongly disagee with your statement saying;
    “the serious argument is about the sensitivity to that forcing”.
    In fact, one serious argument is about the sensitivity to that forcing, and other arguments should NOT be dismissed as being not serious.

    Richard

  164. Brian says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Zilla, the 97% number includes all those that believe that CO2 causes some warming. That includes Lindzen and about 95% of all skeptics. That’s right, most of the people who post here also fall into the 97% number. The number you fail to understand is that ONLY 41% believe in the “C” in CAGW. And, the survey itself was taken before ClimateGate so I’d expect that number would be less today.”

    May I ask where you got this from?

    It’s from a WUWT thread; here’s the link to the comment: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/the-guardian-climategate-was-a-game-changer/#comment-424978

    I assume you’re objecting to the claim, “ONLY 41% believe in the “C” in CAGW.” I regret to concede that you have grounds for skepticism, because I couldn’t find backup for that claim when I Google-searched, but instead found this (on American thinker). (It looks to me that Richard M, author of the quote above, probably got mixed up.)

    “according to a recent Rasmussen Poll, there’s one change that only 41% of Americans can believe in – manmade climate change. That’s down from 47% just nine months ago,”

    Anyway, there’s a WUWT thread on this survey, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/
    Here are some plums I’ve picked out of it:

    galileonardo:

    Here are the two relevant questions that were asked in the survey:

    “1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
    “2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
    ………..
    Why didn’t they use a less ambiguous statement more in line with the IPCC consensus claims? How does one quantify a “significant contributing factor?” What if the question had been this instead?

    “2. Do you think human activity is THE MOST significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

    I am willing to bet that fewer of the respondents would have answered yes,
    ……….
    I think, given the weight given to the IPCC reports, the consensus from AR4 is simply this:

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
    ——————————

    hro001 says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    According to Mike Hulme (June 2010), such a “consensus judgment” was reached by “only a few dozen experts” [of the IPCC].

    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/

    ——————————-

    John says:
    August 2, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    I would have answered both questions “yes,” but I don’t think they are the most important questions. The questions I would ask as a follow up would be:

    * How wide do you think the range of future temperature increases might be, for a doubling of CO2?

    * The satellite record suggests that warming is proceeding at a rate of less than 2 degrees per century, but the land based record suggests more. Which do you think is the record with the least amount of error, and why?
    ——————————–

    EthicallyCivil says:
    August 2, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Wouldn’t “signficant” mean “within the digits of measurable significance” to a scientist. Sans feedbacks, many skeptics agree that a doubling of CO2 (and the amount increased from 1800 until now) would be within the significant digits. (c.f. Monckton, Lindzen) of the measureable increase.

    1. Risen. It has warmed since 1800
    2. Yes, a portion of the warming greater than the measurement error can reasonably be attributed to human influence.

    Yes to 2. doesn’t not imply important or catastrophic, just greater than error. Signficance is interesting word choice, as outside of a narrow scientific reading it is read as “importance.”
    ———————————-

    Frederick Michael says:
    August 2, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    What about:
    3) it’s a problem that needs fixing?

    The problem with this survey isn’t the sample size; it’s the questions. The whole thing smells like bait and switch. They aren’t using this survey result to justify 1 & 2; they’re using it to justify ACTION on 3.
    ————————————

    Theo Goodwin says:
    August 2, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    One of the questions should have been: “What is your confidence in Michael Mann’s hockey stick thesis expressed on a scale of 1 to 10?”
    ————————————-

    Roger Knights says:
    August 2, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    Pielke Sr. would have answered Yes, because he believes that land-use changes have had the most impact on the climate. (E.g., deforestation, agriculture, irrigation, river-damming, etc.) Question 2 should have asked only about CO2.
    ————————————-

    Rhys Jaggar says:
    August 2, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    The question all those polled need to be asked is this:

    ‘If you were openly skeptical about AGW, what would be the % growth or decline in your newly won grant income?’
    —————————-

    James Bull says:
    August 2, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    If you want the “right” answer you have to ask the “right” questions in the “right” way and of the “right” people.
    —————————-

    Vince Causey says:
    August 3, 2010 at 8:11 am

    To all those who are picking apart the questions asked, remember the first law of polling: if you want the right answers remember to ask the wrong questions.
    ————————-

    Gail Combs says:
    August 2, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    When you think about it most here at WUWT would agree that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”

    Let’s see there is:
    #1 Urban Heat Island Effect:
    #2 Measuring Station Drop out
    #3 “homogenizing”
    #4 “adjusting”
    #5 Switch from whitewash to latex Stevenson Screens
    #6 switch to automated stations
    #7 relocating to Airports
    ——————————-

    Alexander Vissers says:
    August 3, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Of course it would have added to the confusion if they had added the question if the respondents believed “if a significant part of the warming was attributable to factors other than human activity” which should have hit the 100% “Yes” answers in both groups.
    —————————–

    Tom Black says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    CNN reported this as scientists from all over the world, and the alarmist bloggers quote it all the time, in fact most are from the US.

    Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions;
    the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations.

    Not really a world class survey
    ——————————

    galileonardo says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    the opinions of climatologists about AGW gleaned from the survey DO NOT reflect the IPCC consensus

  165. Smokey says @ “That is simply front-running the markets. It isn’t a program that predicts future price movements. ”

    No – you are wrong Smokey. Trading off know data isn’t an advantage – I work in this sector and believe me there are predictions being make. Short time horizon – but modeling none-the-less.

    “Dr. Ben Santer:
    I just wanted to add to Mikes very nice explanation there, that science is about facts and testing theories, not about eminence of position, or assertions. Professor Lindzen has, as Mike mentioned, had a number of hypotheses. He’s said that the climate sensitivity, as Mike mentioned, is very small, so that the amount of warming that one would get for doubling of pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide would be very small. There’s virtually no support in the science that has been done, either on the modeling side, or the observational side, for that extreme position.
    This Iris hypothesis has not been dismissed by the scientific community. It was rigorously examined by many scientists: at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, at the University of Washington; they said well okay, does this hypothesis fit the available data?
    The bottom line is, no. It is not a convincing explanation of the available data that we have. And that’s how science should work, not by assertion, or eminence of position, but by testing theories and facts.”

    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/richard-lindzen

  166. Brian says:

    “I also should know that there is nothing wrong with being an environmentalist. It appears that being one is a bad thing according to republicans/skeptics.”

    I am not a republican. I am a scientific skeptic – the only honest kind of scientist, which does not include climate charlatans like Mann and Schmidt, who run and hide from transparency, debates, and the scientific method like Dracula runs and hides from the dawn. Your assumptions are the result of being fed alarmist propaganda, and they are completely off-base. Sad for you that you are a slave to enviro talking points. But you have plenty of company.

    And Bystander, you can say anything like alarmists always do, but the putative financial model you’re trying to defend is just front running the markets. If you disagree, post the model that you believe accurately predicts the future market moves and we’ll deconstruct from there. No financial model can predict future market fluctuations. If it could, the programmer(s) would own the world.

    And Lindzen’s iris effect, showing that cloud cover moderates global temperature, has never been falsified. It’s not a perfect hypothesis because it’s relatively new. But you misrepresent the situation. Better run along now to Skeptical Pseudo-Science for some new talking points.

    Meanwhile, your homework assignment:

    R.S. Lindzen, M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001) Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82, 417-432.

    Chou, M.-D., R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002b) Comments on “The Iris hypothesis: A negative or positive cloud feedback?” J. Climate, 15, 2713-2715.

    208. Bell, T. L., M.-D. Chou, R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002) Response to Comment on “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?” Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 598-600.

  167. Myrrh says:
    July 28, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    Brian H says:
    July 28, 2011 at 10:09 am
    Brian W;
    You appear to be distinguishing IR and LW radiation. What is this marvelous distinction?

    There is a difference between Near Infrared and Thermal Infrared – near is not thermal.

    Yawn. There is no such thing as non-thermal EM radiation. It all degrades to heat when stopped, and it can all be stopped by something. An ocean will handle any and all of it.

  168. Brian H says: July 29, 2011 at 11:24 am

    “Yawn. There is no such thing as non-thermal EM radiation. It all degrades to heat when stopped, and it can all be stopped by something. An ocean will handle any and all of it.”

    Your lack of interest does not change the fact that there are commonly accepted names for various types of EM radiation. The name “thermal IR” has nothing to do with what happens to the energy when it gets absorbed. The name relates to the fact that “warm” objects radiate mostly in the “thermal IR” range.

    “Thermal IR” starts around 3-4 µm (depending on who exactly you talk to) and ends around 1000 µm. IR of shorter wavelength (0.7 – 3 µm) is called “non-thermal IR” or “reflected IR”. This distinction is very handy for climate discussions, because the earth receives a lot of “non-thermal IR” from the sun and almost no “thermal IR”. Conversely, the earth emits a lot of “thermal IR” and almost no “non-thermal IR”.

    Wikipedia has several other ways to break down the IR spectrum. For example, “near IR” is typically considered 0.75-1.4 µm. These other designation are not as germane to climate discussions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

  169. Philip Plait of Bad Astronomy blog fame puts his foot into the attack against Dr. Roy Spencer’s new paper. I chastise Philip Plait for the use of unprofessional ad hominem personal attacks and get viciously counter attacked. Par for the course. You might be interested. If you wish you might indicate your support for higher standards of conduct between professional scientists in the Google+ comments or the blog article. Thanks.

  170. Sorry Roger… But americanthinker is a conservative daily internet publication and not a real source. I can’t take anything that comes from that site with any sort of legitimacy.

  171. “Sorry Roger… But americanthinker realclimate is a conservative daily alarmist propaganda internet publication and not a real source. I can’t take anything that comes from that site with any sort of legitimacy.”

    There. Fixed it for you.

  172. Sorry Smokey, but I don’t see how you fixed anything. Two wrongs do not make a right.

    Brian’s unwillingness to accept anything from a cite simply because of it’s politics is a poor policy, especially since all he seemed to be objecting to was the results of an opinion pole.

    You, on the other hand, claimed earlier in this thread to be a scientific skeptic. This implies an objective, open-minded look at evidence to see what is correct and what is wrong. Yet here you are claiming a priori that anything presented at RealClimate is illegitimate. If Brian was wrong in his post, then you were equally wrong in yours.

    Not only that, but what did RealClimate have to do with anything to begin with? You are the only one who has mentioned it in this thread, and always with loaded rhetoric — “bozos”, “propaganda”, “alarmist”. You simply stirred the waters, rather than “fixing” anything.

  173. Brian says:
    July 29, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Sorry Roger… But americanthinker is a conservative daily internet publication and not a real source. I can’t take anything that comes from that site with any sort of legitimacy.

    I cited it only to show where Richard M had drawn polling data from–data that he mistakenly (apparently) confused with data from a different survey. I wasn’t asking you to accept American Thinker’s say-so on anything.

  174. Tim Folkerts says:
    July 29, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    The name “thermal IR” has nothing to do with what happens to the energy when it gets absorbed. The name relates to the fact that “warm” objects radiate mostly in the “thermal IR” range.

    Otherwise known as Heat.

    “Thermal IR” starts around 3-4 µm (depending on who exactly you talk to) and ends around 1000 µm. IR of shorter wavelength (0.7 – 3 µm) is called “non-thermal IR” or “reflected IR”. This distinction is very handy for climate discussions, because the earth receives a lot of “non-thermal IR” from the sun and almost no “thermal IR”. Conversely, the earth emits a lot of “thermal IR” and almost no “non-thermal IR”.

    You began so well and then the same old nonsense that the earth doesnn’t receive thermal infrared.. The heat we feel from the Sun is Thermal IR. We can’t feel non-thermal infrared because it is not hot. Thermal IR is hot even if we aren’t around to experience it…

    We experience Heat because heat flows from hotter to colder, always. If we’re colder than the invisible Heat reaching us it will warm us up, it works on the molecular level, Thermal IR is a powerful energy.

    The old page http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html was captured here:
    http://www.webcitation.org/5y68yeeRD – it is no longer available [Anthony - this is the one you did for me, to show me how it could be done, and the one I put in isn't coming up either http://www.webcitation.org/5y6Any4VA (which is from the new world encyclopedia and states that in tradition science it is taught that it is Thermal Infrared which heats the Earth.)]

    However, Webcite still has the original pages saved on the old URLs…

    newworldencyclopedia – “Many physics teachers traditionally attribute all the heat from the Sun to infrared light.”

    Because it is true.

    It, NWE, follows this by saying:

    “This is inexact—visible light from the Sun accounts for 50 percent of the heating, and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will have a detectable heating effect if they are intense enough.”


    Prove that visible light from the Sun accounts for 50% of the heating. You cannot make such a bold claim overturning traditional physics knowledge without any eff*n proof!

    And, intensity is not proof that visible light accounts for 50% of the heating – a laser of blue visible light directed at a small area is not describing the blue visible light we get from the Sun which is scattered all over the placeby the bigger molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere, which collisions do not create heat but emit non thermal light on electron scale, and, which passes through water, the oceans, without interacting even on this scale, transmitted through. Visible Light is incapable of heating the Earth’s land and oceans, and us.

    To be continued:

  175. Continued/2

    From the NASA page:

    “Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.

    There’s no sense of scale in AGWScience fiction…

    Visible Light might knock an electron and emit a bit of light, when it’s not being used for not heat producing chemical changes as in photosynthesis, but it doesn’t have the power to move molecules. It gets bounced around by molecules, so we have a blue sky. This is bog standard traditional physics. Light is reflective, it is not the powerful Heat energy of Thermal Infrared.

    Near Infrared is also reflective, as Tim said, that’s how such cameras work, by capturing the near infrared reflected off objects, just as normal cameras do.

    NASA: Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.

    Real traditional physics as still taught. All the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal Infrared.All that thermal infrared is what is heating the Earth’s lands and oceans and atmosphere.

    It is powerful, without the Water Cycle the Earth would be 67°C.

    NASA: The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

    And, we feel the heat because it warms us up. When we get too heated up from the thermal infrared from the Sun our bodies work to get rid of some of it, we sweat. Water is a great absorber of Heat, and its high heat capacity means that it holds on to the heat longer – our bodies are around 20% carbon and the rest mainly water, we are great absorbers of thermal infrared.

    NASA: Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.

    The non-thermal electromagnetic waves of the AGWScience fiction’s energy budget claim, that it is these converting land and oceans to heat, is a joke. It’s physically an impossible nonsense. Whoever first came up with the idea of saying this must be laughing socks off that’s it’s been so easy to infiltrate this meme even into science teaching. As ludicrous as heavier than air carbon dioxide ‘accumulating in the atmosphere’. Brainwashing on a grand scale..

    Anyway, I’m done with this aspect. Your choice to believe the science fiction that is claimed to be real science from the AGW magisterium churning out such rubbish, or sticking with traditional physics which is internally coherent, rational.

  176. {Sigh} I see Murrh is trying to highjack yet another post with his thermo-illiteracy.
    There’s no driving nails into that concrete. Just ignore him.

  177. @John B says: July 29, 2011 at 4:06 am

    “”While I doubt that everyone agrees entirely with your analysis, it is pretty close to “consenseus”. Sadly the skeptic camp is also populated with people who do not undertand or accept the basic physics, hence comments like “This alone should show that CO2 is not a “greenhouse” gas” (above). With friends like that, you don’t need enemies. :-)””
    You do yourself no favours by using my post as an indicator of the standards of physics used by skeptics.
    The term for that is arrogance. I stated in the first sentence I am a layman and confused.
    In the light of your implied superiority on the physics of heat transfer and the effects of infrared radiation in the upper troposphere if you would be so helpfull as to point me to any links that might explain to a layman how much energy is absorbed by CO2 molecules at a pressure of 0.54 bar and temperature of 255K at the specific IR band of 2.7 microns. An understanding of how much of that energy is thermalised and how much is isotropically re-radiated is required. Thank you in advance.

  178. Richard S Courtney says:
    July 29, 2011 at 2:25 am

    Friends:

    Dear oh dear! So much fuss! And so much confusion!

    Let us get a few facts clear.

    Although there is nothing that is agreed by all people, the following facts are agreed by almost all ‘warmers’ and almost all ‘AGW skeptics’.
    1.An increase to surface temperature of a planet induced by the planet’s atmosphere is called the planet’s greenhouse effect (GHE).
    2.Greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere increase mean global temperature and this effect is the radiative GHE.
    3.Water vapour is the main GHG in the Earth’s atmosphere and causes about half of the Earth’s radiative GHE.
    4.GHGs other than water vapour in the Earth’s atmosphere are called ‘trace GHGs’.
    5.Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major trace GHG: it causes about half of the GHE from ‘trace GHGs’ that cause about half of the Earth’s radiative GHE.
    6.The GHE of CO2 is subject to a ‘law of diminishing returns’ in that almost all the IR absorbtion that CO2 can achieve in the atmosphere is achieved.
    7.An increase to CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere would slightly increase the Earth’s radiative GHE but the effect would not be direct because of ‘feedbacks’ that amplify (positively or negatively) the effect.
    8.If the ‘feedbacks’ are net positive then discernible and possibly harmful global warming may occur from increased atmospheric CO2, but if the ‘feebacks’ are net negative then any global warming from increased atmospheric CO2 would be too small for it to be discernible.

    Based on what? The classic idea is that all the gases of the atmosphere comprise the Earth’s Greenhouse, and therefore are greenhouse gases, and like a real greenhouse work together to keep the atmosphere benign for life generally in the combination of properties and processes under gravity, including convection. The main greenhouse gases are nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour, for all practical purposes, 100%, the rest is trace.

    How has water come to be split away from its main role in the greenhouse, which is to cool the Earth? Without the water cycle in the greenhouse, the atmosphere, the Earth would be substantially hotter than it is now, 67°C. As our deserts.

    Just what possible ‘warming’ effect can a trace gas have against the considerable power of the Water Cycle to bring down Earth’s temperature by around 50°C?

    As it is, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere combines with water in the greenhouse and comes down in the rain, all rain is carbonic acid. Why are carbon dioxide’s processes also cherry picked to exclude its in tandem role, together with water vapour, in cooling the Earth?

  179. Roger Knights says:
    July 29, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Brian says:
    July 29, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Sorry Roger… But americanthinker is a conservative daily internet publication and not a real source. I can’t take anything that comes from that site with any sort of legitimacy.

    I cited it only to show where Richard M had drawn polling data from–data that he mistakenly (apparently) confused with data from a different survey. I wasn’t asking you to accept American Thinker’s say-so on anything.

    Oops–I should have mentioned above that the A.T. article referred to a survey of the public, so obviously that’s not relevant to a survey of climatologists. (I guess that only 2/3 of them are catastrophists.)

  180. The so-called greenhouse effect on a water world is predominantly done by liquid water not gases in the atmosphere.

    Think about it. Greenhouse gases distinguish themselves from non-greenhouse gases by two things – they are transparent to visible light and opaque to infrared light. Liquid water is transparent to visible light and opaque to infrared light. The big difference is that the ocean has over a thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Just the first 10 meters of the ocean weighs as much as the entire atmosphere above it and pound for pound water has 4 times the heat capacity of air. The atmosphere is a bit player on a water world like ours when it comes to greenhouse effect. The lion’s share of the greenhouse warming is done by the ocean not the atmosphere. At least so long as the ocean presents a liquid surface. When it’s covered by ice all bets are off.

  181. Fun fact: How Alternative Energy Creates Jobs

    We double the cost of electricity for your home and fuel for your car which forces you to get a second job to pay for it.

    Flawless plan, eh?

  182. Smokey says “I am a scientific skeptic – the only honest kind of scientist, ”

    And them proceeds to only cite two refuted / specific point of view sources

    That is not the behavior of a skeptic…

  183. Dave Springer says:
    July 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    The so-called greenhouse effect on a water world is predominantly done by liquid water not gases in the atmosphere.

    Think about it. Greenhouse gases distinguish themselves from non-greenhouse gases by two things – they are transparent to visible light and opaque to infrared light. Liquid water is transparent to visible light and opaque to infrared light. The big difference is that the ocean has over a thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Just the first 10 meters of the ocean weighs as much as the entire atmosphere above it and pound for pound water has 4 times the heat capacity of air. The atmosphere is a bit player on a water world like ours when it comes to greenhouse effect. The lion’s share of the greenhouse warming is done by the ocean not the atmosphere. At least so long as the ocean presents a liquid surface. When it’s covered by ice all bets are off.

    As far as it goes – but it’s the gas of water, water vapour, which moves the heat from the Earth into the atmosphere releasing it higher up, without the Water Cycle the Earth would be 67°C – around 50°C higher than it is. But all the gases in our atmosphere, in the massive weight of the volume of the gas air and water above us, a ton/square foot, are greenhouse gases because they are the greenhouse. A greenhouse is not all about warming, but of regulating warm and cold. The volumes of the gas air also contribute to warming:

    For example:

    Mountain-Valley Winds
    During the daytime, mountain slopes warm causing the air over the slope to be warmer than the air over the valley at the same elevation. Warming the air causes it to rise upwards creating a valley wind. During the evening, the air chills due to a loss of surface energy to space. The cool dense air moves down slope as a mountain wind.

    Chinook
    The term “Chinook” is a old Native American word that means “snow eater”. A chinook is a warm dry wind on the leeward side of a mountain. As air descends the leeward side of a mountain it is compressed and adiabatically heated. Warming the air causes the saturation point to increase resulting in a decrease in its relative humidity (assuming the water vapor content remains the same). The newly created warm and dry wind moves down slope quite rapidly, and during the Spring causes substantial melting of mountain snow packs.
    http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/circulation/local_winds.html

    My bold. This AGW meme that greenhouse gases only warm and only by transfer of heat by radiation is cherry picking. The whole system needs to be taken into account, all the properties of the gases, liquids and solids and the processes between them.

    “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

    Well, what a surprise.. If Spencer took the transfer of heat by convection into account and understood the Water Cycle, none of this would come as a shock, it’s the natural order. The heat is taken up and away primarily by water vapour in convection, releasing it to the atmosphere higher up where it’s colder, heat flows from hot to cold, at which point the water vapour condenses out to come down as rain. Water is the main cooling mechanism of our Greenhouse, which is all the gases in the Atmosphere, at the same time as being as you say, the predominant store of warmth in our water world due to its vast amount and capacity to store heat.

    The greater capacity to store heat is in inverse relationship to the amount of time it takes to warm up, (carbon dioxide warms up quickly and practically instantly loses the heat, oxygen and nitrogen hold on to it a little longer), water with its very high heat capacity and land with its lower play their part in creating our local weather systems, from the same page linked above:

    During the day, land heats more rapidly than water resulting in low pressure forming over land and higher pressure over water. Air moves from over the water toward land in response to the pressure gradient creating a sea breeze. During the evening, the land cools more rapidly than water promoting higher pressure over the land and lower pressure over water. The pressure gradient induces the air to flow from the land toward the water as a land breeze.

    .

  184. Bystander makes no sense at all with his nonsequitur. Nothing was refuted. And as stated above, a skeptical scientist is the only honest kind of scientist. Alarmist scientists are not skeptical, therefore they are dishonest, QED. They practice no skepticism, but instead use bogus charts, and fabricate the temperature record in order to push their agenda. This is all well documented. They run and hide from debate. They do not provide transparency of their methodologies, and they refuse to follow the scientific method. Believers like Bystander condone that anti-science through silent concurrence, and reinforce those dishonest scientists’ bad behavior.

Comments are closed.