Pielke Sr. on new Spencer and Braswell paper

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……………………………

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”

This will cause a fight to the death.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

” 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.

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.

Sorry to be negative, but I bet this doesn’t make it into AR5.

“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.

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…

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.

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.

“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.

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. 😉

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.

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. 😉

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.

Don’t get excited, this will be ignored.

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.

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?

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

CO2 radiative (IR absorbing) properties -> climate warming effect = SIMPLETON science.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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 🙂

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.

@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. “

@Stanb999
Sorry mate, you really need to go learn some physics.

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.

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”.

@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.

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

@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.

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.

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.

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.
http://www.amazon.com/Actron-CP7876-Non-contact-Infrared-Thermometer/dp/B001KYW2XI
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.

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.

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

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.

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.

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

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?

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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%.

“REPLY: Al Gore is on the board of Apple and Google and many other green enterprises.”
Does he still have a share of that carbon offset company?
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40445.

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.

Nice Smokey. Well said.

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.

@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.

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.

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:

{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.

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?

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.

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…

For interest, the link I posted begins at: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/circulation/air_pressure_p_1.html