On the Futility of Long-Range Numerical Climate Prediction

Note: two events at AGU13 this morning dovetail in with this essay. The first, a slide from Dr. Judith Lean which says: “There are no operational forecasts of global climate change”.

image

The second was a tweet by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, attending Lenny Smith’s lecture (which I couldn’t due to needing to file a radio news report from the AGU press room) that said:

With those events in mind, this essay from Dr. William Gray (of hurricane forecasting fame) is prescient.

Guest essay by Dr. William M. Gray

My 60-year experience in meteorology has led me to develop a profound disrespect for the philosophy and science behind numerical climate modeling. The simulations that have been directed at determining the influence of a doubling of CO2 on Earth’s temperature have been made with flawed and oversimplified internal physical assumptions. These modeling scenarios have shown a near uniformity in CO2 doubling causing a warming of 2-5oC (4-9oF). There is no physical way, however, that an atmospheric doubling of the very small amount of background CO2 gas would ever be able to bring about such large global temperature increases.

It is no surprise that the global temperature in recent decades has not been rising as the climate models have predicted. Reliable long-range climate modeling is not possible and may never be possible. It is in our nation’s best interest that this mode of prophecy be exposed for its inherent futility. Belief in these climate model predictions has had a profound deleterious influence on our country’s (and foreign) governmental policies on the environment and energy.

The still-strong—but false—belief that skillful long-range climate prediction is possible is thus a dangerous idea. The results of the climate models have helped foster the current political clamor for greatly reducing fossil fuel use even though electricity generation costs from wind and solar are typically three to five times higher than generation from fossil fuels. The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which are based on the large (and unrealistic) catastrophic global warming projections from climate models.

The pervasive influence of these IPCC reports (from 1990 to 2013) derives from the near-universal lack of climate knowledge among the general population. Overly biased and sensational media reports have been able to brainwash a high percentage of the public. A very similar lack of sophisticated climate knowledge exists among our top government officials, environmentalists, and most of the world’s prestigious scientists. Holding a high government position or having excelled in a non-climate scientific specialty does not automatically confer a superior understanding of climate.

Lack of climate understanding, however, has not prevented our government leaders and others from using the public’s fear of detrimental climate change as a political or social tool to further some of their other desired goals. Climate modeling output lends an air of authority that is not warranted by the unrealistic model input physics and the overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques. (Model grids cannot resolve cumulus convective elements, for example.) It is impossible for climate models to predict the globe’s future climate for at least three basic reasons.

One, decadal and century-scale deep-ocean circulation changes (likely related to long time-scale ocean salinity variations), such as the global Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) and Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC), are very difficult to measure and are not yet well-enough understood to be included realistically in the climate models. The last century-and-a-half global warming of ~0.6oC appears to be a result of the general slowdown of the oceans’ MOC over this period. The number of multidecadal up-and-down global mean temperature changes appears also to have been driven by the multidecadal MOC. Models do not yet incorporate this fundamental physical component.

Two, the very large climate modeling overestimates of global warming are primarily a result of the assumed positive water-vapor feedback processes (about 2oC extra global warming with a CO2 doubling in most models). Models assume any upper tropospheric warming also brings about upper tropospheric water-vapor increase as well, because they assume atmospheric relative humidity (RH) remains quasi-constant. But measurements and theoretical considerations of deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds indicate any increase of CO2 and its associated increase in global rainfall would lead to a reduction of upper tropospheric RH and a consequent enhancement (not curtailment) of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space.

The water-vapor feedback loop, in reality, is weakly negative, not strongly positive as nearly all the model CO2 doubling simulations indicate. The climate models are not able to resolve or correctly parameterize the fundamentally important climate forcing influences of the deep penetrating cumulonimbus (Cb) convection elements. This is a fundamental deficiency.

Three, the CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a “radiation only” perspective. Disregarding water-vapor feedback changes, it has been assumed a doubling of CO2 will cause a blockage of Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) of 3.7 Wm-2. To compensate for this blockage without feedback, it has been assumed an enhanced global warming of about 1oC would be required for counterbalance. But global energy budget considerations indicate only about half (0.5oC, not 1oC) of the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage of CO2 should be expected to be expended for temperature compensation. The other half of the compensation for the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage will come from the extra energy that must be utilized for surface evaporation (~1.85 Wm-2) to sustain the needed increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2 percent.

Earth experiences a unique climate because of its 70 percent water surface and its continuously functioning hydrologic cycle. The stronger the globe’s hydrologic cycle, the greater the globe’s cooling potential. All the global energy used for surface evaporation and tropospheric condensation warming is lost to space through OLR flux.

Thus, with zero water-vapor feedback we should expect a doubling of CO2 to cause no more than about 0.5oC (not 1oC) of global warming and the rest of the compensation to come from enhanced surface evaporation, atmospheric condensation warming, and enhanced OLR to space. If there is a small negative water-vapor feedback of only -0.1 to -0.3oC (as I believe to be the case), then a doubling of CO2 should be expected to cause a global warming of no more than about 0.2-0.4oC. Such a small temperature change should be of little societal concern during the remainder of this century.

It is the height of foolishness for the United States or any foreign government to base any energy or environmental policy decisions on the results of long-range numerical climate model predictions, or of the recommendations emanating from the biased, politically driven reports of the IPCC.

###

William M. Gray, Ph.D. (gray@atmos.colostate.edu) is professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

About these ads

265 thoughts on “On the Futility of Long-Range Numerical Climate Prediction

  1. William M. Gray, Ph.D. … is professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University
    ——————
    Thanks to Dr Gray! I hope he doesn’t lose his job for daring to speak such heresy though.

  2. Isn’t that the same formula to calculate the number of exo-planetary alien species?
    The formula is useful for xenomorph mitigation. Xenomorph adaptation no so much.

  3. There is no physical way that an atmospheric doubling of the very small amount of background CO2 gas would ever be able to bring about such large global temperature increases.

    My take on CO2 is that there is no actual evidence that CO2 does… anything!

    Well, beyond being plant food. What the warmists have is a theoretical model on CO2, but zero empirical evidence supporting their model. The Economist reported: “The mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures [15 year 'pause'] is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.” And now, as time has unfolded, ALL the climate models have failed… miserably. CO2 has not been doing of late what it was supposed to do.

    But it’s not just the last 15 years, it’s … throughout history.

    First, take a look at this key 3 1/2 minute video that exposes the false claims of Al Gore on CO2. For years people have just gone along and accepted as fact the disingenuous deceptions of Gore and the ipcc on CO2. To counter this we need to look more closely at the evidence.

    Going back hundreds of thousands of years we can see in ice core samples that temperatures rise or fall, and then CO2 follows. Changes in CO2 result as an effect of temperature change. Yet there is no evidence at all that CO2 is also a cause of temperature change. What the Chicken Littles want us to believe is that CO2 could be both a cause and an effect of temperature change. Sure, that’s possible (if improbable), but the fact is that there’s no evidence for that. None.

    And if we go back even further, hundreds of millions of years, we again see no evidence that CO2 affected temperatures. From Larry Bell: “Fossil records reveal that atmospheric CO2 levels around 600 million years ago were about 7,000 parts per million (ppm), compared with 379 ppm in 2005. Then approximately 480 million years ago those levels gradually dropped to 4,000 ppm over about 100 million years, while average temperatures remained at a steady 72 degrees. They then jumped rapidly to 4,500 ppm and guess what! Temperatures dove to an estimated average similar to today, even though the CO2 level was around twelve times higher than now. Yes, as CO2 went up, temperatures plummeted.” Even ice ages occurred at these high CO2 levels!

    And looking at recent history, it’s the same thing, no evidence on CO2! Since 1850 or so we have been recovering from the Little Ice Age with mild warming (we have had only 0.7°C of warming). Now look at this woodfortrees graph. What we see is a near identical rate of temperature change during the first (low CO2) and second half (high CO2) of the 20th century. In recent times, with much higher CO2, the rate of temperature change is practically the same as before. Where is the signal for CO2? CO2 appears to be doing nothing, zilch. C3 presents more on this here.

    If we look at the evidence, or the lack thereof, for CO2 affecting temperatures, maybe it’s time we start to take a more serious look at this alternative theoretical model on CO2 that maintains that CO2 does not markedly affect climate temperatures beyond ~ 200 ppm, or seriously consider that the feedbacks are not what the warmists say they are. This seems more in line with the actual evidence!

  4. Schmidt: “Smith: usefulness of climate models for mitigation ‘as good as it gets’, usefulness for adaptation? Not so much “

    To which I will note:

    A) ‘as good as it gets’ is not anywhere close to good enough, and

    B) You don’t need models for adaptation, dumbass. By definition. Adaptation is: change made in response to new or modified circumstances. You don’t need models for that. You need observations.

    These are the ‘greatest minds’ in climate science.

    Instead of trying fruitlessly to look into the future with pointless models that have zero skill temporally and even less spatially, $#!^can the whole lot of them and spend the billions saved on fixing problems that you can witness by simply looking around.

    Freaking witch doctors.

  5. “… Reliable long-range climate modeling is not possible and may never be possible. It is in our nation’s best interest that this mode of prophecy be exposed for its inherent futility. …”

    Exactly! This is a major point and thanks for making it in such a wonderful essay.

    I’m going out on a limb here, but this essay may be the best here at WUWT in months. Damn good.

  6. Doug Huffman’s recommendations are excellent. Interestingly, Peter Gleick’s brother James wrote a book on Chaos Theory that goes on at length about how difficult it is to model chaotic systems such as weather. And how sensitive the models are to initial conditions.

    Both Taleb’s books and James Gleick’s book would be good books to review for this website. They relate a bit about why Dr. Gray’s comments are so true.

  7. What can I say?

    Abstract – 3 June 2013
    Historical Antarctic mean sea ice area, sea ice trends, and winds in CMIP5 simulations
    “…most climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice area over the recent past,…”
    doi:10.1002/jgrd.50443

  8. Humor me. I believe this answers a question I’ve been wondering about. It sounds like he’s saying that water vapor acts as a refrigerant in the atmosphere with changes of state from liquid to vapor absorbing heat at the surface and then back to liquid releasing heat in the troposphere. Is this right? I ask this because I’ve wondered why I haven’t heard it mentioned.

  9. What can I say?

    House of commons oral evidence – 16 May 2013
    Q 12 Peter Aldous: Do you feel that climate feedbacks are adequately understood and factored into climate models?

    Professor Hansen: No. For example, one of the feedbacks is that as the planet gets warmer you melt ice. The Arctic sea ice is melting faster than the climate models indicated. The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate….

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/uc60-i/uc6001.htm

  10. But now I think I can say something, ahhhhhhhhh, ahhhhhhh, ahhhhhh.

    The key role of heavy precipitation events in climate model disagreements of future annual precipitation changes in California

    Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter. These results are obtained from sixteen global general circulation models downscaled with different combinations of dynamical methods……

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00766.1

    Give me 10 minutes please.

  11. Somebody better tell China …

    China Releases Blueprint for Adapting to Climate Change

    “Addressing climate change isn’t only about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, it’s also about taking initiative on adaptation,” the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planning agency, said in a report posted to its website.
    [ ... ]
    The commission laid out an extensive list of objectives—signed off by the ministries of finance, housing, transportation, water, agriculture and forestry—to achieve by 2020, including improving early-warning detection systems for natural disasters, promoting better farming practices, protecting nature and wildlife, and improving infrastructure. The document also offers detailed measures that aim to help protect some of China’s most vulnerable regions such as the western Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.

    Some of the more novel guidelines include establishing a “comprehensive system for artificial rainfall” and promoting weather-based financial instruments such as catastrophe bonds and weather index-based insurance, which is often used by small-scale farmers in developing countries to protect against financial losses caused by inadequate rainfall.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/12/10/china-issues-blueprint-to-help-minimize-effects-of-global-warming-and-climate-change/?KEYWORDS=china+climate

  12. Here is a simple truth. The IPCC graphs many model runs then gives some sort of average. This is dishonest and shows no skill. What if sceptics did the same thing??? We could have warmer, average and cooler and we would be right no matter what the weather OR climate does.!!! This is my take on things, but if I am wrong then please accept my apologies.

    The climate models are climate models. The actual climate is something else.

  13. So is Dr. Judith Lean’s statement, “There are no operational forecasts of global climate change” a result of learning from the erroneous forecasts that she made in her 2009 peer-reviewed paper, ‘How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades?’, where she said: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15 ± 0.03C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC.” ?

    Not only has global surface temperature not gone up within the error bounds of her forecast, all the global surface temp data sets have gone down over the period of her forecast. And both of the satellite data sets have gone down by nearly as much as the increase that she predicted. http://bit.ly/18l0h85

    Back in 2009, after a decade of no warming, they were so sure that the warming ‘in the pipeline’ would re-emerge, they were confidently predicting a soon rapid rise in global surface temperature, especially since humans continued to produce CO2 at increasing rates. But alas, their models with exaggerated ghg effects & missing natural variability effects, failed them. How many more years of failed predictions will it take for them to admit that CO2 is a minor factor in climate?

  14. One of the best things on WUWT for some time.

    I can just hear the frustrated stamp of tiny feet of the similarly minded. The response from the Climate Establishment will either be to ignore it completely (“beneath my dignity to respond”), or come out with both barrels blazing (Spanish Inquisition style).

  15. Dr. Gray’s conclusion ought to be the last word on this multi-decadal fiasco. I am curious as to what Dr. Gray attributes the dearth of hurricanes this year – is it from low solar activity?

    I disagree with the statement shown in the slide: “forecasting climate and weather are fundamentally different”. The climate we observe daily results exclusively from previous periods of daily weather. Get the daily weather forecasts right for the right reasons, and useful climate predictions will follow.

    This of course means the same general drivers that influence daily weather dictate “climate” in the long run. That driver is NOT “climate change”. That is circular thinking. Would it be worth something to know what really drives extreme weather and climate change? There is someone who knows, someone who makes a living at long-range forecasting, someone who uses astrophysical knowledge with a proper understanding of the physics involved, a man who from my experience, makes very good 30 day forecasts regularly.

    The scientist I speak of believes as Dr. Gray – that numerical weather and climate models are junk. They’re junk because they don’t work. They don’t work because they operate on wrong assumptions. The person I speak of is Piers Corbyn from weatheraction.com. If I could influence you to do anything today, it would be to go to his site and purchase a few months of USA forecasts for a few bucks. Find out how many snowmageddons he says we’ll get this month and why.

    You might learn something, unless your name is Willis….

  16. Mark and two Cats says:
    December 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    William M. Gray, Ph.D. … is professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University

    ——————
    Thanks to Dr Gray! I hope he doesn’t lose his job for daring to speak such heresy though.

    A ‘professor emeritus’ is already retired. However, it is obvious that the dangers you mention are real, because it is generally only the retired who are willing to say these kinds of things that go against the orthodox party line.

  17. Anybody who has bothered to study the progagation of errors in mathematical analyses understands the complete waste of time such complicated models are. It is amazing that most scientists appear to be unfamilar with this problem, or just do not want to face it. Understandable.

    I first came across this in the medical lab when we were using a formula to calculate LDL without directly measuring it. A simple formula, it seemed, just the Friedwald equation:

    LDL = Total Cholesterol – HDL Cholesterol – (Trigylcerides/5)

    It worked OK up to a value of 400 for Trigycerides. The book never said why it didn’t work above 400. When I took a course in design of experiments, I studied propagation of error on the side.

    With addition, roughly, (my memory is long gone), the final error in your LDL is the sum of the errors in all your measurements, roughly speaking. Turns out that the measurement of TG is inaccurate enuf so that above 400 the error is high enough to make meaningless the LDL calculation.

    I think I am the only person I have meet in the clinical lab who was even aware of this.

    Now, imagine summing 30 values, or squaring them, or multiplying them. The error in your calcuations becomes very large. Dividing, as I recall, tends to reduce the error.

    So, complicated models, unless every variable (x1,x2,x3) and parameter (that constant in front of the variable, eg 3.2×1) is known with great precision, are worthless. And, let’s not even talk about interaction of your variables. A simple model:
    y = x1 + x2 + x3

    becomes, when you account for interactions:

    y = x1 + x2 + x3 + x1*x2 + x1*x3 + x2*x3 + x1*x2*x3

    And, this model is woefully simply. We assume here the different variables are simply additive.

    What if the real relationships is:
    y = x1^(x2*x3) * x2^3
    and so on.

    That would make the entire effort appear for what it is. A farce.

    We live in a world of numerical idiots. That would be OK if the idiots just realized they were idiots.

  18. That slide is the key point to the whole debate. Specifically: “after two weeks forecast error saturates …. to climatology”

    Santer’s 17 years? P’shah. It’s 2 weeks. It’s absurd of course, but make them defend it — it is the science. The problem here is that, of course, the stochastic issues are not wholly accounted for after a 2 week period. Simply look at any of the quasicyclic issues such as the PDO. It is true that there is such nonsense after 2 weeks that there is no longer any worth in weather prediction; the error bands are just too broad.

    This is first order goalpost games. eg. We don’t ‘forecast’ because it’s ‘deterministic.’ But it cannot be refuted because ‘weather’ is ‘too noisy’ after 2 weeks. Take that for consideration. The 11 year solar cycles are ‘weather’ and whatever the temperature does in response, it can neither validate nor refute the ‘deterministic climate equations.’ Indeed, nothing can. By definition, the errors are so strong that they can no longer tease the stochastic effects from the deterministic ones after 2 weeks time.

    If ever you needed the definition of Cargo Cult Science — this is it. The argument made in the slide is that climate is indistinguishable from weather on climatological time scales. That it has always been thus. And yet the statements are that what we cannot find in the data, has been proven by our inability to find it, or find it’s refutation, or even find out what haystack the Stevenson screen is in.

    Carry that slide with you everywhere and use it as the first cudgel in argument. The climastrologists need to strongly refute the statements contained within that one little image, or admit that climatology has thus far been pseudoscience pushed by the same sort of cranks that go in for over-unity magnet engines. Pure Jonestown Cult religious fanaticism.

  19. Anthony — can you get any transcript or indication of what Lenny Smith’s lecture consisted of? A stark contrast between Lenny Smith and Dr. Judith Lean.

  20. Jer0me says:
    December 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    Mark and two Cats says:
    December 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    William M. Gray, Ph.D. … is professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University
    ——————
    Thanks to Dr Gray! I hope he doesn’t lose his job for daring to speak such heresy though.

    A ‘professor emeritus’ is already retired. However, it is obvious that the dangers you mention are real, because it is generally only the retired who are willing to say these kinds of things that go against the orthodox party line.

    But they can cut off his e-mail account and/or office space, as an Australian university did to a big-name skeptic last year (Bob Carter?).

  21. Reliable long range forecast not reliable – I’ll say if you ever listen to a weather forecast no one can get correct five days in advance. And thank you DR to putting your self out there. Hopefully those who will attack you are those you fully expect to react – and you’re ready for the inevitable yet to come your way.

  22. Smith: usefulness of climate models for mitigation ‘as good as it gets’, usefulness for adaptation? Not so much #AGU13

    Global Panicker 1; Ohmigod! Ohmigod!
    GP2; What!? What!?
    GP1; These models say something is going to change!
    GP2; What? What’s going to change?
    GP1; The models don’t say! But it will be bad!
    GP2; Well that’s it then! We have to do something to stop the thing that we don’t know what it is!
    GP1; Exactly! Gimme all your money so I can get started!
    GP2; Wait a second….

  23. The funny thing is that most people do not understand exactly how LITTLE CO2 makes up the atmosphere! They read 400ppm (parts per million), and see 400, a big, big number. When you show them it reduced to a decimal based percentage, that’s 0.04%. No, no that not right, your math is wrong. Sorry, it’s not “my” math, it is what it is.

    O.K. Another illustration of 400ppm. Let assume a grain of rice is an atom of CO2. So, a million
    is a 1,000 x 1,000. Out of 1,000 grains, 400 are coloured Red, the other 600 are White. Now mix those 1,000 grains into a BIG bowl with other 999,000 grains and imagine how many Red grains you will see. It’s those Red grains in “some” volume that “reflects” heat back to Earth and causes “Global Warming”.

    I still get confused looks followed by, “But THEY say CO2 is bad!”.

    Face palm.

  24. Dr. Gray is the savior of my sanity. I became a skeptic of CAGW in the early 90s, but I thought I was all alone. The more papers on climate change I read, the more flaws and poor assumptions I found, but no one around me seemed to notice or care about the poor science. Then I heard Dr. Gray speak at a Hurricane Conference. He broke from his usual talk about the tropics and launched into a talk about Global Warming, cleverly equating climate modelers to barbarians and unabashedly predicting that we would see global cooling in the first half of the 21st Century. He highlighted all the flaws in AGW theory that I had noticed, then informed me of a bunch more. I looked around the conference hall and found many people nodding in agreement! I wasn’t alone and I wasn’t insane.

    Over the years, Dr. Gray has taken a lot of flak for his open stance against the global warming industry. His important research in tropical climatology was defunded. He was called a crazy old man and a relic of the past, but he has never backed down. He found other ways to continue his tropical research while always taking the opportunity to speak plainly about the hijacking of the science he loves.

    In some ways, he is a relic of the past; a past in which people spoke clearly and honestly and let the chips fall where they may; a past where ‘spin’ in atmospheric science was associated with vorticity and circulations, not how conclusions were worded to insure further funding; a past where the scientific method was followed and being a skeptic was a noble calling, not a derision; a past where a scientist could admit he was wrong and immediately embrace a new course based on new knowledge; a past where it was respectable to be an atmospheric scientist.

    Dr. Gray’s detractors would love to relegate him to the past, but he obviously has every intention of confronting them in the present. I thank Dr. Gray for his unending contribution to the true science of climate, and I thank Anthony for highlighting Dr. Gray’s plan speech, knowledge and wisdom in this forum.

  25. Aussiebear;
    Now mix those 1,000 grains into a BIG bowl with other 999,000 grains and imagine how many Red grains you will see.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Let’s modify the 400 red grains in a bowl of 1,000,000 white ones just a bit.

    Assume instead a square glass jar that is 10 grains on a side. That’s 100 grains in a single layer. Now imagine the jar is 100 grains tall. 10,000 grains in all. Make 99,996 white and just 4 red, same ratio as your example above. Suppose the jar is about 10 cm tall. Now, instantly make all the white grains invisible. What would you see?

    Well, you’d see a 10 cm tall jar that is mostly empty, with a fleck of red here and there. You could easily draw a vertical line from the bottom of the jar to the top without hitting any of those red flecks. In fact, you could draw a lot of them.

    Now, stack thousands of those jars on top of each other in a tower 14 kilometers high. You’ll need a stack of 140 million jars. Now try drawing a line from bottom to top without hitting a red grain. You can’t. In fact, not only that, you can’t even do it without hitting thousands of red grains.
    I’m a confirmed skeptic, but radiative physics is a bit more complex than simply drawing conclusions from concentration ratios.

  26. Game-set-match!

    All we need now is Bob Costas to give it as much coverage as he did for gun control on ESPN.

    I sent it to many warmistas friends, sure to irritate many.

  27. A great essay. Where is a reliable 100-hour weather forecast? Why should anybody trust a 100-year climate forecast? It might be possible, with much faster computers, and a much better understanding of solar physics, volcano physics, atmospheric physics, oceanology, and biology, to name just a few – but surely we are not there yet.

    Of course a 100-year forecast has a great attraction: There is a ZERO risk that someone would tell you next week “You fool, your predictions are all wrong, get out of here!”

  28. Wonderful……but will not get on the BBC or into the Guardian and the Independent newspapers.
    Hell will freeze over before that happens.

  29. Thanks Dr. Gray, and in support of:

    “But measurements and theoretical considerations of deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds indicate any increase of CO2 and its associated increase in global rainfall would lead to a reduction of upper tropospheric RH and a consequent enhancement (not curtailment) of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space.”

    OLR to space has indeed increased over the past 62 years, opposite of climate model predictions

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/scientist-there-is-no-observational.html

    “The climate models are not able to resolve or correctly parameterize the fundamentally important climate forcing influences of the deep penetrating cumulonimbus (Cb) convection elements. This is a fundamental deficiency.”

    proof the models do not realistically simulate convection: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-finds-ipcc-climate-models.html

    Water-vapor feedback is negative:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=water+vapor+negative+feedback&max-results=100&by-date=true

    Father of chaos theory explains why it is impossible to predict weather & climate beyond 3 weeks

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/10/father-of-chaos-theory-explains-why-it.html

  30. “Reliable long-range climate modeling is not possible and may never be possible.”

    Yep, that’s correct.

    In engineering there are many things that cannot be reliably modeled and many things that can be reliably modeled.

    For example; an Earth orbiting satellite has many parts that are bolted, riveted, welded and glued (yes, glued) together. No one attempts to create a numerical model to tell if the parts will stay together when it’s launched. Launch vibration loads are quite extreme and exceed anything typically seen in airplanes or cars (expect for crashes). The customers prefer that their satellite survive the launch (they are so darn picky). So instead of a numerical computer model a physical qualification model, or Qual Model, (QM) is built. This is done in a meticulous fashion where all the dimensions, assembly procedures, bolt torques, etc. are recorded. Even to the extent of tracking individual lot numbers of materials (you want to use metal that is all poured from the same melt (pot) of aluminum for example).

    Then you take your QM and put it on a shaker table, a big metal slab with powerful hydraulic cylinders that can shake holy heck out of your model. You program the shaker to shake your model twice as hard as you expect it to be shaken when you launch it. If it survives, you then make a Flight Model, or FM using exactly the same documented processes. This method of using a model yields very high success rates in satellite launches.

    In another aspect of modeling we need to make reliable predictions of how long a satellite will function once launched. Other than mission determined things like how high it will fly and how much fuel (used to steer the unit) are on board the largest determining factor is the rate at which the individual components degrade. Yes, the parts degrade and fail over time. Optical coatings “fog”, micrometeorites sever cabling, high energy particles damage/destroy semiconductor junctions, etc. Ironically the huge vibration forces experienced during launch have no effect once in space.

    Here numerical calculations (a model in a sense) take the place of physical Qual Models.

    Estimates of how often a micrometeorite may strike, how many high energy particles to expect (depends on the orbit of course) and how long an optical coating will last are gathered from prior mission histories and experiments. One long term Space Shuttle experiment “left” a whole bunch of material samples up in orbit for several years before retrieving it and bringing it back down to Earth for evaluation.

    Knowing the expected degradation effects and the rate of occurrence of events beyond the control of the engineers it is possible to design a satellite with a design life from a few years to a decade or more (Hubble). With this knowledge it is possible to design enough redundancy into the system to have a high confidence that the system will last 5 years (for example) before failing. For example, if you know that a power cable (from the solar cells to a data processor) is likely to be hit and severed by a micrometeorite every 5 years you can calculate that having 4 power cables in parallel should supply power for ten years with an expected reliability of 99.99% (a numerical example to illustrate the concept, not to be taken as exact values please). Now you may launch a satellite and have two power cables cut in the first year and have the other 2 last until the unit is out of fuel. Or, you may launch a bird and have all the cables intact for years until the unit runs out of fuel. But your model predicts that the chances the unit will operate for 10 years are greater than 99.99%. Another model may say that a unit with only one power cable has only a 50% chance of operating for 10 years, perhaps that is acceptable for a 2 year mission.

    Given the long history of successful satellite launches this modeling process works quite well. But space is a nasty place and satellites will still occasionally fail without much warning, this is why the ultra high reliability GPS system has entire “spare” satellites “up there” ready to be repositioned just in case that one in a million event occurs. Several examples of units that “lost their minds” and tumbled out of control exist, and unfortunately most satellites have antennas that must be pointed back to Earth so they can be commanded and controlled. Once they tumble you cannot “talk” to them to see what’s going on. This is generally believed to be caused by high energy particles that exceeded the capabilities of the unit. In fact, many satellites have areas of heavy shielding which can be turned towards the Sun to hopefully block particles from solar flares.

    Models, physical and numerical are very indispensable tools in Science and Engineering, but they need to be carefully verified and applied judiciously. Reprogramming a whole society to turn away from the life enhancing possibilities of “fossil” fuels based on climate “models” is madness and demonstrates extreme hubris on the part of those folks “pushing” these models. And history will ultimately show they are in fact full of hooey. Climate models will ultimately turn out to be the biggest scientific folly of their era.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  31. Eric Simpson says:
    “My take on CO2 is that there is no actual evidence that CO2 does… anything!”

    I agree. All the evidence suggests that atmospheric CO2 concentration changes are a result of temperature changes, not a cause.

  32. Dr. Gray’s essay gets off to a bad start in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, where it claims that the general circulation models predict. That a model predicts implies the existence of the statistical population underlying this model. For the general circulation models there isn’t one. To state that the models “project” avoids this problem.

    REPLY: You know, your semantic whining about predict -vs- project on just about every thread that uses either word is really becoming tiresome. Dr. Gray has his view, and people understand what he’s talking about. Give it a rest. – Anthony

  33. The author makes an excellent point that about half the CO2 forcing is expended by latent heat of evaporation from the oceans to the upper troposphere where it radiates to space. This increased heat loss offsets surface warming. Furthermore more evaporation reduces the lapse rate – another negative feedback for CO2 GHE.

    In some sense this happens every day in the tropics as solar heating iincreases so sea surface temperatures are limited to < ~30C.

  34. I’m a confirmed skeptic, but radiative physics is a bit more complex than simply drawing conclusions from concentration ratios.

    Thank you David, for saving me the trouble. This is the umptieth time this false analogy has showed up on WUWT and yes, it needs to get squashed every time. The relevant fact is that the atmosphere is measurably opaque in the LWIR bands associated with CO_2, water vapor, and ozone. It is seriously opaque when there are clouds.

    rgb

  35. Jer0me said:
    December 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    Mark and two Cats says:
    December 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    William M. Gray, Ph.D. … is professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University

    ——————
    Thanks to Dr Gray! I hope he doesn’t lose his job for daring to speak such heresy though.

    A ‘professor emeritus’ is already retired. However, it is obvious that the dangers you mention are real, because it is generally only the retired who are willing to say these kinds of things that go against the orthodox party line.
    —————————–
    Yeah I truncated the section I was quoting too soon; he is also:
    “head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences”.

    Even were he completely retired, it would not be out of character for the warmunists to attack his reputation.

    No matter his situation, I am grateful to him for taking a stand!

  36. Temperatures always follow the energy, and the energy in the ocean is thousands of times greater than the energy in the atmosphere. Not surprising that minor changes in ocean circulation can have a large influence on air temps.
    Dr. Gray’s three points have always been true. For the modelers I’ll add a fourth. The atmosphere had been changing due to biology for over a billion years. Anaerobic bacteria have been around a lot longer. The result of a couple billion years of biological chemistry is that the composition of the atmosphere is entirely biological. If you don’t understand the global biogeochemical carbon cycle then you can’t possibly understand the atmosphere.
    Biological properties can’t be understood by models written by physicists.

  37. “FORECASTING CLIMATE AND WEATHER ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT”

    While this is basically true…it is a straw man argument. Forecasting models integrate initial inputs over time. Each integration gives ‘answers’ that are then used to calculate the next integration. Incomplete or inaccurate initial data, plus the inherent uncertainties in the integration process (no matter how small) eventually balloon and the output trends to useless. Even as we improve the observational input, it is estimated that the error inherent in the integration process alone will prohibit any real skill in numerical weather forecasting beyond 10 days. For longer ranch forecasts, pattern recognition becomes the more reliable method.

    Climate models do not integrate initial observations like the forecast models do, so they are fundamentally different. Instead, they integrate drivers and processes over time. Lord knows that we do not have a good handle on all of the drivers and processes in the atmosphere, but even if we did, we would still have the error of integration as we ran those processes into the future. Like the forecast model, the numerical climate model will trend towards useless. While they are fundamentally different in some ways, both the climate and forecast models contain the same error generation that makes them useless over time. Such is the nature of Calculus and any non-linear, chaotic system.

    Once again, pattern recognition becomes the more useful method for climate prediction. Warmists will argue that we can not use pattern recognition because the current release of CO2 into the atmosphere is unprecedented. While that may be true, it is still no reason to ignore the evidence of climate patterns, or to assume that this unprecedented release of CO2 trumps the pattern. The natural climate pattern is still alive and well, as the lack of warming in the 21st Century has confirmed. The true understanding of the CO2 impact can not be determined without an understanding of the natural pattern of climate change; and the natural pattern is something that the warmests have worked hard to deny.

  38. Perhaps the readers of WUWT would be interested in helping Dr Gray’s Hurricane forecasting group out? They recently lost some private backing and I believe are still looking for a new funding source. Note that without funding, they say they may have to shut the project down. This would be a great loss.

  39. Anthony:

    You mischaracterize a “fallacious argument” as a “semantic issue.” Hopefully, your editorial policy does not favor fallacious arguments. Please clarify.

  40. “The relevant fact is that the atmosphere is measurably opaque in the LWIR bands”

    Yes, indeed it is, no doubt about that. And IF the surface was a narrow band emitter that ONLY gave off EM radiation in those bands the “Greenhouse Effect” would be a no-brainer, the energy would all be “trapped” and it would never leave and things would roast.

    But, in reality the surface is a broadband emitter, and any individual photon has chances of being emitted at almost any wavelength outside of the “opaque” bands. And then it makes its way out to the mostly energy free void of space.

    The much vaunted “Greenhouse Effect” merely delays the flow of energy through the Sun/Earth’s Surface/Atmosphere/Universe system by a few tens of milliseconds. Like an optical integrating sphere which demonstrates what a climate scientist would call “nearly” 100% radiative forcing. But the integrating sphere does not supply any “net energy gain” or “extra energy” and simply acts as an optical delay line.

    When a pulse of light is input to an integrating sphere you can observe this delay as a “pulse stretching” effect. When a steady state input (like the EM radiation output from the Sun) is applied you cannot (with the currently available tools) observe this delay.

    Very high scientific standards displayed here; “it needs to get squashed every time”.

    Yes indeed, let’s “squash” anyone that disagrees with us.

    For your information there is a whole field of engineering known as “optical engineering” which applies all of the theories of “radiative physics” to solve real problems. AND NONE of my textbooks (going back 5 decades) acknowledge anything as silly as the “Greenhouse Effect”. But we only design things that actually work, not models of hypothesized “effects”.

    Please explain again how a gas present in minuscule amounts in the atmosphere with a thermal capacity nearly equal to nothing is “forcing” the massive thermal capacity of the oceans into “thermal equilibrium” and increasing their temperature by 20 some degrees, but this effect cannot be detected beyond the natural temperatures of the complex natural system ?

    Squash away good man, squash away…..

    Cheers, Kevin.

  41. Dr. Gray provided a paper with a little more detail for those interested.

    http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

    So much of it just makes logical sense and it jumps right out at you. Here’s another paper that gets into the MOC and some of the possible ramifications.

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/deep-atlantic-circulation-during-the-last-glacial-25858002

    It seems pretty obvious to me the longer term warming and cooling periods are driven by the long term ocean circulation. The MWP, the LIA the current warm period are all likely forced by changes in the speed of the MOC. The bipolar seesaw makes perfect sense when you understand the MOC. Whether the MOC is behind the PDO/AMO cycles is another interesting question. The oceans are likely the reason it is difficult to see large scale climate changes. They smooth out all the short term forcings which makes it very difficult to determine the scales.

  42. Forecast models are designed to help people in the short term.
    Climate models are designed to control people in the long term.

    Thank you, Dr. Gray, and all those others in this arena that are just trying to help people.

  43. I’m sure that’s the fat lady I can hear singing, I hope it’s a pop song and not a long classical opera … like ‘Pie Jesu’ in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical opera “Requiem”, which had it’s debut in 1985, sung by Sarah Brightman, who wasn’t fat …

  44. I heard that Gavin S. will assume the “Anointed” God of GISS. His God-ship will carry forth from the failed, multiple adjectives apply, James Hansen.

    That makes his ‘twit’ all the more telling … ‘a career’ “as good as it gets” and ‘a life’ “useless.”

    Chinese curse, “careful what you wish for … you may get it!”

    Klingon toast, “make a wish.”

    :-)

  45. I make a living inventing, creating, selling, supporting and applying advanced empirical modeling software. Yes, advanced: for one example consider ensembles of genetically optimized multidimensional non-linear time-based regression models that autonomously adapt and self-maintain through time using performance feedback. That is but one example. Our technology is used on everything from toilet paper wet tear strength to tornado prediction; those things where theoretical physics-based equations are just not possible or practical.

    I have not tried to model the climate because I don’t have the data and I’m not sure it properly exists so I don’t spend the time to try to find it.

    P.S. Modeling chaotic systems isn’t that hard really, as long as they are simple. In this case, climate, there are vast numbers of feedbacks, phase changes, interactions and estimated data that has been “screwed around with” that makes it difficult.

  46. Let me get this straight:

    In a reciprocating internal combustion engine (something I tend to understand) only about 25-30% of the available heat energy from combustion is utilized. The remainder, through various means, is dissipated to the atmosphere. If one were magically able to make a reciprocating IC engine 100% efficient then the entirety of the heat generated would be converted to mechanical energy and the engine would transmit no heat whatsoever to the atmosphere.

    It seems to me Dr. William Gray is saying that at least some portion of an expected atmospheric heat increase from CO2 must essentially be converted into some form of mechanical energy through which to overcome gravity and lift a certain volume and weight of water into the atmosphere. Thus any significant increase in atmospheric temperatures from increased water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas) must, to some degree, be mitigated by the conversion of CO2 trapped heat to the mechanical energy necessary to lift the water, the primary claimed amplifier, in the first place.

    Is this what Dr. William Gray is saying? If so, it is the first time, in my 20 years of immersing myself in this issue, that I have read such a sensible thing. Could this be where the ‘hidden heat’ is really hiding? Just asking a question.

  47. You know, your semantic whining about predict -vs- project on just about every thread that uses either word is really becoming tiresome. Dr. Gray has his view, and people understand what he’s talking about. Give it a rest. – Anthony

    Hear, hear! Especially on a thread that explicitly begins with a slide stating “There are no operational forecasts of global climate change”, and where Dr. Gray is clearly stating that:

    The still-strong—but false—belief that skillful long-range climate prediction is possible is thus a dangerous idea. The results of the climate models have helped foster the current political clamor for greatly reducing fossil fuel use even though electricity generation costs from wind and solar are typically three to five times higher than generation from fossil fuels. The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which are based on the large (and unrealistic) catastrophic global warming projections from climate models.

    There is absolutely nothing unambiguous or (as you repeatedly put it) fallacious about this statement. It is clear and succinct. In it Dr. Gray clearly uses both prediction and projection in ways that that demonstrate that he is fully aware of their meaning. So when he says “It is impossible for climate models to predict the globe’s future climate for at least three basic reasons.” we can easily understand exactly what he is saying, especially when he proceeds to clearly enumerate those reasons. His statement, the enumerated reasons, and his conclusion are apparent to any reader. It is a contribution to the debate, as one can disagree with his reasons and conceive of ways of applying evidence-based reasoning to verify or falsify them.

    Your own statements, in the meantime, do not contain anything useful that pertains to the climate debate. Whether one calls GCM forecasts “predictions”, “projections”, or (as Dr. Gray also refers to them) prophecies is immaterial. What matters is that they have no predictive skill (or “projective” skill, or “prophetic” skill). What also matters, as he rather clearly points out, is that the public, politicians, and scientists alike are all too easily taken in by the sensationalist treatment of CAGW by the press, by a small but determined group of interested parties that reap fame, fortune, and political power from the issue, and by a small cadre of scientists that have transformed global climate into the overarching funding mechanism for environmental science to the enormous benefit of the discipline and those that work in it.

    In our last interaction, you ended by accusing me of an ad hominem attack on you because I stated clearly that nobody cares about your attempt to somehow transform the distinction between prediction and projection into something significant, into something somehow relevant to the correctness or reliability of the science. In this you are mistaken. I’ll state it again — nobody cares about your assertion in this arena not because you are stupid or incompetent, not even because you are or are not incorrect in making them, but because they are irrelevant to the actual debate, which is absolutely about the kind of points that Dr. Gray is making above and that you appear to be incapable of making. Climate models are not doubtable because they are projections but people call them predictions — actually they are frequently called projections by climate modellers as an excuse for their failure to even approximately predict. They are doubtable because they (so far) do not work!

    And because there are some excellent reasons to believe that they will not work anytime in the near future. I personally am less skeptical than Dr. Gray about their prospects thirty years from now, simply because 30 years ago I was doing my numerical work with a 64KB motherboard 5 MHz IBM PC instead of a 4 GB motherboard 2×3 GHz dual-core laptop over 1000 times faster (which isn’t even my latests/fastest system) and when in the meantime we’ve learned to aggregate piles of similarly fast processors into supercomputers capable of tens of trillions of operations per second. 30 years from now, we may well be able to solve the hydrodynamics problems at a useful granularity. 30 years from now we may have the observational data and theory worked out to where we can solve the right equations in the process, as well. Or maybe not.

    In the meantime, however, they are not working, for all the reasons Dr. Gray indicates and more besides. It isn’t that CO_2 couldn’t produce warming of the scale claimed — the computations show that subject to certain assumptions the claim is at least conditionally plausible — it is that so far it simply hasn’t. The GCMs are not working well, at least so far. Whether or not there are reasons that they aren’t working — a string of La Ninas instead of the super El Nino the models seem to “expect”, as Nick Stokes recently suggested — isn’t particularly material. One expects models to fail when there are important reasons for their failure. Dr. Gray has listed three possible reasons in considerable detail. A recent WUWT-reported peer reviewed article strongly supports one of them — the failure of GCMs to correctly treat deep convection in storm clouds. There are still other good reasons to doubt that I sometimes list, such as some very fundamental questions about convergence and granularity that one cannot avoid when one is doing computations at the bleeding edge of available capacity and where e.g. doubling the resolution requires more than an order of magnitude more compute power and/or time to run.

    The interesting thing is that at the end of the day, at the end of the AGU meeting, there will no doubt be a fair number of papers and talks presented that address the failure of the GCMs to predict “the pause”, as this is a fairly serious concern for all of the global warming enthusiasts. A lot of people have to be wondering about the solar cycle at this point — we are at or past solar maximum, and there is at least some reason to think that we are about to have a prolonged solar minimum that will rise to an even weaker solar maximum in the next cycle. If “the pause” continues or worse, becomes “the fall” — however slight — a lot of people are going to be scrutinizing the entire scientific industry that has built up around global warming to see if there was anything like the critical process associated with good science at work or if every paper and every voice was toeing some sort of party line.

    A good scientist should never apologize for disagreeing, or even apologize for being wrong as long as the errors are honest errors. A good scientist looks hard for their own errors without waiting for others to point them out. Good science isn’t decided by a democratic process — it is an absolute tyranny. Humans get zero votes — nature gets the only vote that matters. So even if 97% of all scientists really do agree that CAGW is our CO_2-doubling destiny (something that is enormously dubious, since it isn’t certain that 97% of all scientists agree with the theory of evolution or that quantum mechanics is a fully consistent theory) — 97% of all scientists can end up being wrong if nature votes the other way.

    So please, Terry, cease the pointless debate about prediction vs projection.

    Nobody cares.

    rgb

  48. Jim Clarke says: at 6:55 pm:
    For longer ranch forecasts, pattern recognition becomes the more reliable method.

    I know what your were thinking! On “ranch forecasts,” there’s no way a “ch” gets added instead of “ge” unless you are thinking that it’d be good to be at the ranch… your ranch or some ranch somewhere! I know the feeling. Anyway, I really like your comments, especially your 5:39pm one, and this moving paragraph (and you seem to have a lot good knowledge, are you a weather guy or what?):

    Dr. Gray is the savior of my sanity. I became a skeptic of CAGW in the early 90s, but I thought I was all alone. The more papers on climate change I read, the more flaws and poor assumptions I found, but no one around me seemed to notice or care about the poor science. Then I heard Dr. Gray speak at a Hurricane Conference. He broke from his usual talk about the tropics and launched into a talk about Global Warming, cleverly equating climate modelers to barbarians and unabashedly predicting that we would see global cooling in the first half of the 21st Century. He highlighted all the flaws in AGW theory that I had noticed, then informed me of a bunch more. I looked around the conference hall and found many people nodding in agreement! I wasn’t alone and I wasn’t insane.

    And @Dr Burns, thanks for your comment. Anyway, not that anyone cares, but I was looking now at my “opus comment” from 4:00 pm, and I’m thinking that the third paragraph beginning with “First, take a look at this key 3 1/2 minute video that exposes the false claims of Al Gore on CO2″ wasn’t essential, and was expendable to shorten things. And anyway I linked to the “key” video in the next paragraph. See, I’m trying to get a good string of words together to run at various sites, and if anyone wants to repeat what I said or your own version of it, great!

  49. Here’s a quote and conclusions about the timing and extent of the coming cooling from the last post on my blog at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    ” The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy is the climate sensitivity to CO2 . By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)
    “The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations ”
    In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.
    In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.
    2. A Simple Rational Approach to Climate Forecasting based on Common Sense and Quasi Repetitive- Quasi Cyclic Patterns.
    How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate? A new forecasting paradigm is required .
    It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it is not necessary to understand or quantify the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric…………………………………………..
    I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
    Here are the conclusions of those posts.
    1/22/13 (NH)
    1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
    2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
    3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
    4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
    4/02/13 ( Global)
    1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
    How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate

  50. Bravo! Dr. Gray.

    The only consideration I would like to see addressed is how long do you suppose the Holocene has left to last?

    From what I can tell from the literature we are very close to an eccentricity minima (a 400kyr variety). And the Holocene is (as of 2013) 11,716 years old (based on varve-counting from the end of the Younger-Dryas cold interval to present), A few centuries and change older than half the current precession cycle (23,000/2=11,500 years). Only MIS-11 has lasted longer than half a precession cycle for at least the past 38 such full-precession cycles (using 21.7kyrs as the average), taking us back to near the mid-Pleistocene Transition (MPT), or eight major glacials/interglacials from present.

    MIS-11 was as MIS-19 was, at a 400kyr eccentricity minima, as MIS-1 now is. MIS-11 (~400kya) went long, MIS-19 (~800kya) did not. So, at best 50:50 chance of “going long”, absent any other effects, such as perhaps AGW, at the possible end of MIS-1, the present interglacial.

    In your opinion, how long do you suppose the Holocene will last with or without AGW/GHGs?

    Very well appreciated post, Dr. Gray.

    William

  51. There is no such thing as *a* singular CO2 sensitivity in climate. It would be, at a minimum, a complex temperature trajectory based on an n-dimensional volume of interacting self-feeding-back inputs as “CO2 concentration” is varied in the model(s). That is, as you varied CO2 all the other inputs to the model(s) would start to change and Temperature probably would form an unknown contorted trajectory which would not be valid as the myriad “Butterfly Effects” throw Temperature off to such a degree as to be useless. “CO2 sensitivity” is a time-based non-linear Gordian hyper-volume. However, grant money projections/predictions/forecasts/estimates may be easy to compute as long as the “CO2 Sensitivity” was a positive number :)

  52. davidmhoffer says: “…Now, stack thousands of those jars on top of each other in a tower 14 kilometers high. You’ll need a stack of 140 million jars. Now try drawing a line from bottom to top without hitting a red grain. You can’t. In fact, not only that, you can’t even do it without hitting thousands of red grains. I’m a confirmed skeptic, but radiative physics is a bit more complex than simply drawing conclusions from concentration ratios.”

    Now do the same thing for the thermosphere. See if you can get a photon through it without hitting anything.

  53. KevinK;
    For your information there is a whole field of engineering known as “optical engineering” which applies all of the theories of “radiative physics” to solve real problems. AND NONE of my textbooks (going back 5 decades) acknowledge anything as silly as the “Greenhouse Effect”.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well that’s pretty interesting since I have the exact same text books from which I learned a considerable amount about how the greenhouse effect works. Just because they are engineering text books focused on a very narrow set of use cases that have nothing to do with climate and atmospheric effects and hence never mention the greenhouse effect doesn’t change the fact that they are describing the exact same processes in a different context.

    Your rant amounts to no more than argument from authority. You make vague references to vague text books, represent what they say completely out of context, and proclaim the conclusions without one single sentence about how any of it actually works. Not one.

    I would not have chosen rgb’s wording about squashing the idea. I took it as a misunderstanding that could be easily addressed. When one is just beginning to understand this topic, it is a common mistake. But Aussibear explained why he thought his view was correct, and I endeavoured to take him to the next step. The two of us were discussing science, rgb jumped in and supported my explanation. If you have something to add to the discussion by why of additional explanation or criticism, by all means. But shouting that you have 5 decade old text books on optics and claiming that what is in them is relevant is just argument from authority that adds nothing to the knowledge of anyone in the debate from either side.

  54. Eric Simpson — Excellent, well-written (clear, accurate, and concise), comment at 4pm, today (would be a good post in its own right). Great primer — we need a section of WUWT dedicated to teaching the basics (Gee Jam has composed something along those lines, too, I think).

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

    Hi, Tom J at 8:01pm (super cool that you are a motorhead (some of the brightest geniuses who ever lived were or are), btw!) —

    Well, until a scientist takes the time to answer you (and I sure hope one does!), here’s mine fwiw:

    No.

    Given the following assertions by Dr. Gray:

    1. “The water-vapor feedback loop, in reality, is … negative, … .”
    2. “Earth experiences a unique climate because of its 70 percent water surface and its continuously functioning hydrologic cycle. The stronger the globe’s hydrologic cycle, the greater the globe’s cooling potential.”
    3.”… {assuming ad argumentum} zero water-vapor feedback we should expect a doubling of CO2 to cause no more than about 0.5oC … warming … compensation … from enhanced surface evaporation, atmospheric condensation warming, and enhanced OLR to space. … .”

    I think the second half of item 3. above is what may have caused the confusion. I believe Gray meant that, even if water-vapor did not negate potential warming, other negating forces, e.g., enhanced evaporation, etc…. would prevent catastrophic warming.

    Bottom line: The earth’s internal combustion engine (a.k.a. “global climate”) has the bestest, most super-deluxe, water-cooling system (i. e., the radiator) — (along with a great air-intake cooling unit (with super-fancy hood bling to go with it, too!)) — IN THE….. well…. heh, IN THE WORLD!!!
    #(:))

    ******************************
    Okay. Now, HOPEFULLY, a scientist will be so disgusted by my attempt to answer you that you will get a quality answer! And, thereby, I will have done you a worthwhile service by my poor attempt. Thus, I make it even while knowing it is likely laughable.

    Best wishes getting your question really answered,

    Janice

  55. jorgekafkazar says:
    December 10, 2013 at 8:59 pm
    Now do the same thing for the thermosphere. See if you can get a photon through it without hitting anything.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ah, but you can. You only need choose photons in the right frequencies. Else we wouldn’t be able to see the outlines of continents and the shape of major cloud systems from space. We’d see only a fuzzy glowing ball instead.

  56. For Kevin K and davidmhoffer:

    While you may have a dispute about the existence of the “greenhouse effect,” per se, I doubt it. It appears to me that there has simply been a slight miscommunication.

    Given:

    1.”Please explain again how a gas present in minuscule amounts in the atmosphere with a thermal capacity nearly equal to nothing is “forcing” … .” (Kevin K at 7:01pm today)

    2. “I’m a confirmed skeptic… .” (davidmhoffer at 5:52pm today)

    I think it is clear that you both agree that, so far, there is no evidence that CO2 is a significant driver of changes in the climate of the planet.

    Queries to Promote Understanding:
    Kevin K — Do you agree that there is a greenhouse effect at all (with H2O being the driving gas?)?
    davidmhoffer — Do you (just for clarification — I’m pretty sure I know the answer) agree that CO2 is not a significant driver of the “greenhouse effect?”

    Shake hands, guys?

    Hoping that my attempt at a little mediation is more helpful than annoying,

    Janice

  57. davidmhoffer;
    Ah, but you can. You only need choose photons in the right frequencies.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Just realized how that might confuse someone trying to understand the discussion with Aussiebear. I’d extend the analogy a bit. Take that stack of 14 million jar. Now instead of just lines, let’s use all the crayons and make lotsa different colors. To illustrate, if we’re using a red crayon, every time the line hits a red grain of rice, we have to stop, and start a new line in a random direction, and keep doing that as many times as it takes to get to the top and escape. But if we use a yellow crayon, we’re allowed to go right though the red grains as if they were invisible.

    Now lets add a sprinkling of still more different colors of rice grains to represent everything from dust to ice crystals to ozone and so on. Each crayon color goes right through certain colors of rice grains, but stops dead when hitting others. Complicated? Hey! I’m simplifying it!

    Now through in a new color of rice just for water vapour. But you have to put in 400 grains of water vapour rice in the first million jars, and 300 in the next million and maybe 100 in the million after that. Then you have to figure out how to draw the lines that have to stop and change direction for both water vapour AND CO2. Now the drawing is completely skewed because at the bottom, you can hardly draw any length at all before hitting a water molecule and there are so many of them that the 4 CO2 molecules don’t much matter to how you draw the red lines. But when you get up to say jar level 20 million, there are so few water molecules that ONLY the CO2 grains make a difference to how you draw the red lines. But there’s still another 120 million jars to get through, so the line will change directions many many times before escaping.

  58. Janice Moore;
    davidmhoffer — Do you (just for clarification — I’m pretty sure I know the answer) agree that CO2 is not a significant driver of the “greenhouse effect?”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No, I believe that CO2 absolutely IS a significant driver of the greenhouse effect. However, I also understand that CO2 is logarithmic, and that cooling response of the planet via Stefan-Boltzmann law is exponential. These two factors alone destroy the CAGW meme, which is why climate scientists want to scream about tree ring studies and things being unprecedented rather than discussing rudimentary physics.

  59. Thanks Janice!!
    One thing I found out that I don’t think a lot of people know is some CO2 related dynamics of the post-Cambrian climate by reading Larry Bell’s excellent article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/05/03/breaking-news-the-climate-actually-changes/
    It’s definitely worth reading, and an easy read on top of that. Another short excerpt: “About 438 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 dropped from 4,500 ppm to 3,000 ppm, yet according to fossil records, world temperatures shot rapidly back up to an average 72 degrees. So regardless of whether CO2 levels were 7,000 ppm or 3,000 ppm, temperatures rose and fell independently.”

  60. Forecasting is just guessing with computers.

    The slide at the top says it all: error effects saturate weather forecasting models when run out to the 10-14 day mark. The same thing happens with climate models that get the clouds and the water vapor wrong.

  61. Janice Moore;
    I was hoping you didn’t miss my attempt “talk” to you last evening.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sorry, forgot to respond. Tx appreciated. Even I don’t visit my blog anymore though ;-)
    You’ve no idea how much work keeping one going actually is until you try and do it. How Anth_ny keeps up is quite beyond me.

  62. Bob Weber says:
    December 10, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    “Dr. Gray’s conclusion ought…”


    Then at the end, a cheap shoot is thrown for some odd reason,
    “You might learn something, unless your name is Willis….”
    ————————-
    Since when has it been a good thing to kick a man while he is down with a serious heart condition?

  63. Janice Moore
    December 10, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    Hi Janice. Thanks for the info. Yep, I definitely am a motorhead. And, according to my niece, the one time I shaved my beard I looked like a chipmunk; “Hey Uncle Tom, you like a chipmunk.” So, if you can imagine what a combination of a motorhead and a chipmunk looks like you’ll be able to spot me in a crowd.

    Whoops, I almost forgot, I grew the beard back.

    Thanks again for the info. It’s my bedtime here in Chicago so I’ll double check it in the morning when I’m fresh. Best wishes.

  64. Dr. Gray, thanks for a great article! I particularly like the fact that you talk about the role that the hydrologic cycle plays in cooling the Earth’s surface; I have *never* seen this addressed properly in a “mainstream” source.

    Tom J, the extra heat transport due to the hydrologic cycle is simple: when water evaporates at the surface, it removes heat from the surface, cooling it; when the water vapor then condenses at high altitude, to form clouds or precipitation, it gives up the heat, which gets radiated away to space. In other words, the hydrologic cycle is a separate heat transport mechanism that cools the surface. If the surface warms from some other cause, such as an increase in greenhouse gases, that increases the rate of the hydrologic cycle, which counteracts some of the warming that would otherwise occur; so the impact of a given increase in, say, CO2 is *smaller* when the hydrologic cycle is taken into account.

  65. @Joel, 4:53: Well-done. I have a comp. sci. degree, and you have neatly described what happens in any simulation which iterates extensively.

  66. Dr Gray – Please can you clarify this for me: “Disregarding water-vapor feedback changes, it has been assumed a doubling of CO2 will cause a blockage of Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) of 3.7 Wm-2. To compensate for this blockage without feedback, it has been assumed an enhanced global warming of about 1oC would be required for counterbalance. But global energy budget considerations indicate only about half (0.5oC, not 1oC) of the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage of CO2 should be expected to be expended for temperature compensation. The other half of the compensation for the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage will come from the extra energy that must be utilized for surface evaporation (~1.85 Wm-2) to sustain the needed increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2 percent. “.

    Are you saying that with a doubling of CO2, temperature would increase by about 0.5 deg C and the hydrological cycle would increase by about 2%?

    My understanding is that a 1 deg C increase in SST is likely to be accompanied by about 7% increase in the hydrological cycle. That’s a significantly larger hydrological cycle increase than in your numbers if I have understood them correctly. Sources:

    1. Wentz et al, Science 13 July 2007: Vol. 317 no. 5835 pp. 233-235 DOI: 10.1126/science.1140746

    https://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233.abstract

    Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades. “.

    2. Science 27 April 2012:Vol. 336 no. 6080 pp. 455-458 DOI: 10.1126/science.1212222

    https://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/455

    We show that ocean salinity patterns express an identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. Our 50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial (16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur in a future 2° to 3° warmer world.“.

    3. Confirmation by Dr Susan Wijffels on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) “Catalyst” program ..

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3796205.htm

    .. “We’re already starting to detect and see big changes in the extreme events. And we’ve only really warmed the Earth by 0.8 of a degree. If we were to warm the Earth by 3 or 4 degrees, the changes in the hydrological cycle could be near 30 percent. I mean, that’s just a huge change, and it’s very hard for us to imagine.

  67. @ Tom J — lol, hopefully, by the time you check back here, a scientist (or someone with lots of science knowledge) will have given you a good answer. Hey, chipmunks are super-cute! Well, after that “compliment,” though, I think I’d grow my beard back too…. er…. if I were a man, I mean! If it’s a ZZ Top kind of beard, don’t get it caught in a fan belt or something!!! (like the Grinch when he’s sewing his costume). No, I’ll look at your hands… THAT is how you can tell a motorhead, heh. Well, that, and once he (or she, not many, but there are a few) starts talking about cars and engines and carburetors and manifolds and… .

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

    Thanks for acknowledging, Eric Simpson!! I’ve missed your super sense of humor and fun comments. I still chuckle at, “It’s hot as {heck} down here!” lol. I’ll read that Forbes article tomorrow — even an easy read is too much for my tired brain right now.

    **********************
    Thanks, davidmhoffer. You are so very welcome. Guess I was mistaken! Well, at least you and I (and likely Kevin K, too) agree about the logarithmically dissipating potential effect of CO2. So far, I’ve seen no evidence that CO2 does anything to drive the climate (or “greenhouse”) in any way. I’ll try a bit harder to keep an open mind, though (in case some evidence does show up), after finding out that you whose mind I’ve come to admire think it can do something significant.

  68. davidmhoffer says: December 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    Nitpick alert: The point no doubt stands, but 14 km is 14,000 metres. There are 100 cm in a metre, so 10 x 10 cm jars per metre.
    Total vertical jar count = 140,000, not 140 million.

    Assume instead a square glass jar that is 10 grains on a side. That’s 100 grains in a single layer. Now imagine the jar is 100 grains tall. 10,000 grains in all. Make 99,996 white and just 4 red, same ratio as your example above. Suppose the jar is about 10 cm tall. Now, instantly make all the white grains invisible. What would you see?
    Well, you’d see a 10 cm tall jar that is mostly empty, with a fleck of red here and there. You could easily draw a vertical line from the bottom of the jar to the top without hitting any of those red flecks. In fact, you could draw a lot of them.
    Now, stack thousands of those jars on top of each other in a tower 14 kilometers high.
    You’ll need a stack of 140 million jars. Now try drawing a line from bottom to top without hitting a red grain.

  69. rgb:

    Your argument that we should cease “pointless debate” about prediction vs projection fosters unfounded conclusions regarding global warming, including its cause. By logical rule, one cannot logically draw a conclusion from an argument that is an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is an “equivocation fallacy.”

    An “equivocation” is an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of this argument. A “fallacious argument” is one in which the conclusion from this argument does not follow from the premises of this argument and from the principles of reasoning. In making an argument, one can head off application of the equivocation fallacy through the use of terms that are “monosemic.” A monosemic term is one that has a single meaning. A “polysemic” term has more than one meaning. For a debater who wishes to avoid application of the equivocation fallacy, the use of monosemic terms has no downside. In the record of our debate, however, I observe that you resolutely resist the use of monosemic terms. Is your purpose to make use of the equivocation fallacy in putting across illicit arguments? If not, what do you hope to accomplish in insisting upon the use of polysemic terms?

    In the literature of global warming climatology, a number of terms are polysemic. When these terms are used in making an argument there is the danger of reaching a logically unfounded conclusion. Among these terms are “predict” and “forecast.” These two terms reference a model that: a) has an underlying statistical population and b) has no underlying statistical population.

    In the latter type of model, the statistical idea of a “frequency” does not exist. It follows that the idea of a “relative frequency” does not exist. As a relative frequency is the empirical counterpart of a probability, a “probability” has no empirical counterpart thus disappearing as a scientific concept. The ideas of “information” and “logic” disappear as well.

    In the former type of model, the statistical idea of a “frequency” exists. It follows that the idea of a “relative frequency” exists. As a relative frequency is the empirical counterpart of a probability, a “probability” exists as a scientific concept. The ideas of “information” and “logic” exist as well.

    The IPCC climate models have no underlying statistical population. All of the pathological features of a global warming study identified in the second paragraph above result from this absence. This state of affairs makes it clear that in debating the methodology of a global warming study we should adopt a linguistic convention that distinguishes between the type of model that has an underlying statistical population and the type of model that does not. Don’t you agree?

  70. “I’m sure that’s the fat lady I can hear singing, I hope it’s a pop song… .” (Tom Harley at 7:41pm)

    It is! #(:))

    And we are so DONE with those AGW control freaks.

    Us realists choose:
    “Freedom! … Freedom!… FREEDOM!!!”

    Aretha Franklin

    The band is BACK.

    CO2 UP — WARMING STOPPED.

    AGW: doa

  71. Janice Moore;
    I’ve seen no evidence that CO2 does anything to drive the climate (or “greenhouse”) in any way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I suggest you read these:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/

    The last one is the definitive one, but you might want to read the other two first as a primer.

    Keep in mind also that when I say CO2 absolutely does drive the greenhouse effect, I’m speaking of the concentration as a whole. A change in concentration is a different discussion. For example the direct effects of going from 200ppm to 250ppm would be rather different from the effects of going from 400ppm to 450ppm despite both being a change of 50ppm. But then one has to take into account feedback effects. It is quite possible that the sum of all feedback effects is positive at one concentration, and negative at another for example.

    So to be more accurate, do I think the GHE of CO2 is real? H3LL YES. Do I think that a change in CO2 of about 2ppm per year starting at a concentration of 400ppm is significant? H3LL NO! I don’t think we can even measure it. I think the sum of the feedbacks is probably very small, likely even negative at this concentration, not to mention that a warmer planet is a more tranquil planet, so any tiny warming we do get is far more likely to be beneficial that harmful,

  72. Right in line with Doctor Gray’s comments, most farmers do not buy the climate change models. We have seen too many dud seasonal forecasts to have faith in longer term predictions. Experience is always a valuable teacher.

  73. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 10, 2013 at 10:44 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Seriously dude, you’ve dug the hole, climbed in, and you’re pulling the dirt back in on top of your head. Your a smart guy who could contribute to the discussion in a lot of ways, but beating this drum to death constantly and repeatedly is tiresome and useless. Give it a rest before Anthony’s patience wears thin.

  74. Are the atmospheric cooling effects of CO2 incorporated into these numerical models? There is no question that CO2 has additional radiative modes that convert thermal energy convected (etc.) from the ground into radiation and that the net radiative flux is biased outward i.e. up because the MFP is larger in the upward direction. This effect works down to sea level and therefore cools the troposphere as well at the far upper atmosphere (admitted by the IPCC). A cooling of the upper troposphere must by the lapse rate law (derived from the 1st law and gas law) lead to a cooling of the surface.

    The entire debate seems to be grounded on an initial partial physics that considers only radiative to radiative transfers while the thermal/radiative transfers (of energy) are ignored.

  75. The models were never intended to model the climate. I think even the modelers know this. They were intended to promote the notion that CO2 increase would lead to global warming and which warming would require the response of government. A power grab, to put it plainly. The major flaw in this intent is that modeled results are not data. Data is gathered with a thermometer and a limited number of proxies. Models never produce hard data, and produce reliable results only in the simplest of cases and where there are no chaotic unknowables. In any event, the climate models are best known for their failure to demonstrate any useful skill. The reason being there are chaotic unknowables.

  76. Guest essay by Dr. William M. Gray

    “My 60-year experience in meteorology has led me to develop a profound disrespect for the philosophy and science behind numerical climate modeling…”.

    Dr Gray is in good company…
    “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality”.
    Nikola Tesla

  77. Dr. William M. Gray wrote:
    “The water-vapor feedback loop, in reality, is weakly negative … only about half (0.5oC, not 1oC) of the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage of CO2 should be expected to be expended for temperature compensation. The other half … will come from the extra energy that must be utilized for surface evaporation (~1.85 Wm-2) to sustain the needed increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2 percent.”

    I think this is the phenomenon that Willis likened to a planetary refrigerator:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/air-conditioning-nairobi-refrigerating-the-planet

    You have described it quantitatively Dr. Gray, and with much more rigor. Brilliant!
    ———————
    Archer Beggs says:
    December 10, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    “I believe this answers a question I’ve been wondering about. It sounds like he’s saying that water vapor acts as a refrigerant in the atmosphere with changes of state from liquid to vapor absorbing heat at the surface and then back to liquid releasing heat in the troposphere. Is this right? I ask this because I’ve wondered why I haven’t heard it mentioned.”

    Yes, I believe that’s right; see the above links for some mention of it.

  78. Davidmhoffer – are you claiming to the be only person on planet Earth that knows the absolute sign of all the feedbacks and that you and you alone can say with 100% certainty what no scientist in his/her right mind would suggest? That being that the science is settled and despite the observed fact that we are in a cooling effect for nearly two decades, CO2 and CO2 alone is going to lead to dangerous global warming? If so you’d better get your ass onto the IPCC band wagon because you are needed there.

  79. The CO2 Climate sensitivity proposed by Prof. Gray is a significant overestimate. This is because although he has grasped the key nature of the hydrological cycle speeding up as pCO2 increases, he has failed to understand that Climate Alchemy has made a big mistake in its understanding of the physics of OLR.

    This is the belief that emission in the H2O bands is from the stratosphere. It is not, coming from about 2.6 km in temperate regions. This means the Tyndall experiment has been fundamentally misunderstood!

  80. davidmhoffer says: December 10, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    So to be more accurate, do I think the GHE of CO2 is real? H3LL YES. Do I think that a change in CO2 of about 2ppm per year starting at a concentration of 400ppm is significant? H3LL NO! I don’t think we can even measure it. I think the sum of the feedbacks is probably very small, likely even negative at this concentration, not to mention that a warmer planet is a more tranquil planet, so any tiny warming we do get is far more likely to be beneficial that harmful..

    It is interesting to consider that the sinks and feedbacks were supposedly so well balanced for so many years that the atmospheric CO2 level remained at a stable level for decades/centuries.

    Then, quite suddenly, a 3% annual increase due to mankind’s emissions has supposedly upset that balance and the atmospheric level is now relentlessly increasing year on year.

    It seems to me it must have been a helluva delicate balance to not cope with a 3% fluctuation, …..

    ……or is the argument perhaps that we are also damaging the biological processes and sinks?

  81. Hal Lewis said it best: “the largest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud” in his long lifetime as a physicist.

  82. The idea that although you cannot predict weather more than 72 hours ahead worth a dam you can be throwing a enough numbers at it predict climate for years or decades ahead to two decimal places of accuracy , when all climate really is weather over a long period . Always seemed odd to me .
    In fact in the past this was a none issues , not because we got better at it since , but because everyone accepted that was the nature of weather dam hard to predict . But now with the ‘settled science’ and all the money and personal ego ridding on it the ‘need’ to pull this trick off has become much stronger.

  83. Excellent summary! In statistical model building terms, what he’s saying is not only are the main effects not known, but the interaction terms aren’t known either.

    Take the equation C=f(w, x, y, z….) + e as shown in the first graphic. Assuming only linear relationships in only w, x, y, and z the full empirical model is thus: f(w,x,y,z)=a1w+a2x+a3y+a4z+a5wx+a6wy+a7wz+a8xy+a9xz+a10yz+a11wxy+a12wxz+a13wyz+a14xyz+a15wxyz +e.

    Now add more terms and add non linearity (like a simple Taylor expansion) and the complete number of terms you have to understand is astronomical.

    Anytime you hear the terms “feedback” “feedforward”, “dependence on” you are hearing about an interaction term.

  84. Terry Oldberg says:December 10, 2013 at 6:17 pm
    From online Dictionaries
    Predict – To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge.
    Project – To calculate, estimate, or PREDICT (something in the future), based on present data or trends

    Your bullshit exposed.

  85. markx says: December 11, 2013 at 1:48 am

    Ice core strongly suggests that CO2 increases lag Temperature Increases by approximately 600-800 years. The increase in CO2 we are seeing now could easily be related to past increases in temperature as we come out of the last Ice Age.

  86. To draw such a conclusion is an “equivocation fallacy.”
    Terry, the drift is that both prediction as well as projection are equally false however characterised, as the models, as presently constituted, are wrong.
    This is not equivocation. This is straight out denial.

  87. Richard M says: December 10, 2013 at 7:31 pm “Whether the MOC is behind the PDO/AMO cycles is another interesting question”

    But what drives the changes in the MOC and PDO/AMO cycles is the really BIG question.

  88. wrecktafire says:
    December 10, 2013 at 9:46 pm
    Forecasting is just guessing with computers.

    The slide at the top says it all: error effects saturate weather forecasting models when run out to the 10-14 day mark. The same thing happens with climate models that get the clouds and the water vapor wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Forecasting (weather) is integrating forward in time the whole Earth’s weather (a snapshot of chaos). Now because we necessarily cannot quantify every last detail of that snapshot (incomplete/imperfect observation) AND because each chaotic moment has it’s own sensitivity (may spin more/less from the current chaotic state) …. NWP models are constrained (though considerable progress has been made in the last 40 years – a 5 day forecast verifies as well now as did a 2 day one then).

    GCM’s however do NOT model weather (your clouds/water vapour), because of the above reasons and because the computational expense constraints. Parametrization is used to model such processes instead.

    • @TB: your reply to me hints that weather modeling and climate modeling are somehow different, due to parameterization as opposed to integration. I don’t believe that is a proper description. A climate model integrates physical processes over time in exactly the same fashion as a weather model. The parameterization is a shorthand for stuff that is too resource intensive to compute, so we put in something simpler that we *hope* is an adequate substitute. Performing this procedure billions of times results in significant errors.

  89. KNR says:
    December 11, 2013 at 1:59 am
    The idea that although you cannot predict weather more than 72 hours ahead worth a dam you can be throwing a enough numbers at it predict climate for years or decades ahead to two decimal places of accuracy , when all climate really is weather over a long period . Always seemed odd to me .
    In fact in the past this was a none issues , not because we got better at it since , but because everyone accepted that was the nature of weather dam hard to predict . But now with the ‘settled science’ and all the money and personal ego ridding on it the ‘need’ to pull this trick off has become much stronger.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This seems to be a common conception – but is a fallacy.
    See my post above.

    Climate is NOT weather projected into the future. Climate creates weather – hang on – in the sense that the Earth acts as a heat engine. It receives energy from the Sun and it is reflected/absorbed/re-radiated back to space. Only two factors essentially govern it’s working – energy in vs energy out, this is constrained by albedo and radiative forcing (and for past epochs by orbital eccentricity). Weather is the chaos in the system – the noise on the general climate trend (up or down). To suppose that climate is weather projected forward is missing seeing the wood by only seeing the trees.

  90. Let’s say there was no global warming scare, no IPCC, no fear mongering etc. People would adapt and mitigate as they have always done since the end of the last glaciation. No need for global action. What an utter waste of time, can’t these people find something else better to do?

    MAN-MADE
    ✔Thames flood barrier
    ✔Dutch Polders
    ✔Flood defences
    ✔Clothing, hats, gloves, UV sunglasses
    ✔Air conditioning, fans, central heating
    ✔Double glazing, triple glazing (Scandinavia)
    ✔Homes on stilts around the world, igloos, tree houses
    ✔Bad weather warnings
    ✔New farming methods, livestock breeding for desired traits
    ✔Water wells, boreholes and desal plants
    ✔Use of fire
    ✔Concrete
    ✔Sand replenishment on beaches
    ✔White painted homes and walls in the tropics
    ✔Tornado hatches
    etc., etc., etc.

    NATURAL
    ✔Bangladesh gaining landmass over the last few decades
    ✔Coral island atolls rise with sea level rise
    ✔Marshlands change with sea level rise
    ✔Plants move uphill / plants move downhill
    ✔ Animals move north / south
    ✔Birds bigger / birds smaller ;-)
    ✔Greening of the biosphere in recent decades
    ✔Gaia hypothesis at work?
    ✔Natural climate oscillations
    ✔More clouds / less clouds
    ✔More NH winter snow, bigger albedo
    ✔Less NH spring snow, lower albedo
    ✔Antarctica sea ice extent up (allegedly caused by global warming)
    ✔Antarctica recent cold record shattered! (This may be soon blamed on AGW)
    ✔2009-2011 extreme snowfalls in East Antarctica (maybe due to AGW)
    etc., etc., etc.

    Yet we feel the need to call special global conferences to deal with things we have been dealing with at a local and regional level since we discovered fire.

  91. “Smith: usefulness of climate models for mitigation ‘as good as it gets’, usefulness for adaptation? Not so much #AGU13—
    Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) December 10, 2013″

    The models predict warming, but it isn’t warming.
    Smith and Schmidt are both liars.

  92. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 10, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    Perhaps you could train the UKMO to distinguish between projections and predictions:

  93. Reliable long-range climate modeling is well possible if you can forecast the solar signal at a monthly noise level and successfully model all the regional atmospheric and oceanic responses. Long range regional forecasting at the scale of weather for say UK/Euro based on short term solar effects on the AO/NAO is far simpler than modelling global averages or trends.

  94. “CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a “radiation only” perspective”

    Dr. Gray is close to “getting it”, but not quite.

    The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

    To understand this, you only have to understand 4 simple points –

    1. Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to continued strong vertical tropospheric circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar tropospheric convection cells.
    2. The observed lapse rate below the topopause is a result of strong vertical circulation of gases across a gravity induced pressure gradient.
    3. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. (sorry Willis, but empirical experiment proves you wrong)
    4. Without radiative cooling at altitude and the resultant strong vertical tropospheric circulation, our atmosphere would trend isothermal, with its temperature driven by surface Tmax, not surface Tav. (sorry Dr. Spencer, but empirical experiment proves you wrong)

    That’s it. That’s all you need to know. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. Global warming is a physical impossibility.

  95. “considerations of deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds indicate any increase of CO2 and its associated increase in global rainfall would lead to a reduction of upper tropospheric RH and a consequent enhancement (not curtailment) of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space.”

    Willis’s Thermostat anyone?

  96. TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:27 am
    Climate is NOT weather projected into the future. Climate creates weather – hang on – in the sense that the Earth acts as a heat engine. It receives energy from the Sun and it is reflected/absorbed/re-radiated back to space. Only two factors essentially govern it’s working – energy in vs energy out, this is constrained by albedo and radiative forcing (and for past epochs by orbital eccentricity).

    I believe this is partly wrong according to Dr. Gray. Dr. Gray is telling us that the energy already in the system is very important. The changes in the speed of the MOC change the amount of energy released to the atmosphere by the oceans. While big changes in solar energy would make a difference, they don’t appear to happen for the most part. The earth itself through various feedbacks (like clouds) tends to balance it out. This leaves the oceans as the primary driver of climate *change*.

    —————-

    On a separate note, Dr. Gray’s description fits with so many others in Nature. It’s always quite amazing to see how many systems work synchronously. This appears to be another one. As CO2 increases you get both a small increase in temperature and a small increase in rain. All three of these are key ingredients for plant growth (which then supports a growth in fauna). It fits perfectly that they would work in such a synchronous fashion. From what I can tell the ideal amount of CO2 would be 1200 ppm. That would raise the global temperature another .5C and increase rainfall about 3%. That might be just enough to ward off the next glaciation event. It would also help feed a growing global population. What’s not to like about it.

  97. The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, . . .

    Now if we transformed that four-syllable abbreviation into a two-syllable acronym, we get something much smoother (and sillier!):

    The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPOCC) reports, . . .

  98. DirkH: ‘The models predict warming, but it isn’t warming. Smith and Schmidt are both liars ‘.

    If I let water flowing into my bath tub, my common sense model predicts that the water level will rise unless something unexpected happens in between, for example that someone removed the stop. My prediction is conditional and its failure does not mean that I am a liar (how dare you). Because the climate models failed in their prediction, they can be saved by the unexpected event that all heat disappeared into the deep ocean. Unexpected means that this heat flow occurs perhaps once in every million years. If the stop is put back, surface temperatures will rise to unprecedented levels, unless something unexpected happens in between.

  99. Climate is not weather.. true, yet the patterns of weather over prolonged periods of time become climate. In the end, you are asked to believe that the design of the system along with the sun, the oceans and stochastic events, will be changed in an way that it will change where it would go naturally, but a trace gas that is needed for life on the planet and has been far higher with COLDER CONDITIONS, and lower with warm.

    It is fantasy, and nature, not man, controls the climate of the planet

    So like a weather forecast.. one must weigh the parameters given and then make the forecast. Given the flip of the pdo and soon the amo, the planet will ( has started ) cool. Gray opined we would warm in the 1970s, was spot on about the leveling and begin of the turn around. Far better than the screams of tipping points by people who have never made a forecast in their life that they have been held accountable for. And that is the big difference also. In what I do in the private sector, against many super talented private and gvt mets, if I do not bring value to the table, I get fired. Well I am 58 and I am still standing. But if you never learn that, because you simply make statements that this will happen and that will happen in some far off time, or when the opposite happens say its all part of what you thought, you can again see what the real difference between weather and climate is… THE BOTTOM LINE. In forecasting, you have to be judged by the result of your idea. Apparently the AGW crowd thinks that isnt an issue, that eventually they will be right.

  100. Anyone who says they can forecast the climate 50 or 100 years ahead is either a liar or a fool. Or, most likely, both.

    I’m sure the three technical reasons given are valid. But even if the models had a perfect understanding of how the climate works, they would still almost certainly fail, because climate systems are fundamentally chaotic and the initial conditions can never be known with sufficient precision.

    That damned butterfly in an Amazonion forest has a lot to answer for….
    Chris

  101. TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:27 am
    “Climate is NOT weather projected into the future. Climate creates weather – hang on – in the sense that the Earth acts as a heat engine. It receives energy from the Sun and it is reflected/absorbed/re-radiated back to space. Only two factors essentially govern it’s working – energy in vs energy out, this is constrained by albedo and radiative forcing (and for past epochs by orbital eccentricity). Weather is the chaos in the system – the noise on the general climate trend (up or down). To suppose that climate is weather projected forward is missing seeing the wood by only seeing the trees.”

    This wrong in so many ways, I don’t know what to point out first!

    1. The Earth is not in equilibrium, it does not have ‘A Climate’ in the sense you use it:

    “Moreover, it hardly needs stating that the Earth does not have just one temperature. It is not in global thermodynamic equilibrium – neither within itself nor with its surroundings.
    It is not even approximately so for the climatological questions asked of the temperature
    field. Even when viewed from space at such a distance that the Earth appears as a point
    source, the radiation from it deviates from a black body distribution and so has no one
    temperature [6]. There is also no unique “temperature at the top of the atmosphere”. The
    temperature field of the Earth as a whole is not thermodynamically representable by a single
    temperature.”

    [6] Essex C., Kennedy D., Berry R. S., How hot is radiation?, Am. J. Phys., 71 (2003),
    969–978.

    2. To talk about the Earth’s ‘climate’ as if it was independent of its Geography, let alone its Geology is absurd. I’ll list some of the ‘essential factors’ below:

    a. Oblate spheroid, rotating on axis creating uneven “energy in”! We know these as the seasons! Precession is in flux.
    b. Diameter and hence, speed of rotation at equator faster, creating Coriolis effect, which dominates the global circulation patterns (The trade winds). Creating the major climatic zones (Desert/Jungle)
    c. The shape and geographical distribution of land masses and bodies of water (All of which are in flux).
    e. The Earth’s magnetic field, without which, there would be no atmosphere (It would have blown away in the solar wind)
    f. The Moon and it’s effect on rotation and tides
    g. The earth’s elemental composition. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe yet most of the Earths is locked in the core. “Energy in” and carbon-dioxide are utilised by all life on earth and much is stored as biological mass via photosynthesis.

    I probably didn’t point out the most important but you get the idea.

  102. On the subject of “The Futility of long range Climate Predictions”
    Exhibit A is the IPCC Science Fiction from AR5
    2.5 Projected changes in the climate system pages 30ff

    Headlines (expect to see these in the media soon):

    CO2 will drive warming for centuries to come
    Surface air temperature will be up to 4.8C higher by 2100
    More hot extremes and heat waves
    Less rain in dry areas and more rain in wet regions
    Stronger and wetter cyclones
    Nearly ice-free Arctic by mid century
    NH spring snow cover reduced up to 25%
    Near surface permafrost reduced up to 81%
    Global glacier volume by 2100 reduced up to 85%
    Global mean sea level rises up to 1 m by 2100
    Ocean surface ph 0.3 more acid by 2100

    I think we are supposed to fearful enough to stop using fossil fuels.

  103. TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:27 am
    Weather is the chaos in the system – the noise on the general climate trend (up or down).
    ============
    That is what the models believe, but it is an over simplification. If it was true then climate would be predictable, in the sense that it would be subject to the Law of Large Numbers. Over time you would expect to see a statistically predictable trend. ie: you could predict if climate was statistically more likely to warm or cool.

    However, that is not what you see. At all time scales climate is a fractal distribution. It does not converge about an average, because it has no constant mean. As a result most statistical analysis of climate is misleading at best.

    Weather is not the noise in the climate system. Weather and Climate are measurements of the same physical process at different time scales. As you expand the time scale, weather becomes climate and remains as unpredictable.

  104. So what is a fractal distribution and how does it differ? When one graphs any physical process, typically you get some sort of a wavy line. If you expand the time scale, if the line becomes less wavy then the process is becoming more predictable over time.

    If however the line does not become less wavy, if it maintains the same irregularities at different scales, then you likely have a fractal distribution. This sort of process does not become statistically more predictable as you increase the time scale.

    Now look at a graph of earth’s average temperature over the past million years as compared to the past 1000 years or the past 1 year or the past day? Does climate show any less variability at longer scales? No. If anything climate over the past 1 million years shows greater variability, which shows that climate is no more predictable than weather. The farther you look into the future, the less reliable the prediction.

  105. Eh, let’s not give up the fight. Because we are still here, we know the climate is bounded. Experience tells us the climate will change. That is, the goalposts will move. Even though we can’t accurately predict the weather more than 5 days out, we still make useful predictions. Is there not some value in predicting where the goalposts will be in 50 years? If only there wasn’t the scare-the-rubes-and-collect-some-rent crowd out there co-opting the effort. In civilized society scamming the public is the epitome of evil. If you are doing it, stop right now!!

  106. Leonard Lane – Sir, don’t blame me for sending Willis a small provocation – or for not knowing his health issues. I hope he is doing well. I sent that because Willis didn’t really show me last year in a WUWT post on this subject that he even attempted to understand what Piers Corbyn has been saying all these years before Willis dismissed out of hand what Corbyn says and does.

    I have as much contempt for those who won’t even look at Corbyn’s contributions as I do for those who sell or repeat the carbon dioxide climate connection BS in the first place.

  107. dp says:
    December 11, 2013 at 12:43 am
    Davidmhoffer – are you claiming to the be only person on planet Earth that knows the absolute sign of all the feedbacks and that you and you alone can say with 100% certainty what no scientist in his/her right mind would suggest?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I said no such thing and I resent the implication that I did. Your statement however implies that you don’t understand what I did say, and you’d benefit from reading it again and actually thinking about it before shooting off your mouth.

  108. Mindert Eiting: “Because the climate models failed in their prediction, they can be saved by the unexpected event that all heat disappeared into the deep ocean.”

    That doesn’t “save” the climate models, because they aren’t modeling it. If they were, their predictions would not have been falsified.

    “Unexpected means that this heat flow occurs perhaps once in every million years.”

    And how do you know this?

  109. But global energy budget considerations indicate only about half (0.5oC, not 1oC) of the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage of CO2 should be expected to be expended for temperature compensation.

    The 3.7 is at TOA. At the surface it will be much more, ~9 W/m2.

  110. ***
    davidmhoffer says:
    December 10, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    You’ve no idea how much work keeping one going actually is until you try and do it. How Anth_ny keeps up is quite beyond me.
    ***

    I agree. Parsing WUWT & some other blogs requires (for me) heavy mental processing, and my meager brain runs out by early afternoon. Need a sleep period to regain mental integrity for such blogs.

  111. IgI: no professional scientist or engineer can accept 33 K GHEv (it’s really ~11K once you add the 43% more thermalised SW energy for no clouds or ice).

    Nor that the Earth emits real IR energy as if an isolated black body in Space (Meteorology and Climate Alchemy teach that a pyrgeometer outputs a real energy flux when it’s potential energy to absolute zero).

    Nor that you can apply Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation at ToA.

    Nor that you can offset the increased heating from the resultant perpetual motion machine by double real low level optical depth (and that Physics is wrong too).

    Nor that H2O IR is emitted from the stratosphere (its spectral temperature is ~ -1.5 deg. C, about 2.6 km in temperate climates): this disproves the present interpretation of Tyndall’s experiment!

    Apart from that, the models are fine and should predict a CO2 climate sensitivity of < 0.1 K!

  112. in baseball a hitters average = his climate………his individuals at bats = weather…………..WHICH is in control of the other…..does his average determine the outcome of his next at bat OR does the outcome of that at bat impact his average……the point is simple the climate has NO CONTROL over the weather.

  113. Excellent! Thank you, Dr Gray.
    I wish the UK Chief Scientific Advisor would read the article. He would learn a great deal.

  114. Peter Donis: I could have written something about immunization strategies, but thought this would suffice.

  115. Joel says:December 10, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    Anybody who has bothered to study the progagation of errors in mathematical analyses understands the complete waste of time such complicated models are. It is amazing that most scientists appear to be unfamilar with this problem, or just do not want to face it. …
    …That would make the entire effort appear for what it is. A farce.

    We live in a world of numerical idiots. That would be OK if the idiots just realized they were idiots.
    ——————-
    “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple – teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep – wake him. He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise – follow him.”-Proverbs

  116. Mindert Eiting says:
    December 11, 2013 at 5:58 am
    “My prediction is conditional and its failure does not mean that I am a liar (how dare you).”

    The case is not the same with the CAGW crowd. They have repeatedly told us sceptics that “the science is settled!”, that “the time for discussion is over!” and that “this is just simple high school physics!”

    Well, no. Not so much…

    If I just predict that to the best of my knowledge the bathtub will overflow — and then it does not, well, I am just mistaken and not a liar. On the other hand, if I claim to have positive, unerring, settled, indisputable knowledge that the bathtub will overflow — and then it does not, well, then I am a liar.

    CAGW is a lie.

  117. Thank You, Dr Grey!

    I’m forwarding your essay to my WA state representatives on the “Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup”. Anyone interested in the climate machinations that Gov. Inslee is attempting to implement in the state of Washington can find more info here:

    http://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/economy/climateWorkgroup/default.aspx

    There is a public hearing this Friday from 2 – 5pm at the state capitol in Olympia, to “….hear the publics views on the workgroups draft report and potential policies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Washington state”. Agenda here:

    http://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/economy/climateWorkgroup/documents/Agenda_20131213.pdf

    As expected, the ‘public hearing’ has been gerrymandered to effectively minimize the public input. Two panels of ‘experts’ (lobbyists) will consume a significant part of the time allotted and the remaining time will be distributed to individuals through a lottery system. This effectively minimizes the potential for true individuals to speak and gives organized teams of ‘individuals’ higher odds that one of their people will be selected to deliver the team message.

    A supplemental economic analysis document was added to the last meetings summary. It is enlightening to read the adverse effects that various carbon tax and ‘clean/alternate’ energy proposals will have on economic conditions in Washington state.

    http://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/economy/climateWorkgroup/documents/SupplementalEconomicAnalysis_20131209.pdf

    MtK

  118. Mac the {Knight in Shining Armor},

    Well, how’s it going in that crazy office today? I hope you had a good lunch. Boy, I really feel for you. Not only working with dimbulbs but you live in Environaziland (I live here, too — IT IS HORRIBLE).

    In case you did not see it, I tried to encourage you a little here (Dec. 6, at 6:36pm on that thread):

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/06/filter-bubbles-and-the-climate-wars/#comment-1493892

    Take care and well, just…… just wad up your coat and scream into it, or something. Arrrrrrrgh!

    Janice

  119. Well, looks like even if you embed it within a compound word, the moderation alarm still goes off. FYI: “Environa-zi-land” (withouth the hyphens) is a trigger word, now — unless it was the word “s-cream?” “Arrr–rrgh?” “co-a-t?” (shrug)

  120. @ Tom J — I am easily misunderstood (likely mostly my fault) here on WUWT. I sure hope I didn’t offend you above. Re: mechanics’ hands — those hands with those impossible-to-remove traces of engine grease (or ookumpucky, or whatever, heh), just like the calloused hands of a commercial fisherman or a carpenter or other craftsperson or laborer or like the soil-stained hands of a farmer, are hands to be proud of. They are the most beautiful hands in the world.

  121. garymount says:
    December 10, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Isn’t that the same formula to calculate the number of exo-planetary alien species?
    The formula is useful for xenomorph mitigation. Xenomorph adaptation no so much.

    Wait a minute, I thought it was the formula to calculate the airspeed velocity of an unladen Swallow (European)?

  122. IgI: I have used standard physics.

    The IPCC ‘consensus’ is based on 13 mistakes in physics, 3 of them s elementary as t be embarrassing.

    How we got here is interesting. Thus Physics itself is also to blame by its persistent belief that the atmosphere is a grey body absorber/emitter. It is not, being semi-transparent to IR.

    This is probably the single biggest mistake. Engineers like me don’t make such mistakes because we have to get it right.

  123. Aussiebear says:
    December 10, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    The funny thing is that most people do not understand exactly how LITTLE CO2 makes up the atmosphere! They read 400ppm (parts per million), and see 400, a big, big number.

    Dr Jack Barrett has a PhD in Physical Chemistry. He has written around 70 papers and 10 text books on various aspects of the chemistry and spectroscopy of small molecules. Jack is a noted sceptic of CAGW and has long been a thorn in the side of the IPCC. However, like many responsible sceptics he is continually exasperated by certain less informed sceptics. In response to your point about the insignificance of CO2 in the atmosphere, Jack might suggest the following ‘experiments’

    1. Try 400 ppmv of arsenic oxide with a mug of tea or, perhaps, a safer option
    2. Take a jug containing a litre of water. The water is transparent to visible radiation. But then add a few drops of milk and stir. This is equivalent of diluting the milk by a factor of about 5000, i.e. the milk ‘concentration’ is 500 ppmv. Is there any visible effect?

    The second ‘experiment’ is highly relevant. Just as the milk in the water changes the transparency of the liquid to visible radiation, CO2 alters the transparency of the atmosphere to LWIR (at certain wavelengths).

    If you doubt the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, check out this Climate Audit post by Steve McIntyre.

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/

    Scroll down to Fig 3, i.e. the emission spectrum graph. Underneath the graph, Steve has written

    The large notch or “funnel” in the spectrum is due to “high cold” emissions from tropopause CO2 in the main CO2 band. CO2 emissions (from the perspective of someone in space) are the coldest. (Sometimes you hear people say that there’s just a “little bit” of CO2 and therefore it can’t make any difference: but, obviously, there’s enough CO2 for it to be very prominent in these highly relevant spectra, so this particular argument is a total non-starter as far as I’m concerned. )

  124. Janice Moore
    December 11, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    ‘@ Tom J — I am easily misunderstood (likely mostly my fault) here on WUWT. I sure hope I didn’t offend you above.’

    Dear Janice,
    I certainly hope you get my rather late reply to your statement above. No, no, no, I am most decidedly not offended in the least by anything you’ve said, kiddo. I may be a motorhead but my occupation, before I went on disability, was as a commercial artist. So, my hands are set up a little more for delicate, precision work, although I’ve dropped a few transmissions, changed clutches, pulled a cylinder head, tuned ‘em, and changed a fair amount of oil in my time. Unfortunately my oil changing days on my 1989 Alfa Romeo Milano are over. I still tinker with it though.

    No need to apologize since there’s nothing to apologize for. Know of a nice 426 Hemi for sale?

  125. John Finn: the effect of the ‘CO2 bite’, 1.2 K Climate Sensitivity without feedback (and there is none) assumes that there is no bypass mechanism: there is.

  126. to Terry Oldberg : please stop trying to defend the indefensible, Climate models are no go good for any play on words you may try to use. They amount to this ‘garbage in garbage out’.

  127. Konrad says:
    December 11, 2013 at 5:24 am
    “CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a “radiation only” perspective”

    Dr. Gray is close to “getting it”, but not quite.

    The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

    To understand this, you only have to understand 4 simple points –

    1. Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to continued strong vertical tropospheric circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar tropospheric convection cells.
    2. The observed lapse rate below the topopause is a result of strong vertical circulation of gases across a gravity induced pressure gradient.
    3. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. (sorry Willis, but empirical experiment proves you wrong)
    4. Without radiative cooling at altitude and the resultant strong vertical tropospheric circulation, our atmosphere would trend isothermal, with its temperature driven by surface Tmax, not surface Tav. (sorry Dr. Spencer, but empirical experiment proves you wrong)

    That’s it. That’s all you need to know. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. Global warming is a physical impossibility.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Konrad I believe you have it right … until the last paragraph.
    You do appreciate that the black-body temp of the Earth is 255K – yet we live on a planet of ave temp 288K. What causes the 33K temp differential, if not GHG’s?

    GHG’s do not reduce the atmosphere’s (absolute cooling) ability but they DO set that cooling to occur at a higher temperature.

    Consider that the Earth had no GHG’s or water – then the LR (lapse rate) would be set by turbulent motion moving air down (warming lower down – compression) and air up (cooling aloft – rarefaction). This due various processes including latitudinal temp differential and formation of jet-streams via Coriolis, (dry) convection etc. So a LR is set after time. Now in this (hypothetical) world the atmosphere is transparent to ALL radiation (no heating other than a narrow surface lyr due conduction at the surface). In this case the temperature would be set at the surface at 255K (snowball earth or black-body temp in equilibrium with solar) and the LR would proceed upwards from that.
    Now just as the coolest time of day is not at dawn but a little time after because radiation (SW) in, needs to equal radiation (IR) out, before temps can rise, then when GHG’s are added to the atmosphere this absorption/re-emission moves the balance of SW in vs IR out higher up (they absorb IR and so now the surface is not the balance point). Such that on Earth this is at around ~7km. With absorption efficiency proportional to air density, and integrating over the depth of the atmosphere this yields an exponential decrease of temperature with altitude because of the exponential decrease in air density, and a temperature at the top of atmosphere of about 210 K – that, that we see at the Tropopause.

    http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html#13581

    Any further addition of GHG’s moves the balance point higher up and resets the LR to that point with a consequent rise in surface temp.
    So, in short, GW (via GHG’s) is a physical fact.

  128. lgl says:

    The 3.7 is at TOA. At the surface it will be much more, ~9 W/m2.

    I make it about 6.6 w/m2 at the surface. Using a very rough, very simple model we have in “pre-industrial” times

    OLR (to space) = Incoming Solar radiation =~ 240 w/m2

    Surface energy flux = ~388 w/m2.

    Double atmospheric CO2 so that OLR = 236 w/m2 (reduction of 4 w/m2)

    Fraction of OLR/Surface = 236/388 = 0.608

    Because OLR is less than Incoming Solar then the surface must warm and continue to warm until balance is restored.

    New Surface Temp = 240/0.608 = 394.57 w/m2 i.e. an increase of ~6.6 w/m2. This represents a temperature increase of ~1.2 degrees (14.6K -> 15.8K).

    • John,

      This is wrong because most of the GHE is due to water vapor and not CO2. You can’t use a simple ratio off OLR between the surface and TOA to derive a figure of 6.6 watts/m2 surface forcing. The TOA forcing of 3.7 watts/m2 will be the same as that at the surface to first order neglecting any water vapor feedback.

      This is where the 1C figure of warming for a doubling of CO2 comes from because the Planck response DS = 4.sigma.T^3.DT works out at 3.5 watts/m2/deg.C.

      Dr Gray argues that 1.8 watts / m2 is expended in latent heat of evaporation from oceans. He assumes zero feedback from H2O to derive 0.5C warming. The whole AGW argument boil down to just one thing.

      How does the water cycle act to a change in forcing ?

      For me the answer is obvious. The presence of 70% ocean cover on Earth must stabilize the climate from any excursions in climate otherwise the oceans would have boiled away billions of years ago as the sun’s radiation has increased by 30% since the oceans formed.

  129. AlecM says:
    December 11, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    John Finn: the effect of the ‘CO2 bite’, 1.2 K Climate Sensitivity without feedback (and there is none) assumes that there is no bypass mechanism: there is.

    I look forward to your paper explaining, providing evidence for and quantifying the “bypass mechanism”.

  130. I would like to see even one of the “settled science” crowd debate Dr. Gray .
    Al Gore isn’t even worth consideration.
    It is absolutely incredible that the scientific community sits by while scam artists use them to validate utter nonsense.
    Way to go Dr Gray!

  131. Tom J;
    Know of a nice 426 Hemi for sale?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Nice? Sacrilegious! There was nothing nice about the 426 Hemi. It is a 30+ year old engine that still strikes fear into the hearts of muscle car owners everywhere. I remember a one page ad in one of the muscle car mags back in the 60’s that had the list of all the performance features of the engine, and at the bottom it said “425 Horse Power”. At the bottom of the page, in print so fine you needed a magnifying glass to read it, it said:

    So, you’re wondering, with all that, why only 425 HP? Well, if it was 585 HP, it wouldn’t be street legal.

  132. Dear Tom J (and davidmhoffer),

    Thank you, so much. I wish someone as kind and thoughtful as you had not had to go onto disability. I hope the opening of the door to art has proven to be rewarding and gives you much joy. Heh, no, try Craig’s List. ;)

    Re: davidmhoffer’s point about horsepower — wow — that was impressive 30 years ago. Pretty amazing. In the 1960’s and early 70’s, Chevy had to be similarly careful with its stated specs for several of its models. Would you believe (yes, I’m sure you would) that there was a tort case in the U.S. where the plaintiff sued because Chevrolet made a car that went so fast he said that it “caused” his injuries. I forget who won. Regardless, I think it influenced the speedometer’s to only go up to 120 (or whatever the max became). A good thing that came out of tort litigation (not all that lawyers do is bad) was the collapsible hood ornaments — the old ones were a cruel beauty.

    Okay, I will stop, now. Enjoyed the friendly banter. Science can be fun, but muscle cars rock!

    Your WUWT ally,

    Janice

  133. TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:03 pm
    ———————————————–

    “You do appreciate that the black-body temp of the Earth is 255K – yet we live on a planet of ave temp 288K. What causes the 33K temp differential, if not GHG’s?”

    Right there you have your finger on the central problem of the failed radiative green house hypothesis. Attempting to apply SB equations to determine the “surface” temperature of a moving gas atmosphere with a pressure gradient over a liquid water ocean was a critical mistake. Claiming a black body temperature for such a planet derived through the misapplication of SB equations to moving fluids is a nonsense.

    “GHG’s do not reduce the atmosphere’s (absolute cooling) ability but they DO set that cooling to occur at a higher temperature.”

    No, that won’t work either. Without the ability to both absorb and emit radiation, our atmosphere would still be heated by surface conduction and the release of latent heat, but it would have no effective means of cooling. Surface conduction is ineffective at cooling a moving gas atmosphere with a pressure gradient. The experiment to demonstrate this is simple. Without radiative gases, our atmosphere can easily heat, but it cannot easily cool.

    “Consider that the Earth had no GHG’s or water – then the LR (lapse rate) would be set by turbulent motion moving air down (warming lower down – compression) and air up (cooling aloft – rarefaction).”

    The lapse rate is a product of strong vertical convective circulation below the tropopause. This circulation is dependant on radiative cooling allowing subsidence of air masses at altitude. Without radiative gases, tropospheric convective circulation in Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells would stall and the atmosphere would trend isothermal through gas conduction. Quite simply the speed of tropospheric convective circulation and the resulting lapse rate is dependant on radiative gases.

    Global warming believers often cite the 1938 work of G. S. Callendar. What they never mention is the 1938 response of Sir George Simpson –
    “………….but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr. Callendar had obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect.”

    Sir George Simpson’s criticism is as valid today as it was in 1938. You should note the similarity to Dr. Gray’s statement – “CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a “radiation only” perspective”

    Neither the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis nor its foundation, the radiative greenhouse hypothesis, are valid. You cannot determine a “black-body” temperature for the planet by applying SB equations to a moving gas atmosphere over a liquid water ocean. You cannot calculate changes in radiative flux into and out of the lower and upper atmosphere without simultaneously calculating the changes in speed of tropospheric convective circulation and thereby the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface.

    There is a slight radiative greenhouse effect on earth, most notable over land at night. However the NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm

  134. If the atmosphere couldn’t radiate (via GHGs) it could cool only by evaporative gas escape into space. The equilibrium point of that process is not a survivable one.

  135. @ Eric Simpson — fwiw — I read the Forbes article you linked at 9:44pm yesterday. Thank you for sharing that. It nicely covered the basics for non-scientists. The author obviously had done his homework, however…, I would have tightened up the style (he needs to take a lesson on conciseness and more powerful sentence structure from YOU, Mr. Simpson) and used a chart for a big chunk of those CO2-and-temperature-levels-through-the-ages-numbers. Forbes magazine started pushing “green” garbage a few years ago and I stopped reading them. Great to know that, as of May, 2011, at least, they published this!

  136. Hey, Wrecktafire, did you have a chance to look at that thread I linked for you above (yesterday at 10:16pm)? I think you’d thoroughly enjoy reading the comments on it. If my taking liberties with your name offended you, please forgive me. I just wanted you to know someone recognized your wit.

    Janice

  137. Wreck;
    It doesn’t take billions of times. One or two bad guesses (or biased plugs) can roon the whole demmed thang. And every parameter is a fudge begging to be tweaked.

  138. @Janice: I have not yet read the link–I will put it in my queue. Thanks for the thought!
    And I did not interpret your reference to my screen name as a negative thing, not in the least.
    -W

  139. Konrad 4:48pm: “There is a slight radiative greenhouse effect on earth..”

    Dr. Gray top post: “…a doubling of CO2 should be expected to cause a global (surface) warming of no more than about 0.2-0.4C.”

    G.S. Callendar 1938: CO2 Mean Global Surface Delta T 0.16C for 20th century, 0.36C 21st century (Table VI).

    Well, well, at least 3 reasoned agreements (rounded) along with many modern atm. thermo. text books. In accord with GHCN thermometer century scale observations (rounded).

    For the simple but not easy basic “slight” GHE (Konrad term) physics, see the Callendar 1938 paper and the link by TB 12/11 3:03pm Chapter 7. Recognize the effects of varying measured f term (fraction terrestrial radiation absorption by atm.) in eqn. 7.16 (for those can read math ex Konrad).

    Also see GS Callendar 1938 p. 239 reply to Sir George Simpson that Konrad did not clip.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

  140. Hi, Brian H,
    My reference to the billions of times is from the number of cells in the 3-dimensional grid that the modelers use in a GCM, times the number of time-slices used in a model run. If errors are reasonably small and no X factors come in (such as from the sun or a volcano), a model has a decent shot at putting a few accurate years together.
    But you are right: the acknowledged poverty of cloud water vapor parts of the models is a stake through the heart of the GCM beast. There is great room for improvement, and I expect that such improvement will take place, if for no other reason that the modellers are getting a terrific spanking by reality. :-)

  141. John Finn: the paper is in preparation. The Quantification is via the reduction of atmospheric water vapour as pCO2 has increased.

    Glad that you picked up on this point because it has been missed by Climate Alchemy. yet ti is obvious to any process engineer with knowledge of control systems.

  142. Clive Best says:
    December 11, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    John,

    This is wrong because most of the GHE is due to water vapor and not CO2. You can’t use a simple ratio off OLR between the surface and TOA to derive a figure of 6.6 watts/m2 surface forcing. The TOA forcing of 3.7 watts/m2 will be the same as that at the surface to first order neglecting any water vapor feedback.

    It’s not wrong. Over- simplified maybe – but not wrong. A surface energy flux of ~390 w/m2 drives a
    TOA flux ~240 w/m2 (i.e. equivalent to incoming solar energy). As CO2 accumulates in the upper DRIER and colder atmosphere the average emission altitude is increased. In other words more energy is emitted from a colder region. The rate of emission will, therefore, decrease (S-B Law). Line by line radiative transfer equations (e.g. as used by MODTRAN) show that doubling CO2 reduces the outflow of LWIR by ~3.7 w/m2. To restore the energy balance the surface temperature will need to increase by ~1.2 degrees C (not including feedbacks).

    For me the answer is obvious. The presence of 70% ocean cover on Earth must stabilize the climate from any excursions in climate ….

    ice ages?

  143. AlecM says:
    December 11, 2013 at 11:01 pm

    John Finn: the paper is in preparation. The Quantification is via the reduction of atmospheric water vapour as pCO2 has increased.

    You have evidence for this reduction in atmospheric water vapour?
    Do the glacial/interglacial transitions not pose a bit of a stumbling block?

  144. There is ample evidence of the reduction of atmospheric water vapour, e.g. Solomons et al which showed a fall of stratospheric pH2O by 10% since 2000. Also Miskolczi showed 61 years of radiosonde data proving reduction of pH2O.

    The glacial/interglacial transitions are from biofeedback via the thermohaline circulation system. Turn it off and the Fe trace element decreases so you have much lower phytoplankton growth, also lower pCO2 (cooler oceans) means terrestrial vegetation collapses too. The mechanism is an increase in cloud albedo – Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong, as is all that part of Climate Alchemy dependent on it!

  145. Trick says:
    December 11, 2013 at 9:43 pm
    —————————————————-
    Oh no Trick, you’ve gone and done it again!

    You cite Callendar’s reply to Sir George Simpson in the hope that it supports the case for global warming. It clearly doesn’t.

    “..in replying, G. S. Callendar said he realised the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface and also that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”

    Read that again “without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply”. That is exactly what radiative gases are doing. They play a critical role in strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. They therefore play a critical role in the primary mechanism of energy transport and distribution within our atmosphere. Sir George Simpson’s criticisms are valid. Callendar did not properly consider atmospheric circulation and certainly didn’t understand the critical role radiative gases play in driving it.

    It is also notable that that nowhere in Callendar’s work does he even address the role of radiative gases in cooling the upper atmosphere.

    Oh, and TB’s link? The usual static atmosphere two layer radiative model tripe. No modelling of atmospheric circulation responses to increased radiative absorption by the lower atmosphere and increased radiative emission by the upper atmosphere. There is the brief hand waving about GCMs being “three dimensional” but of course that is also tripe. GCMs do not have the vertical resolution to model what Callendar also failed to compute.

    The cites both you and TB offered have essentially proved Dr. Gray’s statement – “CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a “radiation only” perspective” to be correct.

  146. Konrad says:
    December 11, 2013 at 4:48 pm
    TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:03 pm
    ———————————————–

    >snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Konrad the BB temp of the Earth is that reached either without an atmosphere or one that is GHG free. A BB temp has nothing to do with moving gases or oceans – it is a simple property of a BB – the SOLID earth (has to be a BB means having a transparent atmosphere). This gives a temp of –18C. Now suppose this atmosphere is of N2, which does not absorb/emit IR. Sunlight is converted to heat at the planets surface, and to maintain energy balance, radiates back to space. This goes straight through the N2. The surface will warm to just the temp that’s needed, on average, to achieve that outward radiation level (BB temp).
    The surface will not be uniform. Some parts will be hotter than others, and this will set up local turbulence/convection. Growing and taking heat from the tropics to colder parts. The N2 will be in motion.
    There will be some energy exchange from this convection but on balance, heat flux to the N2 goes nowhere. For N2 cannot emit it to space. It can only conduct it back to the surface (somewhere).

    Therefor the BB calculation for a planet with a non-GHG atmosphere is very much valid.

    “The lapse rate is a product of strong vertical convective circulation below the tropopause. This circulation is dependent on radiative cooling allowing subsidence of air masses at altitude. Without radiative gases, tropospheric convective circulation in Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells would stall and the atmosphere would trend isothermal through gas conduction. Quite simply the speed of tropospheric convective circulation and the resulting lapse rate is dependent on radiative gases.”

    Konrad. The LR is much more than a product of convective circulation, Convection in temperate/polar zones plays but apart of atmospheric motion. Jet-stream and baroclinically and vortically induced uplift via thermal wind/Coriolis predominate.

    And no, the atmosphere would not stall and trend isothermal through conduction. Conduction would take an order of magnitude to work though from the surface to the trop. Air would be in motion way before then. Frictional slowing at the surface and differential “conduction” would cause motion and hence turbulence. This turbulence (obviously) means some vertical motion, which brings in the gas laws and a “heat pump” action would transport heat down and cool the upper layers. Take a balloon from 10000ft down to 1000ft it will compress and warm. Now a similar “balloon” must rise to replace it. This rises and cools. Now remember this is an isotherm atmosphere and so it arrives aloft and cools it’s surrounding just as the descending “balloon” warms” it. Over time a LR forms (not yet the DALR). Remember this is achieved by turbulence NOT convection. Remember also, there will be day/night and great latitudinal differences in surfacing heating to get all this going.

    “….The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere….”

    “You cannot determine a “black-body” temperature for the planet by applying SB equations to a moving gas atmosphere over a liquid water ocean. You cannot calculate changes in radiative flux into and out of the lower and upper atmosphere without simultaneously calculating the changes in speed of tropospheric convective circulation and thereby the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface.”

    We do not determine a black body temp for a planet by applying SB to the atmosphere. It’s mass makes this irrelevant in the first instance (1000th of the mass of the oceans). And oceans radiate as well. We do not need (in this transparent air) to calculate changes in radiative flux. It is zero within it. It is a non BB and therefore irrelevant (in this special case).

    All that applies is the BB temp that this planet reaches – on Earth it WOULD be 255K (-18C). Oceans, or in this case ice, do not matter as they radiate also and would eventually come into equilibrium with the average temp of the land-mass. You then have your steady state conditions. Now put a transparent atmosphere on this planet (ignoring the initial LR due to compression). Yes it would be isothermal and then comes the build up of turbulent mixing as described above. The convection will come later in the process when the adiabatic loss of internal energy in the rising and expanding air parcel matches that of the mechanically induced LR and specifically when less. Then “true” convection starts.

    Now put GHG’s into this atmosphere and radiative effects come into play. Experiment/theory has shown for ~150 years that GHG’s slow electromagnetic transmission via diffusion/back-scattering/re-emission.
    These gases have the effect of raising the radiative surface of the (now) Earth (~7km) and hence the LR starts from there (ave temp globally at 7km matches the BB temp of -18C). The LR remains the same and continues to the surface to reach there at +15C.

    “There is a slight radiative greenhouse effect on earth, most notable over land at night. However the NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm”

    So you are saying that the v high temperature of Venus’s CO2 atmosphere is entirely due to weight of atmosphere?

    Konrad, I spent many years of my career on long night-shifts monitoring the weather for road hazards whilst making/delivering Forecasts. Road temperature sensors respond very quickly to cloud cover, even thin Cirrus at a temp of –30C at 30000ft will cause an immediate slowing/reversal of cooling (NOT heating – just a slowing of emission and heating via ground flux –because of re-emission of IR. The GHE from a thin layer of (frozen) water 6 miles up. This is obvious as we can see clouds. GHG’s do the same unseen. They just do, sorry.

  147. John Finn says:
    December 12, 2013 at 1:50 am
    “As CO2 accumulates in the upper DRIER and colder atmosphere the average emission altitude is increased. In other words more energy is emitted from a colder region. The rate of emission will, therefore, decrease (S-B Law).”

    But, consider this:

    Satellite measurements of Earth emission data show that the IR photons absorbed by CO2 molecules are not re-emitted before the energy gained is redistributed by collisions with other non-greenhouse gas molecules. We know this because the re-emission of radiation does not occur at a black body temperature of 288K and instead occurs at a black body temperature of about 210 to 220K characteristic of general air temperatures at altitudes from 10.5 km to 22 km.

    This part of the atmosphere is called the tropopause, where the temperature does not vary much from an average of 217K. Any change in the effective radiating level in the tropopause will not reduce the heat emitted, and not cause atmospheric warming.

  148. Konrad 2:57am: “(interfering with arrival of heat) is exactly what radiative gases are doing.”

    Thanks for good form completing your Callendar 1938 clip. That’s progress. However until you can effectively rebut Fig. 7-11 in the Chapt. 7 link provided by TB 3:03pm, your assertion here is empirically proven incorrect for the sun, earth, atm. thermo. system in the context of Callendar’s reply.

    “…nowhere in Callendar’s work does he even address the role of radiative gases in cooling the upper atmosphere.”

    Unsupported assertion. Please refer Callendar’s Table V for upper atmosphere consideration and the discussion pp. 229-230. Especially paragraph 4 p. 229. I should not have to spell it out for you since GS Callendar does it well enough even in the light of your Sir George Simpson clip & reply in the 1938 paper.

    “..two layer radiative model tripe.”

    Progress is achieved by showing exactly where the worthless tripe is found in TB 3:03pm link for Chapt. 7. You won’t be able to do so with sound theory and empirical test – only support you offer so far is your informal assertion of problems in GCMs obvious to all.

  149. @Janice Moore: thanks for the good read. Yes, there were excellent comments (on how the exact same models could produce different results on different computers).

    Two things about the article bugged me (I’ll have to post to that thread):
    1 It would be nice to know what the mean was, to compare the standard deviation with
    2 The table could use more explanation. Without more info, I am wondering if the column headers “initial condition ensemble” and “software system ensemble” were accidentally swapped, based on what is varying in the columns beneath.

    Perhaps Mr. Watts can help us out?

  150. Climate models treat the future as an average. However, the future is not an average. Here is an example that shows why:

    Say for example you bought 1 lottery ticket each year for $1. The prize was $1 million, and the odds of winning 1 in 5 million.

    The climate models would predict that on average each year you would win 20 cents from $1 bet, for a net loss of 80 cents per year. After 10 years you would be down $8.

    However, when we actually arrive at the future 10 years from now we will find it is nothing like what the climate models predict. Almost certainly you will be down $10, not the $8 predicted by the climate models. Or with long odds you could be up almost $1 million or more.

    However, in no case will you be down the $8 predicted. Yet the IPCC is 95% sure that is the correct answer.

  151. “Deterministic” climate???
    How that??
    What a fool claims that?

    Climate is a nonlinear system of higher order.
    A stochastic behavior is very usual for nonlinear system of high order.
    It is rather an exception when a highly nonlinear system behaves deterministically.

  152. Speaking of climate prediction, do the climate models take into account the slowing of the jet stream when solar cycle diminishes? There has been precious little said on this subject when in fact the jet stream greatly affects the weather bringing unanticipated heat waves, cold snaps, droughts, and pushes/stirs hurricanes. What is the effect of a slowing jet stream on North America’s climate?

  153. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 10, 2013 at 7:08 pm
    Anthony:

    “You mischaracterize a “fallacious argument” as a “semantic issue.” Hopefully, your editorial policy does not favor fallacious arguments. Please clarify.”

    You are not going to find a lot of support here for an argument that can be characterized as “semantics.” For the vast majority of scientists and engineers, if you raise a semantic point then their eyes glaze over. So, pick your battles carefully.

    As for those who wonder why semantics matters at all, the answer is that the predicate “…is true” is a semantic predicate. The idea of truth can be explained and explicated only through semantics. The authority on that is the late W. V. Quine. You can give up semantics as long as you are willing to give up all claims to truth including the claim that the moon orbits the earth and the claim that our current understanding of radiative physics is true. Hey, others have done it. For example, President Obama is very proud of having become what he calls a “pragmatist.” Now, Obama talks about only “what works” versus “what doesn’t work.”

    Finally, when you give up talking about truth you also give up talking about prediction.

  154. @ Wrecktafire — glad you enjoyed that. Yeah, the article wasn’t the best part of that post. I hope you can find out an answer to your Q. J

  155. This would be a good time for guidance from Dr. Gray on the seasonal winter forecast recently issued by the Feds that indicated mild conditions this winter for a large swath of the country. That prediction was much different from recent private sector forecasting for commodity futures market research. Since then it has been bitter cold in a good section of the “mild” areas indicated by said Federal agencies. While a cold spell itself does not determine the seasonal outcome, it is worth watching in the case of Federal agencies that simultaneously post global warming information sections and policy positions on their official web portals. The question of impropriety and professionalism is not limited to the UK MET office on this topic.

  156. Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
    December 11, 2013 at 6:37 am
    TB says:
    December 11, 2013 at 3:27 am

    AND by way of reply to fredburple

    “This wrong in so many ways, I don’t know what to point out first!

    1. The Earth is not in equilibrium, it does not have ‘A Climate’ in the sense you use it: “Moreover, it hardly needs stating that the Earth does not have just one temperature. It is not in global thermodynamic equilibrium – neither within itself nor with its surroundings.
    It is not even approximately so for the climatological questions asked of the temperature
    field. Even when viewed from space at such a distance that the Earth appears as a point
    source, the radiation from it deviates from a black body distribution and so has no one
    temperature [6]. There is also no unique “temperature at the top of the atmosphere”. The
    temperature field of the Earth as a whole is not thermodynamically representable by a single
    temperature.”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Scott:
    The Earth is not in equilibrium – at the moment, which is why sea/air temps are rising. However , as it lies in the vacuum of space as an ultimate sink for the Solar energy it receives, basic physics says it should be – by radiative balance. It (in normal conditions) necessarily is in equilibrium with its surroundings (space at 3K). Put a rotating object in a vacuum and heat it with an IR lamp. Comes a point when the object gets no hotter as the S-B law ensures a certain temperature it must reach such that radiation received = radiation emitted. Simple as that. The climate is ultimately governed by that equation. The balance point of energy and the average temp of the planet it causes. Weather happens because of this temperature, topography, spin, the presence of water. Ice sheets etc form to alter albedo feeding back into weather until a steady-state is formed. Weather then produces noise on the climate signal.
    It does not matter that it “is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with itself” as that is what causes weather – NOT climate. This comes back to the idea that weather is a runaway train and creates it’s own climate –it does not. It is the Drivers external to the Earth and within it (chiefly albedo) and in the longer term, orbital eccentricity, that determine the climate. That, yes, is chaotic but it is internal to the system and apart from initiating feed-backs it will still result in ultimately the same emission at TOA (averaged temporally/spacially).

    Analogy: Put a known quantity of water in a pan on an electric hob and apply heat. The water will arrive at boiling point in a known amount of time using a known amount of electricity (given known initial temp, volume and atm press). Yes? What we don’t know – cannot know (predict) is the movement of the molecules in the pan that convectively/turbulently move heat around that pan. That is the chaos akin to weather on Earth —- and as I said the outcome of the water reaching a known temp with a known amount of energy IS predictable. You see, the chaos (or if you like non-thermal balance is INTERNAL ) it merely moves around heat that is already in it – it cannot change the ave temp of the whole system.

    So it is with the Earth – know the solar constant and the Earth’s albedo, it’s atmospheric GHG effect and knowing also heat stored in the oceans we can/do work out the direction of the average temp of Earth is going.
    There are some inponderables – such as cloud feed-back effects but they cause radiative warming as well as reflective SW cooling, and current studies are undecided on which effect dominates.
    Other feed-backs are either +ve or small.

    “deviates from a black body distribution and so has no one temperature [6]. There is also no unique “temperature at the top of the atmosphere”. The temperature field of the Earth as a whole is not thermodynamically representable by a single temperature.”

    Of course there is “no one temperature” – I didn’t say there was – we are talking averages here – the system temp. Yes, it is thermodynamically representable by a single temperature – that’s basic physics of a system in equilibrium in space (which is should be bar any changes to the largely external forcings I’ve mentioned).
    For radiative balance everything CAN be boiled down to one temp after working out solar in – IR out + Solar reflected.
    Also I’ve studied more tephigrams, or if in the US, SkewT profiles of the environmental atmosphere in all parts of the world to know that the TOA cannot be represented by “one temp” – again we can use an average though.

    The atmosphere isn’t independent of the Earth – the whole thing is the same system radiatively from/to space.
    The atmosphere is also heated by conduction/convection/LH take-up/release – but that has just taken the heat elsewhere! It still has to be radiated away to space – which is what the climate system MUST do.

    Having no radiative gases means all radiation can pass through unimpeded – so solar comes in and terrestrial IR goes out, both equally unimpeded. There are radiative gases the triatomics (H2O, CH4, CO2 and O3) make the atmosphere part of the radiative system and not independent of it.

    “2. To talk about the Earth’s ‘climate’ as if it was independent of its Geography, let alone its Geology is absurd. I’ll list some of the ‘essential factors’ below:
    a. Oblate spheroid, rotating on axis creating uneven “energy in”! We know these as the seasons! Precession is in flux.”

    It is independent of it’s geography in the “Climate” at study we are talking of the long-term climate over the next century or so – and just as the shape of the pan in which the water is boiled in my analogy above does not matter – neither does Earth’s geography. That churns about the internal energy before it is radiated away to space. The Radiative balance of the Earth does not care where the heat escapes to space from – whether straight to space the IR window or from land/mountains or sea, or air in any part of the atmosphere.

    “b. Diameter and hence, speed of rotation at equator faster, creating Coriolis effect, which dominates the global circulation patterns (The trade winds). Creating the major climatic zones (Desert/Jungle)”

    Look, I’m a retired Meteorologist (you know – same as was/is Anthony’s profession)
    So No need to teach me the above.
    Again that is irrelevant – we know the amount of Solar energy hitting the TOA (top of atmosphere) ie 342W/m^2 and we can measure what goes out – there is a disparity of ~0.6 +/-0.2W/m^2. It is the total system (easily quantified) that is important – and not the variation of temperature of various climatic regions. We need to know long-term and all can be averaged out – pan of water analogy.”

    GCM’s seek to quantify as much of the chaos within the system as possible – because that is what science always seeks to do – however apart from quantifying feed-backs all it will do is reduce the error bars – a general trend could be discovered without. Just as average global temp correlates the Milankovitch cycles ( bar some feed-back effects ). And also, I may say with CO2.

    “c. The shape and geographical distribution of land masses and bodies of water (All of which are in flux).”
    As above.

    “e. The Earth’s magnetic field, without which, there would be no atmosphere (It would have blown away in the solar wind)”
    ? No connection with climate.

    “f. The Moon and it’s effect on rotation and tides”
    Some minor effects again with gravity waves imparted upon the atmosphere/oceans but generally a constant.

    “g. The earth’s elemental composition. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe yet most of the Earths is locked in the core. “Energy in” and carbon-dioxide are utilised by all life on earth and much is stored as biological mass via photosynthesis.”
    Correct but what has this to do with the climate other than that described by the carbon cycle which is taken into account by GCM’s

    “I probably didn’t point out the most important but you get the idea.”

    Look I do, please don’t take this explanation of your points the wrong way – they are all common mis-perception of the way works – ultimately the Earth in managing it’s energy budget from the sun then out again to space. It is ONLY the balance of that equation that matters in the end.

    Please watch this video from NASAEarthobservatory 3:35min

    Note there is NO mention of anything happening within the Earth to interrupt the basic balance..

    BTW: there is nothing here I’ve said that you will not find in text books etc.
    Also: I can say no more on the subject.

    • Thanks TB,

      Are we sure though that this statement is actually true?

      Again that is irrelevant – we know the amount of Solar energy hitting the TOA (top of atmosphere) ie 342W/m^2 and we can measure what goes out – there is a disparity of ~0.6 +/-0.2W/m^2.

      CERES admit that the absolute measurement errors on incoming SW and OLR is greater than 1 deg.C. The quoted disparity of 0.6 w.m2 is actually fudged to agree with models ! This would be the key peace of evidence that the Earth is warming if only it were true. However the empirical data doesn’t actually prove that. It is just too convenient for climate scientist to state that CERES measurements apparently confirm their models. But they don’t.

      It is a circular argument !

  157. TB says:

    “The Earth is not in equilibrium – at the moment, which is why sea/air temps are rising. However , as it lies in the vacuum of space as an ultimate sink for the Solar energy it receives, basic physics says it should be…”

    Wrong. TB preposterously claims that the climate was always in equilibrium – until human activity presumably threw everything out of kilter. That is the thoroughly debunked Michael Mann argument, as expressed in his original Hokey Stick chart.

    Let’s hear whether the climate has just begun changing, from the world’s preeminent Climatologist, the director of atmospheric studies at M.I.T., who has more than 200 peer reviewed climate papers to his credit:

    The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat… For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

    Now, who should we listen to? The world’s foremost climatologist? Or to someone who remains anonymous while claiming to have credentials? Readers can decide which one is credible, because they are saying completely different things.

  158. Clive 4:10pm: “… the empirical data doesn’t actually prove (a disparity of ~0.6 +/-0.2W/m^2.)”

    Not all circular. The Stephens et. al. 2012 imbalance discussion points to the thermometer measured upper ocean energy content changes as the source for this figure with 95% confidence interval (not the GCMs). The cite points to Lyman et. al. Nature 2010 measured for the period 1993-2008. It is reported CERES data with higher uncertainty tends to trend reasonably in same amount.

    2003 to 2008 Argo data suggests 0.77 +/- 0.11 W/m^2 global ocean or 0.54 W/m^2 entire Earth. So the various data are good for now but climate variables can change per a certain MIT director 1:56pm.

    I expect career level funding will continue in order to monitor the changes.

  159. TB says:
    December 12, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond point for point. These were the first to come off the top of my head! It was very early in the morning here and I just wanted to raise issues that seemed to me, are often glossed over by experts. I am always aware that this is an open forum and my posts are written to the readers as much as to an individual or avatar. It has worked out well in this case, because you have teased out issues that are important to me as a layman and hopefully to others as well. I believe I understood your position before making my post and I think you understand mine. What I want to get at, is to bring these two arguments closer together!

    I do agree and accept Radiative Equilibrium as a describe by the Stefan–Boltzmann law (S-B) for a black body.
    The general case for a grey-body appears to allow for albedo but as it is described as ‘emissivity’ it is not entirely clear to me at least, if this is independent of GHG emissivity (As a separate calculation is usual). However, I also agree, in the case of the Earth, that since the emissivity of radiation by Greenhouse gases is reduced more than the absorptivity, the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates.

    What I have difficulty with, is the derivation of the variables and assumptions made about constants when applied to the Earth’s climate.
    To begin, I find the way the equations are often used, tends to collapse time, exaggerating stasis in order to get to equilibrium. I’ll come back to this point.

    The important variables that move the calculations away from the theory, for me, are albedo and GHG emissivity.
    In terms of time, when is the albedo calculated? It is clear, you don’t mean geological time, nor ancient historical time but do you mean in the last century, this decade, this past year or today? I’m not being trite, I do wonder because it is clear that a vast range of average temperatures are possible due to the REAL difference in albedo documented on the Earth over time.

    TB said:
    “It is independent of it’s geography in the “Climate” at study we are talking of the long-term climate over the next century or so – and just as the shape of the pan in which the water is boiled in my analogy above does not matter – neither does Earth’s geography. That churns about the internal energy before it is radiated away to space. The Radiative balance of the Earth does not care where the heat escapes to space from – whether straight to space the IR window or from land/mountains or sea, or air in any part of the atmosphere.”

    To my point about the Earth sciences ;-)

    ALBEDO is geology and geography, it is earth, snow, desert, forest, crops, ocean and CLOUDS as I’m sure you know, of course. This gets back to the issue of time scale in relation to radiative equilibrium. To be clear, WHEN is the equilibrium moment for albedo derived? The equation seems to hide CHANGE in the emissivity term, if it is taken to be albedo and albedo changes over time. I am aware of the average figures for albedo and as I say, I know that it widely varies, locally across the surface. We both agree on this. It is it’s temporality that I have issue with. If the emissivity is changing, is it proper, to claim radiative equilibrium?

    TB said:
    “Put a rotating object in a vacuum and heat it with an IR lamp. Comes a point when the object gets no hotter as the S-B law ensures a certain temperature it must reach such that radiation received = radiation emitted. Simple as that.”

    On a lighter note, I have had a hell of a time getting my spit roast to obey the S-B law! ;-) My modifications to tilt the axis of rotation, just made it worse but I did discover that by moving the heat source further away I could go from cooking to not cooking!! The “food to charcoal” experiment is an interesting one. The problem with that experiment was that my ‘object’ kept losing mass! That equilibrium sure is tricky stuff! ;-)

    On the serious side, calculations of effective temperature, for a planet, do take rotation into account.

    To be continued….

    Next episode:
    GHG emissivity, how IS it calculated ;-)

    I’ve got to check that roast, again!
    This is becoming too long winded anyway!

    cheers,

    Scott

  160. rogerknights says:
    December 11, 2013 at 5:57 am

    The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, . . .

    Now if we transformed that four-syllable abbreviation into a two-syllable acronym, we get something much smoother (and sillier!):

    The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPOCC) reports

    PS: Chicken Little says “IPOCC, POCC, POCC . . . .”

  161. Trick says:
    December 11, 2013 at 9:43 pm

    G.S. Callendar 1938: CO2 Mean Global Surface Delta T 0.16C for 20th century, 0.36C 21st century (Table VI).

    But Table VI shows that Callendar massively underestimated future CO2 concentrations. For example, he assumes the mean p(CO2) in the 21st century will be 3.3 parts per ten-thousandth of an atmosphere, i.e. 330 ppm. This level was exceeded in the 1970s. Callendar also assumes that the mean concentration in the 22nd century would be 360 ppm – a level exceeded in the 1990s. His mean temperature estimates for the 21st and 22nd centuries are 0.39 and 0.57 (above mean 19th century temperatures). An increase in concentration from 330 ppm to 360 ppm represents a forcing of around 0.4 w/m2.

    Callendar, then, appeared to think climate sensitivity is around 1.7 degrees per 2xCO2 – or a bit higher than the generally accepted “no feedback” sensitivity.

  162. John Finn says:
    December 12, 2013 at 1:50 am
    “As CO2 accumulates in the upper DRIER and colder atmosphere the average emission altitude is increased. In other words more energy is emitted from a colder region. The rate of emission will, therefore, decrease (S-B Law).”

    Not true.

    In a parcel of air, each CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, 99% of them N2 and O2 which are IR inactive. The temperature of the air parcel is set by conduction, convection, and latent heat transfers from water. The lapse rate measures the fact that the air cools and thins with altitude.

    An air parcel in the lower troposphere is compressed and densely packed. When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, the energy is instantly lost through contact with other molecules. Thus CO2 near the surface simply adds a miniscule amount to the huge movement of heat upwards by other means.

    At the top of the troposphere, an air parcel is thin and spread out. The CO2 molecule is able to re-emit the photon in a random direction. If downward, the photon is re-absorbed in the parcel below. If upward, the photon will eventually escape to space (after a few nanoseconds). In this part of the atmosphere, IR gases function to radiate energy into space.

    Some warmists claim that adding CO2 pushes the radiating level higher and to a lower temperature, thus reducing the amount of heat emitted. This is false, since NIMBUS observations show CO2 emits at the tropopause, where temperature does not vary with altitude.

  163. Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
    December 13, 2013 at 1:39 am
    TB says:
    December 12, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond point for point. These were the first to come off the top of my head! It was very early in the morning here and I just wanted to raise issues that seemed to me, are often glossed over by experts. I am always aware that this is an open forum and my posts are written to the readers as much as to an individual or avatar. It has worked out well in this case, because you have teased out issues that are important to me as a layman and hopefully to others as well. I believe I understood your position before making my post and I think you understand mine. What I want to get at, is to bring these two arguments closer together!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No problem Scott – I learn something new myself every time I respond to a post.

    Yes, I think many people get caught up in the “but they can’t even forecast the weather for the weekend” type of thinking – but that’s comparing apples and bananas. The ultimate causes of planetary temperature come down to it’s radiative balance sitting between the Sun and Space. I hope the boiling pan of water resolved the red herring of internal chaos (transitory climate cycles) for you.
    The rest is working out feed-backs and quantifying error bars (probability ranges). Also the IPCC wants estimates of what various scenarios entail.

    “However, I also agree, in the case of the Earth, that since the emissivity of radiation by Greenhouse gases is reduced more than the absorptivity, the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates.”

    I always try to think of these things in physical terms…
    My conception is that GHG’s simply act like a fog to IR as it comes up from the surface. Imagine it as you walking through it with a torch the light from it is scattered around. ( BTW the ratio of condensed water to N2 and O2 molecules is of a high order ) The fog remains thick for a while until we reach around 7km along the road and then it starts to thin (coincides with the thermal equilibrium level) and the fog finally clears at TOA.

    For a photon in that torch beam there are many “collisions” through that “thicker” fog and it “bounces” around – (introducing another analogy) like a ball in a pin-ball machine. Multiple collisions – some return that photon to the surface to “bounce” up again. This will have an attenuating effect on the overall “current” of IR photons that are radiating to space. A slowing of the flow. And like a dam in a river the flow will “back-up” behind to a level dependent on the size of that “dam”. On earth that means that surface is warmer that it otherwise would have been and S-B says that higher temp will emit more photons to overcome the “dam” or “fog” and maintain equilibrium.

    “The important variables that move the calculations away from the theory, for me, are albedo and GHG emissivity.
    In terms of time, when is the albedo calculated? It is clear, you don’t mean geological time, nor ancient historical time but do you mean in the last century, this decade, this past year or today? I’m not being trite, I do wonder because it is clear that a vast range of average temperatures are possible due to the REAL difference in albedo documented on the Earth over time.”

    In GCM’s they model the Earth at T+0 as closely as possible to it’s real state and project forward in say ½ hr steps (often from a past point because the models take a time to “spin-up”)
    There are parameterisations for albedo that model land-use and topography/geography and the most important one – snow/ice. This will be modeled to advance/recede on a seasonal basis. However during historical past simulations of climate (done to verify the models performance with a real climate system) then these will be changes to match known values of the time.
    Again we are not predicting regional temps across the globe because of this albedo – rather using it to quantify SW reflection (not emission) from the total surface area – but also from aerosols and cloud tops.
    Note also snow/ice does more than just reflect SW it acts as an insulator to the ground and allows much lower night-time minima as a result + emits more IR radiating down from the lowest layers of atmosphere to space (in still/dry/clear conditions this leads to a VERY marked surface inversion).

    “To be clear, WHEN is the equilibrium moment for albedo derived? The equation seems to hide CHANGE in the emissivity term, if it is taken to be albedo and albedo changes over time. I am aware of the average figures for albedo and as I say, I know that it widely varies, locally across the surface. We both agree on this. It is it’s temporality that I have issue with. If the emissivity is changing, is it proper, to claim radiative equilibrium?”

    By emissivity – you mean the ability of a molecule to emit radiation in a specific range of wavelengths. Hence “grey body. GHG’s in the atmosphere absorb/emit in discrete bands of radiation. The two are held to be equal such that IR emitted to space is averaged out to the ratio of GHG’s (including WV) known to be present in the atmosphere and taking them to be well mixed throughout. Clouds will be modeled via a simple quantification of temp and rel. hum. for each grid-scale box.
    I don’t see it as equalising albedo against emissivity but I suppose you could look at it that way.

  164. John Finn 5:48am: Concur.

    Interesting the basic science in Callendar 1938 is ~same as in modern text books on the subject, so not as much progress in this field (despite much effort in recent decades) as in many other fields.

    Given the title of the top post, the obvious issue of the futility of very expensive GCMs (with advantages of modern observations) performing worse than the simple projections of this paper is – remarkable.

  165. TB says:
    December 12, 2013 at 4:59 am
    ——————————————–
    TB,
    your response has fallen into they typical format of radiative greenhouse defenders –

    “The surface will not be uniform. Some parts will be hotter than others, and this will set up local turbulence/convection. Growing and taking heat from the tropics to colder parts. The N2 will be in motion.
    There will be some energy exchange from this convection but on balance, heat flux to the N2 goes nowhere. For N2 cannot emit it to space. It can only conduct it back to the surface (somewhere).”

    – the hand waving that somehow strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation can continue in the absence of radiative gases. It cannot. Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to this circulation.

    Conductive heating and cooling of the atmosphere at surface level will never create enough “turbulence” to drive strong vertical circulation over the 10 to 15 km height of the troposphere.

    Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to driving strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. The amount of energy being radiated to space from the upper atmosphere is more than TWICE the energy being absorbed by the atmosphere from incoming solar IR and outgoing surface IR. This is because radiative gases at altitude are not just emitting energy from absorbed IR to space, but also all the energy the atmosphere acquired from surface conduction and the release of latent heat from condensing water vapour.

    Due to issues of IR opacity, the ability of radiative gases to heat the atmosphere is an inverse logarithmic function of their concentration. Their ability to cool the atmosphere however is a far more linear function of their concentration.

    And the ability of radiative gases to slow the cooling of the “surface”? Far less than claimed. Incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. That would be 71% of the earth’s surface. Go back and check the calculations of the pseudo scientists, they calculated the effect of LWIR on the oceans based on their emissivity. This works for most materials, but not liquid water.

    Radiative gases do absorb IR and heat the atmosphere. Radiative gases do emit IR back to the surface slowing the cooling of the land surface only. However radiative gases primary role in our atmosphere is cooling, via LWIR emission to space. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.

  166. Trick says:
    December 12, 2013 at 6:18 am
    Konrad 2:57am: “(interfering with arrival of heat) is exactly what radiative gases are doing.”
    —————————————————————————————
    No Trick, that trick won’t work. The line I cited was –

    “without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply”.

    – you left out the “distribution”.

    Why was that?

    Oh, that’s right, radiative gases play a critical role in driving strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation, the most powerful method of mechanical energy transport in our atmosphere.

  167. Konrad 5:23pm: “- you left out the “distribution”. Why was that?”

    Thanks for asking. For one, you didn’t define “distribution”. The reason I see is defn. “distribution” is part of the Callendar 1938 science conclusions and as discussed in the exchange between Sir George Simpson and the author. “Distribution of heat supply” allows the global system to be nearly balanced and in part for real global convective, conductive, radiative energy transfer (transport) to be superposed for global surface Tmean calculations.

    The “distribution” you mention has no effect on the mostly non-overlap shown in Fig. 7-11 in TB’s Chapt. 7 link from which your 2:57am assertions are empirically shown incorrect. Nor does “distribution” influence global f term in eqn. 7.16. Your unmet challenge remains to show where Chapt. 7 science (theory and empirical) actually becomes false. Assertions won’t work.

    Strong vertical convective circulation does not dump energy to space, dumps it to the atm., i.e. “distributes” energy within the control volume of interest. Only radiative transfer dumps control volume energy out to deep space.

    BTW, there is a great paper of the emissivity of ocean water over the Pacific; I will let you find it as a challenge. Ask if you can’t since it empirically shows your assertion clipped here to be incorrect on Earth scales: “Incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.”

    IOW, the paper confirms the emissivity/absorption of great expanses of ocean water to be reasonably correctly used in TB’s linked Chapt. 7 and Callendar 1938.

  168. Trick says:
    December 13, 2013 at 7:11 pm
    ———————————–
    “Your unmet challenge remains to show where Chapt. 7 science (theory and empirical) actually becomes false. Assertions won’t work.”

    I have met this challenge many times. But one more time for the record. You refer to TB’s link –

    http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html#13581

    The problem here is not figure 7-11. Nowhere on this blog or any other have I ever disputed that radiative gases absorb LWIR. So why point to figure 7-11? My claim is very simple, figure 7-12 is utter tripe, as is any calculation based on it. Figure 7-12 shows a typical two shell radiative model that cannot possibly model the main method of energy transport in our atmosphere.

    So is there anything wrong with the maths is figure 7-12? No. As I have demonstrated before, other readers can do as I have done and build a physical experiment that proves the radiative physics of the two shell model –

    -It works. The target plate in chamber 1 reaches a higher temperature. Hooray! AGW is proved! No. Wait. Just like Callendar we haven’t dealt with the reality of a moving gas atmosphere.

    But the experiment for that is even more simple –

    Two EPS foam insulated gas columns 1m or higher with equal flow rates of heating and cooling water running through their aluminium heat exchanger tubes. Start both columns at the same temperature and run until they reach equilibrium. Despite equal temperatures of the exchanger tubes in both gas columns, one column stabilises at a far higher equilibrium temperature. Once equilibrium temperature is reached, equal amounts of energy can be flowing into and out of each column, but one has a higher average temperature.

    Remember when you couldn’t work out the answer to this problem Trick? The Internet does. Forever.

    You wrote –
    “Strong vertical convective circulation does not dump energy to space, dumps it to the atm., i.e. “distributes” energy within the control volume of interest. Only radiative transfer dumps control volume energy out to deep space.”
    – As you would be well aware nowhere on this blog or any other have I claimed that tropospheric convective circulation transports energy outside the atmosphere. All I claim is that the altitude of energy entry and exit from the atmosphere has a great effect on the average temperature of the atmosphere. Only radiative gases can provide energy loss from our atmosphere at altitude.

    As to this –
    “BTW, there is a great paper of the emissivity of ocean water over the Pacific; I will let you find it as a challenge. Ask if you can’t since it empirically shows your assertion clipped here to be incorrect on Earth scales: “Incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.””
    – I am well aware of the ship borne non peer review study that (Un)RealClimate tried to use to cover up the critical flaw in the radiative greenhouse hypothesis. This study used a MODIS instrument and submerged temperature sensors to try and determining the change in cooling rate of the ocean in response to changes in downwelling LWIR flux. This piece of tripe is rarely cited now. The flaws were obvious. The scatter plot was atrocious. The only way they could get a line through the “mist” was to merge day and night readings. Why didn’t they use night only and avoid low angle of incidence SW backscatter from clouds? We all know that. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

    Again the experiment to prove this is simple –

    Most WUWT readers can easily replicate this for themselves. My challenge to you Trick. Provide a simple experiment that WUWT readers can build and run for themselves that shows incident LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

    You can’t can you Trick?

  169. TB, Trick and Konrad refer to a link on a website at Harvard.

    The link discussed above is to Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry by Daniel J. Jacob. Chapter 7 discusses the “greenhouse gas effect”, explaining the notion in consensus terms. However, in the text, the author presents empirical facts that dismiss alarmist claims.
    For instance on page 129:

    “By contrast, in the strong CO2 absorption band at 15 mm, radiation
    emitted by the Earth’s surface is absorbed by atmospheric CO2, and
    the radiation re-emitted by CO2 is absorbed again by CO2 in the
    atmospheric column. Because the atmosphere is opaque to radiation in this wavelength range, the radiation flux measured from space corresponds to emission from the altitude at which the CO2 concentration becomes relatively thin, roughly in the upper
    troposphere or lower stratosphere. The 15 mm blackbody temperature in Figure 7-8 is about 215 K, which we recognize as a typical tropopause temperature.”

    Hence, any change in altitude at the tropopause does not change the temperature of the emissions.

    The author also says, on page 130

    “Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band (Figure 7-8). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque (Figure 7-13), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect.”

    Hence, the CO2 effect is already saturated.

  170. Konrad 10:35pm: “Remember when you couldn’t work out the answer to this problem Trick?”

    Yes, because your kitchen table instrumentation couldn’t provide the energy in and energy out integrated over the spectrum for the control volume (CV) when I asked (Konrad used 1 thermometer for a temperature field!). Provide that and an informed critical engineer can work out the Tmean answers reasonably close to experiment. Without decent, controlled (expensive!) instrumentation, Konrad conclusions can be anything Konrad wants to support a view.

    “..figure 7-12 is utter tripe, that cannot possibly model the main method of energy transport in our atmosphere…”

    Please Konrad, show your own theory work on this. Hiding behind assertions won’t work. It is a big deal if you can prove it. Exoplanet atm. science will be changed. Kitchen table uncontrolled experiments aren’t cutting it. They will pay you no attention until you do this. BTW, this 7-12 worked fine for the Soviets in the 60s building the thermometer range for their 1st Venera. It will basically work for exoplanets as is.

    Figure 7-12 isn’t what I responded to when I pointed to your clip of Sir George Simpson from the Callendar paper 9:43pm showing your “slight” GHE. The response by GS Callendar in the paper deals with Fig. 7-11.

    If you want to change the subject to 7-12, fine.

    Figure 7-12 control volume is Earth surface and TOA (“outgoing terrestrial radiation”). You can move energy all you want inside the CV since the counting of energy in and energy out, spatially and temporally avg.d for CV will be unaffected. This is most basic thermo. 101. Strong and weak vertical transport is avg.d out over the spectrum (“outgoing terrestrial radiation”) and surface with no effect on eqn. 7.16. Or show the term that is missing.

    As for the paper, try this, no need to build an uncontrolled kitchen table experiment. Right, I can’t – find anything different when properly done:

    “Measurements of the infrared emissivity of a wind-roughened sea surface” Hanifin 2005.

    Shows the sea surface emissivity vs. wind speed doesn’t vary much (0.98 to 0.984 from 0-10ms^-1), close enough to 1.0 for the f=0.77 in 7.16 to give reasonably 288K. At most the wind speed effect is 0.7K on SST.

  171. Ron C. 6:11am:”no significant greenhouse effect. .. the CO2 effect is already saturated.”

    Depends on the meaning of “significant” in number terms. The Tmean anomaly being discussed is on the order of 0.2C per century or recent ocean energy measured imbalance of 0.6W/m^2 out of some 240. I would point to Callendar 1938 Fig. 2 for the log curve; at 400ppm anomaly in C is still not leveled off with increasing CO2 PPM.

    Modern curves are similar if you want to cite one.

    “..facts that dismiss alarmist claims.”

    Callendar 1938 discusses the benefits of increasing CO2 ppm. It is obvious on the ‘net that a view can be formed either way.

  172. Trick

    So, it is not alarming. 0.6W/m2 is within the measurement error range, and increasing CO2 has benefits to the planet.

  173. Ron C. 9:01am “..not alarming.”

    Dunno. I don’t have a view. If pressed, I’ll go with the top post title. There is a certain futility in long range climate prediction given all the chaotic variables. One should not have a view on the science though; it is easy enough to find & read a good atm. thermo. text book if proficient on the pre-req.s.

  174. Konrad says:
    December 13, 2013 at 10:35 pm
    >snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I believe that the above is incorrect:

    The down IR also makes up some of the heat the ocean is losing by radiating. The rest comes by conduction and advection from below.

    Downward IR is therefore “heating the Oceans” by “slowing” the flow of LW energy from the surface skin. In the same way that GHE works in slowing the radiative loss from the Earth to space. It’s the tapping of a reservoir result whereby the whole takes longer to drain when the “tap” is open because it still has an inflow. Therefore it is “pseudo” heating.

    We must also consider that heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere must take place through the skin layer and its magnitude depends on the temperature gradient between the skin and the atmosphere above. This is because it is done by conduction – in a situation where the skin temp is reduced via back IR causing enhanced evaporative cooling, then there will be less heat conducted into the atmosphere (to be convected away) at that interface.

  175. TB

    Back IR is not “heat”. Heat is the net IR flux between two objects, and the net in this case is from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere.

  176. TB
    Maybe, your point is that the rate of heat flowing from surface to atmosphere slows as the air temperature rises. That is, of course, correct. The temperature differential affects the rate of transfer. That is true of all objects, and it is a property of the mass of the atmosphere, independent of the concentrations of gases therein.

  177. Konrad says:
    December 13, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    TB says:
    December 12, 2013 at 4:59 am
    ——————————————–
    TB,
    your response has fallen into they typical format of radiative greenhouse defenders –

    “The surface will not be uniform. Some parts will be hotter than others, and this will set up local turbulence/convection. Growing and taking heat from the tropics to colder parts. The N2 will be in motion.
    There will be some energy exchange from this convection but on balance, heat flux to the N2 goes nowhere. For N2 cannot emit it to space. It can only conduct it back to the surface (somewhere).”

    – the hand waving that somehow strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation can continue in the absence of radiative gases. It cannot. Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to this circulation.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No, not hand-waving – just basic Meteorology.

    Radiative effects can be removed from the physics and convection start/continue. One need only consider in inhomegenities present in a rotating non-radiative atmosphere – differential heating and friction primarily. It must all obviously follow from there. Any fluid (as an atmosphere behaves) will begin/continue motion by those mechanisms. Have you not seen experiments of rotating pans of water heated at the outside and cooled in the middle? They develop turbulence then eddies/flows (Rossby waves/vortices/jets) to try to get to thermodynamic equilibrium. No radiation is involved.
    In the case of planetary atmosphere this would set in train a “heat-pump” mechanism whereby compression/rarefaction would transfer heat down (as described in my post) thereupon at some point “normal” convection would occur where the loss of internal energy via the DALR would cause a natural vertical motion once the atmosphere has equaled/exceeded this value. “Normal” convection then keeps the LR pretty much stable due to transport of WV therefore LH release aloft.

    “Conductive heating and cooling of the atmosphere at surface level will never create enough “turbulence” to drive strong vertical circulation over the 10 to 15 km height of the troposphere.”

    I didn’t say at the surface – I said it starts there (as it must as there is the density discontinuity).
    The turbulence caused by differential conduction due to latitudinal thermal absorption variation then friction slowing as convection/turbulence advances will build through and mix to the full depth of the atmosphere with thermal winds created aloft eventually forming jet streams/Rossby waves etc (as in differentially heated “hemispheres” of water in a rotating pan) and hence baroclinic vortices. All this can take place without radiating gases.

    “Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to driving strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. The amount of energy being radiated to space from the upper atmosphere is more than TWICE the energy being absorbed by the atmosphere from incoming solar IR and outgoing surface IR. This is because radiative gases at altitude are not just emitting energy from absorbed IR to space, but also all the energy the atmosphere acquired from surface conduction and the release of latent heat from condensing water vapour.”

    I believe I agreed with this in my response to your OP. However convection can/does take place without radiational involvement – other than radiative cooling of cloud tops overnight (hence the max severe thunderstorm incidence occurring late in the night). That’s caused by a radiative cooling of the parcel top and thereby causing a greater instability within the rising air of the parcel (cloud).

    In the Hadley cell, yes, air cools as it heads away from the ITCZ (chiefly via WV emission) but it also converges at around 30N due Coriolis and would descend anyway, setting up the circulation.

    “Due to issues of IR opacity, the ability of radiative gases to heat the atmosphere is an inverse logarithmic function of their concentration. Their ability to cool the atmosphere however is a far more linear function of their concentration.”

    ?Whatever .. So you are saying that increasing GHG’s has a net effect of cooling the atmosphere?
    It has the net effect of cooling the Strat (which is what observation shows). But has a net effect of warming the Trop – right up to the ‘pause.

    “And the ability of radiative gases to slow the cooling of the “surface”? Far less than claimed. Incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. That would be 71% of the earth’s surface. Go back and check the calculations of the pseudo scientists, they calculated the effect of LWIR on the oceans based on their emissivity. This works for most materials, but not liquid water.”

    Err, and you accuse me of hand-waving. Supporting evidence please.
    “LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool”.
    Yes it most assuredly can see my above post to Konrad.
    No, I wont check anything – it is you making assertions away from established physics – therefore it is you that should provide links to studies that support your view.

    “Radiative gases do absorb IR and heat the atmosphere. Radiative gases do emit IR back to the surface slowing the cooling of the land surface only. However radiative gases primary role in our atmosphere is cooling, via LWIR emission to space. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.”

    No – and I answered this assertion in my OP. GHG’s do not reduce the atmospheres cooling ability – but they do slow it such that it has to radiate at a higher temp in order to overcome the “constriction” of terrestrial IR photons to space. Shifting the LR balance point higher and raising the surface temp 33C above what it would be without.
    So you are saying that Venus is colder than it would have been by having a CO2 atmosphere rather than a N2+O2 one? – crickey! and it’s at 460C now.
    Your assertions are all contrary to established physics and observation.
    I think I asked this of you up-thread – again – what is causing the heating of Venus if not it’s CO2 atmosphere? And don’t say internal heat as it’s not as it’s not a gaseous planet and any internal heat would be caused by radioactive decay, which is many orders of magnitude less than solar input.

    Here is the IPCC’s view (using fundamental physics).
    There is a general warming effect through the Troposphere due increasing GHG concentrations…

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-2.html

    Applying my favoured physical conceptual method to the question, I reason it this way:
    You assert that GHG’s cool the Earth…..
    Now we have a process whereby molecules present in a medium are able to catch energy (thereby distribute it to molecules around via conduction) and then re-admit it. Like for like in all directions.
    This happens throughout the atmosphere. Now given that the energy can only escape finally to space the majority of photons will be emitted from the surface at least once and some more than once. Therefore the IR energy will be focused within the whole depth of the atmosphere in preference to it’s emittance to space.

    A bouncing ball in a courtyard with one open end – will necessarily spend more time in the yard as a result of “bouncing” off 3 sides and only having an exit on one.

  178. TB;
    you might want to take into account that Venus’ CO2 atmosphere is radiatively isolated from space by a thick cloud cover of other chemicals, with a very high albedo (meaning low emissivity and high reflectivity).

  179. Trick says:
    December 14, 2013 at 7:36 am
    ———————————————-
    “ (Konrad used 1 thermometer for a temperature field!).”

    Nice try, but it won’t work. That experiment has been presented with build and run instructions many times on this and other blogs. The instructions included advice to measure the temperature at a number of points in each gas column. That was entirely the point, because it builds a picture of the flow pattern in each gas column.

    “Without decent, controlled (expensive!) instrumentation, Konrad conclusions can be anything Konrad wants to support a view.”

    No they can’t. The experiment has been designed specifically for others to replicate without expensive equipment. The physics demonstrated are so basic that no expensive instrumentation is required.

    “Hiding behind assertions won’t work.”

    No, that doesn’t work either. I’m clearly standing in front of empirical experiments, not hiding behind assertions.

    “Figure 7-12 control volume is Earth surface and TOA (“outgoing terrestrial radiation”). You can move energy all you want inside the CV since the counting of energy in and energy out, spatially and temporally avg.d for CV will be unaffected. This is most basic thermo. 101.”

    Wrong. This is the mistake that leads to a believing two shell radiative models can model atmospheric temperatures without considering mechanical energy transport within the control volume. Ignoring geothermal, the earth only gains and loses energy via electromagnetic radiation. However calculating only radiative flows will not give the correct answer for atmospheric temperatures.

    A simple way to demonstrate the importance of mechanical energy transport is “Solar Pond” technology. Build two 10m2 1m deep ponds with interior surfaces painted black. Insulate the exterior walls and base. Fill with fresh water. In pond B add horizontal screens of thin transparent LDPE film 200 apart starting 200mm below the surface. Both ponds can cool by radiation and evaporation. Expose to the sun for about a week until each pond has settled at a diurnal equilibrium temperature. Both ponds will now be absorbing and losing an equal amount of energy over a diurnal cycle. Pond B however will now have a water temperature of around 80C. Same energy entering and exiting the control volume but very different equilibrium temperatures solely because of differences in mechanical energy transport within the control volume.

    This is why AGW is pseudo science. You cannot on one hand claim that changing the pattern of radiative energy transport within the land/ocean/atmosphere system can change the equilibrium temperature of the system while refusing to acknowledge that changes in mechanical energy transport can do the same.

    “As for the paper, try this, no need to build an uncontrolled kitchen table experiment.”

    Trick if incident LWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool, it should be a easy for you to provide a simple (ie: doesn’t require expensive equipment like kitchen tables) empirical experiment demonstrating this that other readers can build and try for themselves.

    The reason neither you nor any AGW believer can produce such an experiment when challenged is that incident LWIR cannot heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

  180. Konrad 6:07pm: Once again, you avoid the obvious need to demonstrate theory and empirically exactly where the Fig. 7-12 and Eqn. 7.16 are misleading. The basic science behind them will be thought sound and will keep being used successfully in text books, solar system and exoplanet research until you do so.

    “You cannot on one hand claim that changing the pattern of radiative energy transport within the land/ocean/atmosphere system can change the equilibrium temperature of the system while refusing to acknowledge that changes in mechanical energy transport can do the same.”

    Yes. I can. Do not count any energy that doesn’t cross the control volume of interest in calculating Tmean, only radiation crosses CV. Thermo. 101. Look it up. The mechanical energy doesn’t exit the control volume to deep space so don’t count it in eqn. 7.16. Wind doesn’t change the system equilibrium temperature Tmean=288K more than about 0.7K SST thru ocean emissivity which can cross the CV. This is the lesson you miss. Wind just moves the energy around in the CV.

    Mess with the radiation crossing the CV, energy in and out of your experiments and you can mess with Tmean. CO2 and every other gas in the atm. does so in Tmean=288K with f=0.77 thru Fig. 7-11. Nothing you have tested shows otherwise.

    Show a theory or empirical issue with eqn. 7.16 or Fig. 7-12 and I will again be interested.

  181. TB:
    December 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Thank you again for responding! I’m not doing a very good job of getting you to address my position though!

    I have never disagreed with with the notion of the simple S-B radiative model and agree that the affect of GHGs explains the divergence from the theory (The Earth’s effective temperature is higher than that given by the general grey-body equation).

    TB said:

    “By emissivity – you mean the ability of a molecule to emit radiation in a specific range of wavelengths. Hence “grey body. GHG’s in the atmosphere absorb/emit in discrete bands of radiation. The two are held to be equal such that IR emitted to space is averaged out to the ratio of GHG’s (including WV) known to be present in the atmosphere and taking them to be well mixed throughout. Clouds will be modeled via a simple quantification of temp and rel. hum. for each grid-scale box.
    I don’t see it as equalising albedo against emissivity but I suppose you could look at it that way.

    No, I mean quite specifically that the equation is for a body without atmosphere! The grey-body ‘emissivity’ quite clearly, means amount of radiation absorbed after accounting for reflection. The S-B equation can generate an average temperature given total energy absorbed. Earth is a grey-body because it reflects some energy, it has nothing to do with atmospheric absorption. I’m trying very hard and you keep avoiding answering my question! What is found, is that the grey-body equation can’t account for the actual temperature, It is too cold. This is uncontroversial! A separate calculation must be made to account for the higher temperatures recorded on Earth and this is where GHGs come in. This “Greenhouse” effect is not described by the S-B law because the problem enters the realm of more complex kinetic relationships.

    But my question is even more specific:

    Q: A figure for Albedo (30-35%) is used as the emissivity term in the grey-body equation. Given that clouds and surface albedo are combined to produce this figure how can you derive an equilibrium temperature? Again, the albedo of the surface changes over time and the albedo due to clouds changes rapidly and even the ocean surface albedo changes hourly.

    It is intellectually dishonest to claim to know the equilibrium temperature of the Earth based on the S-B law.

    The simple radiative model imagines a black-body having no atmosphere absorbing all incident energy. The general model allows for bodies that reflect some of the energy, thus the figure for absorption is adjusted down for a grey-body. It has nothing to do with the energy balance, this is still dealing with the “energy-in” stage! This is at the very fundamental level of your argument. The radiative model at its simplest, asks first, how much energy is actually received given some is reflected! In the equation, this ‘emissivity’, is calculated by assuming an average albedo! The difficulty with the Earth is that the figure includes clouds! It is not simply albedo at the surface. This is a big fudge factor!

    You keep saying the Earth is a heat engine but how much heat is actually going in? We both agree that heat comes out but how long does it take to come out? You often refer to a boiling pan of water. I keep seeing images of water boiling at room temperature in the partial vacuum of a suction flask or salt being added to boil pasta! Obviously pressure and salinity matter and this is a big problem for a linear equation, given that on Earth, they vary spatially and temporally.

    If you still manage to ignore the problem of calculating absorption for the Earth, the figure for solar irradiance is extremely complex and controversial even without the difference between the expected 1,368 from the ‘observed’ 1,366 and ‘adjustment’ to 1,3361 W/m2. Changing albedo by 0.01 or solar irradiance by 6 W/m2 changes the equilibrium temperature by a degree. Solar irradiance doesn’t have to vary much over the longer term to be able to explain all of ‘global warming’ (0.1% or so).

    There is much more to say about the Solar Constant and the simple radiative model describing Earth as a grey-body is invalidated by the inability to calculate absorption at any time scale.

  182. TB says:
    December 14, 2013 at 3:31 pm
    “No, not hand-waving – just basic Meteorology.”

    No, this is basic meteorology –

    [Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence. The subsiding air warms (as pressure increases towards lower levels), further lowering the relative humidity and maintaining clear-sky conditions. However, although the subsiding air warms, it does not do so at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Continuing losses of longwave radiation (radiative cooling) means that the air warms at less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (i.e. some of the adiabatic warming is offset by diabatic cooling).]

    This is hand-waving –

    “Radiative effects can be removed from the physics and convection start/continue. One need only consider in inhomegenities present in a rotating non-radiative atmosphere – differential heating and friction primarily. It must all obviously follow from there. Any fluid (as an atmosphere behaves) will begin/continue motion by those mechanisms. Have you not seen experiments of rotating pans of water heated at the outside and cooled in the middle? They develop turbulence then eddies/flows (Rossby waves/vortices/jets) to try to get to thermodynamic equilibrium. No radiation is involved.”

    – You are trying to claim that without radiative gases allowing airmases to lose buoyancy and subside from altitude, conductive heating and cooling of the atmosphere at the surface would create “turbulence” to powerful enough drive strong vertical circulation over the 10 to 15 km height of the troposphere and create a pneumatically generated lapse rate as strong as currently observed.

    “So you are saying that increasing GHG’s has a net effect of cooling the atmosphere?”
    Precisely. Without radiative gases , the atmosphere has no effective method of cooling. Contact with a radiatively cooled surface at night is ineffective. A simple empirical experiment shows, the surface is far better at conductively heating a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field than it is at conductively cooling it. An example in basic meteorology would be a night inversion layer.

    “Err, and you accuse me of hand-waving. Supporting evidence please.
    “LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool”.
    Yes it most assuredly can see my above post to Konrad.
    No, I wont check anything – it is you making assertions away from established physics – therefore it is you that should provide links to studies that support your view.”

    This is one of the critical mistakes in the global warming pseudo science. Just like figure 7-12 in the link you provided, the surface of the planet is not shown as land and ocean, just surface. Climate scientists claim that the oceans respond to incident LWIR in the same way as materials that cannot evaporatively cool. Water does absorb LWIR and like other materials, it’ absorption bands match it’s emission bands. But LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of the skin evaporation layer. It simply trips a few molecules from liquid to vapour slightly sooner than they otherwise would. It does not effect the cooling rate of liquid below this layer. This simple experiment that other readers can build and run for themselves demonstrates this fact –

    – no AGW promoter has ever been able to provide a simple experiment that readers can check that demonstrates LWIR slowing heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. Trick couldn’t provide one and you will not be able to provide one either

    “I think I asked this of you up-thread – again – what is causing the heating of Venus if not it’s CO2 atmosphere?”

    Venus has a far higher atmospheric pressure than earth and receives more solar radiation. Due to atmospheric opacity, most direct solar heating of Venus occurs in the atmosphere. Because CO2 allows radiative cooling at altitude, convective circulation is established in the Venus atmosphere. This circulation allows solar heated gas to be transported towards the surface where it undergoes far greater pneumatic heating due to the greater atmospheric pressure than would occur on earth.

    “Applying my favoured physical conceptual method to the question, I reason it this way:
    You assert that GHG’s cool the Earth…..
    Now we have a process whereby molecules present in a medium are able to catch energy (thereby distribute it to molecules around via conduction) and then re-admit it. Like for like in all directions.
    This happens throughout the atmosphere. Now given that the energy can only escape finally to space the majority of photons will be emitted from the surface at least once and some more than once. Therefore the IR energy will be focused within the whole depth of the atmosphere in preference to it’s emittance to space.

    A bouncing ball in a courtyard with one open end – will necessarily spend more time in the yard as a result of “bouncing” off 3 sides and only having an exit on one.”

    Your reasoning is a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and a direct confirmation of what Dr. Grey was saying. You are looking at the delay of outgoing surface radiation radiation only. However the primary energy transport away from the surface is not radiation, it is conduction, evaporation and convection. The primary transport of energy out of the atmosphere is radiation to space. Most of the energy being radiated by the atmosphere to space was not acquired by interception of surface LWIR.

    Basically both the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis depend on denying the following-
    1. Most of the energy the atmosphere is radiating to space was acquired from surface conduction and the release of latent heat.
    2. Radiative gases play a critical role in tropospheric convective circulation by allowing the subsidence of airmasses from altitude. Changing the concentration of radiative gases changes the speed of this circulation, the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface and the observed lapse rate.
    3. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.

  183. Don’t the S-B equations assume a low mass perfectly conductive plane surface? The Moon doesn’t conform; why should the Earth?

  184. Trick says:
    December 14, 2013 at 7:19 pm
    ——————————————————-
    What? No empirical experiment showing LWIR heating liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool that other readers can easily replicate? Next you will claim this is my fault for excluding the use of expensive apparatus like kitchen tables….

    “Once again, you avoid the obvious need to demonstrate theory and empirically exactly where the Fig. 7-12 and Eqn. 7.16 are misleading.”

    I provided build diagrams for empirical experiments that demonstrated how the maths in 7-12 worked and also showed why it was not applicable to a moving gas atmosphere. These were specifically designed for others to replicate. What more did you need?

    K – “You cannot on one hand claim that changing the pattern of radiative energy transport within the land/ocean/atmosphere system can change the equilibrium temperature of the system while refusing to acknowledge that changes in mechanical energy transport can do the same.”

    T – “Yes. I can. Do not count any energy that doesn’t cross the control volume of interest in calculating Tmean, only radiation crosses CV. Thermo. 101. Look it up.”

    WOW! Now you are contradicting the radiative greenhouse hypothesis you are supposed to be supporting. The failed hypothesis claims that the planet can be in radiative equilibrium, with the same amount of energy entering and exiting the “control volume” with different atmospheric temperatures depending on different radiative flows within the atmosphere/land/ocean system.

    This is a bit like the time you argued endlessly that you could not drive convective circulation in a fluid column by the removal of energy. No need to remind me how that worked out. The Internet remembers.

  185. Brian H says:
    December 14, 2013 at 11:02 pm
    “Don’t the S-B equations assume a low mass perfectly conductive plane surface? The Moon doesn’t conform; why should the Earth?”
    ———————————————————-
    Good questions. And the simple answer is “never apply SB equations to a moving gas atmosphere above a liquid ocean”.

    The moon does not conform because of conduction into the regolith. Conductive flux needs to be modelled in this case.

    The earth does not conform because SW absorption of the oceans occurs well below their surface and LWIR effects the speed and pattern of mechanical energy transport within the atmosphere. Both conductive flux and convective flows need to be modelled in this case.

  186. Konrad 11:03pm:

    “What more did you need?”

    Simply need to see your theory showing where eqn. 7.16 is not applicable to an atmosphere. Your assertions have had and will have no impact on any research in the field because you demonstrate little understanding of simple control volume energy accounting calculating Tmean.

  187. Trick says:
    December 15, 2013 at 5:34 am
    “Simply need to see your theory showing where eqn. 7.16 is not applicable to an atmosphere.”
    ——————————————————————————————
    Equation 7.16 is simply based on the radiation only two shell model shown in figure 7-12. I have demonstrated by empirical experiment that this maths is fine for a physical two shell model without moving fluids. I have also demonstrated by empirical experiment why this approach is not applicable to a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field. Two fluid columns in a gravity field can be in equilibrium with identical amounts of energy entering and exiting the columns, but with very different average temperatures depending on the differing heights of energy input and exit. Equation 7.16 cannot model this. It is therefore inapplicable to a moving gas atmosphere.

    Lets look at the discussion of equation 7.16 in the chapter –
    “Radiative models used in research go beyond the gray atmosphere model by resolving the wavelength distribution of radiation, and radiative-convective models go further by accounting for buoyant transport of heat as a term in the energy balance equations. Going still further are the general circulation models (GCMs) which resolve the horizontal heterogeneity of the surface and its atmosphere by solving globally the 3-dimensional equations for conservation of energy, mass, and momentum. The GCMs provide a full simulation of the Earth’s climate and are the major research tools used for assessing climate response to increases in greenhouse gases.”

    “…. radiative-convective models go further…”. Right there is the smoking gun. Radiative-convective models were a patch job, a bandaid applied to global warming post 1990 in a panicked attempt to save the scam. The “basic physics of the settled science” did not include these, but these should have been the very foundation of the hypothesis if it had any validity at all. The reason is simple.

    The only logical way to consider the effects of radiative gases in our atmosphere would be to model the temperature of a non radiative atmosphere. Equation 7.16 cannot do this as all energy entering and exiting such an atmosphere would not involve radiation, it would be only through conduction convection and the release of latent heat. Radiation would pass straight through.

    Logically if equation 7.16 cannot be used to model atmospheric temperatures in a non-radiative atmosphere, it cannot possibly model temperatures accurately in a partially radiative atmosphere like ours.

    Similarly GCMs are a patch job. They were developed years after the “basic physics of the settled science”. This claim – “Going still further are the general circulation models (GCMs) which resolve the horizontal heterogeneity of the surface and its atmosphere by solving globally the 3-dimensional equations for conservation of energy, mass, and momentum.” simply serves to gloss over the failings of GCMs. GCMs do not have the vertical resolution to model even the basic physics shown in my two column experiment. They are essentially two layer models with vertical energy and mass transport between grid squares in each layer calculated via radiative-convective equations rather than computational fluid dynamics. They do not solve for the role of radiative gases in our atmosphere. They are effectively preprogrammed with equations that tell them that radiative gases cause warming.

    In conclusion, equation 7.16 cannot model the temperature of a non-radiative atmosphere, therefore it cannot model the temperature of a partially radiative atmosphere. You cannot refute my claim that the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm by running back to radiation only equations.

  188. Konrad 5:15pm: That’s a nice piece of work. It shows good faith effort to make progress. Thank you.

    However it fails to prove your conclusion Eqn. 7.16 cannot model a moving gas atmosphere for the simple reason the moving gas within the control volume does not count in the energy crossing the control volume so this moving gas cannot affect Tmean within the control volume of interest. As I have pointed out here and previous this is the thermo. 101 basic that you miss. Winds don’t dump Earth system energy out to deep space.

    Eqn. 7.16 does in fact model a basic non-radiative atm. perfectly well given none of the moving gas energy crosses its control volume – total moving gas energy inside CV remains unchanged; its constituents can vary from strong to weak and vice versa. Moving gas energy therefore cannot affect Tmean (in practice not by more than 0.7K SST though windy ocean emissivity cited prev.).

    To use eqn. 7-16 perfectly well and within the confines of 0th, 1st and 2nd law for a theoretical non-radiative atm., simply reduce f term to 0.0 from 0.77. This computes the new equilibrium global surface Tmean to which the sun will be able to force the theoretical Earth system Tmean response at current epoch parameters using only convective and conductive energy transfer within the CV.

    Or more physically true, reduce f term to N2 and O2 radiative capabilities as shown in Fig 7-11 (you will have to adjust the scale to find their f term or, as shown, emissivity epsilon slightly .GT. 0.0).

    • I need a scorecard as a newbie in order to understand what is being said by who. I do not know the screen names, and being a sceptic I question everything unless I know the source.
      Please add a short CV or at least your title and position at the end of your posts.
      Brad Weaver, PE
      Building Energy Analyst
      Owner – NWEC

      Thanks!

  189. Trick says:
    December 15, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    ——————————————

    “However it fails to prove your conclusion Eqn. 7.16 cannot model a moving gas atmosphere for the simple reason the moving gas within the control volume does not count in the energy crossing the control volume so this moving gas cannot affect Tmean within the control volume of interest. As I have pointed out here and previous this is the thermo. 101 basic that you miss. Winds don’t dump Earth system energy out to deep space.”

    No, still wrong.
    Firstly I have never claimed that winds dump energy into space.
    Secondly for a non radiative atmosphere equation 7.16 would only be modelling surface temperatures. Climate pseudo scientists doing this always get it wrong because they assume that they can use the emissivity of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool to calculate the effect of LWIR or the lack of it on the cooling rate of the ocean. As empirical experiment shows, this is totally incorrect.
    Thirdly as equation 7.16 would only be incorrectly modelling surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures would have to be modelled using assumptions about conductive and mechanical energy transport. Which of course is EXACTLY what you do here –

    “This computes the new equilibrium global surface Tmean to which the sun will be able to force the theoretical Earth system Tmean response at current epoch parameters using only convective and conductive energy transfer within the CV.”

    But that won’t work either. I have many times demonstrated by empirical experiment why you cannot use surface Tmean to determine the temperature of a non-radiative atmosphere conductively heated by the surface. Empirical experiment proves that for a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field, it is Tmax that will drive the resulting near isothermal temperature of such an atmosphere.

    Will you at least admit that Trick? In claiming equation 7.16 can model atmospheric temperatures for a non-radiative atmosphere you have simply claimed (incorrectly) that the atmospheric temperature would be set by surface Tmean. That’s all you have done isn’t it? And I have already proved by empirical experiment why that approach won’t work.

    The bottom line is that AGW relies on physically impossible claims –
    That incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.
    That strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation (strong enough to pneumaticly generate the observed lapse rate) would continue in the absence of radiative gases.
    That the temperature of a non radiative atmosphere will be set by surface Tav or Tmean.
    These are all physically impossible claims, therefore the AGW hypothesis which relies on them is also physically impossible.

  190. Konrad 12:52am: “…they assume that they can use the emissivity of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool to calculate the effect of LWIR or the lack of it on the cooling rate of the ocean.”

    Ocean emissivity is not an assumption. There are many modern text books and many papers that demonstrate the physics with experiment and sound theory based conclusions – I cited just one above (from 2005); satellite instrumentation more precise than you use on the atm. as a whole. Your task is to prove where each and every one of them is wrong with sound theory that gets the author’s attention.

    The 1st step is finding a flaw in the sound basic science of 7-11, 7-12 and eqn. 7-16. The input is all measured. If you do so, you will change whole fields of planetary science and exoplanet science.

    “Firstly I have never claimed that winds dump energy into space.”

    Yes, Konrad did. Right here clipped from your 5:15pm:

    “…all energy entering and exiting such an atmosphere would not involve radiation, it would be only through conduction convection..”

    More later today if thread stays open.

    ******

    BW2013 8:15pm:

    I recommend start reducing newbie by ignoring the blogs and get the pre-req.s for proficiency to read a couple modern text books on the subject. I’ve recommended that to Konrad many times. I like Bohren 1998 and 2006.

  191. Trick says:
    December 16, 2013 at 5:13 am “…all energy entering and exiting such an atmosphere would not involve radiation, it would be only through conduction convection..” Konrad
    This has been a very interesting discussion.
    For those with only first year physics this blog is a useful way of finding things out.
    As a blog it is not expressed in perfect Queens English, assuming that the reader has read the previous blogs and understands the context of the debate.
    Now what Konrad is driving at is that for heat to leave the atmosphere and end up in the heat sink of the ‘final frontier’, it has to be transported up high where GHG’s don’t blanket the heat.
    To get there it uses the well recognised physical principals of convection, conduction and radiation.
    In that sense, convection and conduction, are the mechanisms that permit heat loss by radiation to space, for if they were not the bottom of the atmosphere would just heat up and we would be really cooking.

  192. LP Buckingham 12:02pm – “..very interesting discussion.”

    For me, the basic science is interesting to learn and that understanding is improved thru discussion. The futility of long range numerical climate prediction is not that the basic science in the ref. provided by TB (Chapt. 7 and many other modern text books) is in any way faulty (far as science knows to date anyway) as opposed to what Konrad asserts: “AGW hypothesis…is physically impossible.”

    The measured but chaotic inputs to the basic science equation 7.16 are where the futility comes from in predicting long range climate numerically. The Callendar 1938 paper conclusions did remarkably well over the 75 years since the original reasoning and basic 1st principles of science therein remain sound.

    “…not expressed in perfect Queens English.”

    No kidding; for me especially – I have long admitted needing an editor.

  193. Trick says:
    December 16, 2013 at 5:13 am
    ——————————————–
    “Ocean emissivity is not an assumption. There are many modern text books and many papers that demonstrate the physics with experiment and sound theory based conclusions – I cited just one above (from 2005); satellite instrumentation more precise than you use on the atm. as a whole. Your task is to prove where each and every one of them is wrong with sound theory that gets the author’s attention.”

    Nowhere do I dispute figures for ocean emissivity or absorption. In fact on this very thread I point out to TB that – [Water does absorb LWIR and like other materials, its absorption bands match its emission bands. But LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of the skin evaporation layer. It simply trips a few molecules from liquid to vapour slightly sooner than they otherwise would. It does not effect the cooling rate of liquid below this layer.] And I even give a build diagram for the experiment to support my claim for other readers to replicate.

    “The 1st step is finding a flaw in the sound basic science of 7-11, 7-12 and eqn. 7-16. The input is all measured.”

    Again, as I have previously stated on this thread regards figure 7.11, I am not disputing that the atmosphere absorbs or emits LWIR. As to figure 7.12 and equation 7.16 I have both given you an empirical experiment confirming the radiative physics behind these, and also experiments proving why these alone cannot be used to determine atmospheric temperatures for a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field.

    “If you do so, you will change whole fields of planetary science and exoplanet science.”

    This is little more than an attempt at “call to authority”, a poor form of debate. And given that every climate model based on the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has failed, it is probably not the best approach ;-)

    You respond to this –

    “Firstly I have never claimed that winds dump energy into space.”

    With this –

    “ Yes, Konrad did. Right here clipped from your 5:15pm:
    “…all energy entering and exiting such an atmosphere would not involve radiation, it would be only through conduction [&] convection..” “

    But my statement nowhere claims conduction from the atmosphere to the vacuum of space. That was your assumption. My statement is totally accurate. Energy entering a non-radiative atmosphere will only be through conduction, convection and release of latent heat of evaporation. Energy can only exit a non-radiative atmosphere through conduction back to the planets surface. As I have previously shown through empirical experiment, for a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field, the surface is far better at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it.

    This is one of the critical errors in climate pseudo science, the assumption that the surface has an equal ability to conductively heat and cool the atmosphere. This is the very assumption you are making when you claim equation 7.16 can model the temperature of a non-radiative atmosphere. You set the atmospheric temperature using surface Tmean. This is the wrong approach as it ignores gravity, pressure gradient, gas conduction and fluid dynamics. For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.

  194. Konrad says:
    December 14, 2013 at 9:54 pm
    TB says:
    December 14, 2013 at 3:31 pm
    “No, not hand-waving – just basic Meteorology.”

    No, this is basic meteorology –

    [Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence. The subsiding air warms (as pressure increases towards lower levels), further lowering the relative humidity and maintaining clear-sky conditions. However, although the subsiding air warms, it does not do so at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Continuing losses of longwave radiation (radiative cooling) means that the air warms at less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (i.e. some of the adiabatic warming is offset by diabatic cooling).]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Konrad, For a start, potential temperature has nothing to do with LH – the definition of same is simply dry air (at the particular level) brought down the DALR to 1000mb. No WV is involved. Perhaps you think of Wet Bulb Potential temp – ThetaW.

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

    It will lose LW energy as it moves north, yes of course. And I did say that cooling would occur – Just that it is not necessary for the formation of a Hadley cell. Look, air moving N from the ITCZ can only get so far (~30N/S) before Coriolis turns the air parallel to lines of latitude. At that point the air is (obviously) converging aloft and will sink (Convergence aloft = divergence below (HP)). Hence a band of HP circulating the Earth at around 30 deg N/S. Cooling aloft is NOT needed.
    Descending air does warm at the DALR – it has too as that is the definition of air moving up/down in the atmosphere (when dry). It does not warm at less than the DALR any more than dry air cools more than the DALR when it rises. It is the adiabatic lapse rate (no energy exchanged with surroundings).

    I have looked at many, upper air descents professionally from within Highs – they track the DALR aloft, at least for a while, depending on subsidence extent and mixing below that zone. Before reaching the subsidence inversion.
    From: http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap4.html

    “The outflowing air is then carried by the winds at high altitude and must eventually subside for mass conservation of air to be satisfied. As the air subsides, its temperature increases following the dry adiabatic lapse rate G.”

    “- You are trying to claim that without radiative gases allowing air-masses to lose buoyancy and subside from altitude, conductive heating and cooling of the atmosphere at the surface would create “turbulence” to powerful enough drive strong vertical circulation over the 10 to 15 km height of the troposphere and create a pneumatically generated lapse rate as strong as currently observed”

    I am not claiming it – it’s just obvious basic meteorology. Starting with an isothermal atmosphere on a rotating, dry planet at the same distance from the Sun as Earth.
    Think about the meteorology involved – just basic fluid mechanics.
    No, the LR now observed on Earth has been modified by equilibrium with the DALR/SALR and added radiative imbalances. I just did the 1st principles thing to show that radiation is not needed to start the process off (other than surface heating).

    ““So you are saying that increasing GHG’s has a net effect of cooling the atmosphere?”
    Precisely. Without radiative gases , the atmosphere has no effective method of cooling. Contact with a radiatively cooled surface at night is ineffective. A simple empirical experiment shows, the surface is far better at conductively heating a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field than it is at conductively cooling it. An example in basic meteorology would be a night inversion layer.””

    No, GHG’s provide the medium for IR transport – passing it on elsewhere randomly before it exits the TOA – where IR must ultimately escape to space from. Without radiative gases there would be a much wider IR window and a LOT more than 9% (see below) would escape from the surface that way. Surface IR (absorbing 46% currently – see below) could leave to space unhindered – straight out ! – the exact opposite of what you assert > ie the ABSENCE of GHG’s cools and not their presence. A night-time inversion (on a clear, still, night involving dry air) is a complicated process of radiative and conductive exchange of the lowest layers over a radiating surface – back-radiation is involved but so is slight turbulent mixing which is nearly always present. What has that to do with GHG’s cooling the atmosphere?

    cont

  195. cont
    “This is one of the critical mistakes in the global warming pseudo science. Just like figure 7-12 in the link you provided, the surface of the planet is not shown as land and ocean, just surface. Climate scientists claim that the oceans respond to incident LWIR in the same way as materials that cannot evaporatively cool. Water does absorb LWIR and like other materials, it’ absorption bands match it’s emission bands. But LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of the skin evaporation layer. It simply trips a few molecules from liquid to vapour slightly sooner than they otherwise would. It does not effect the cooling rate of liquid below this layer. This simple experiment that other readers can build and run for themselves demonstrates this fact –
    http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg no AGW promoter has ever been able to provide a simple experiment that readers can check that demonstrates LWIR slowing heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. Trick couldn’t provide one and you will not be able to provide one either”

    Re 7-12 ocean acts as land – it absorbs SW+LW and emits LW – the figure is a schematic – in realitive there are radiative differences taken care of by models.
    I should direct your objections to Harvard, with mathematical support/empirical observation that refutes ~150 years of science.

    No, again – the body of water will warm because the evaporatively cooled surface skin cannot transport as much heat conductively to the atmosphere immediately above. Yes? Cooler so allowing less flux upward. Yes? Try to think of heat transport in other than radiative terms in this instance and involving more than just the skin.

  196. Cont
    However, logically it makes ZERO sense. What thermodynamic law is obeyed when (as you claim) an object can be cooled by the application of heat (sorry that is what back-IR is ultimately – otherwise there would not be extra evap cooling). But the Ocean is MORE than just the skin. Ultimately that is all that is required to realise what you suggest cannot be correct.

    “Venus has a far higher atmospheric pressure than earth and receives more solar radiation. Due to atmospheric opacity, most direct solar heating of Venus occurs in the atmosphere. Because CO2 allows radiative cooling at altitude, convective circulation is established in the Venus atmosphere. This circulation allows solar heated gas to be transported towards the surface where it undergoes far greater pneumatic heating due to the greater atmospheric pressure than would occur on earth.”

    Venus does not receive more insolation. Yes, it’s closer to the Sun but due it’s thick atmosphere it’s albedo is higher than Earth’s and ensures it receives less insolation than earth – less than 10% incident radiation at TOA reaches the surface. No, you cannot pump the surface temp past the natural lapse rate it will reach at equilibrium – the point at which rising/sinking air cools/warms at the DALR as calculated using Clausuis-Clapeyron.
    Err – you are saying there is cooling aloft – but (also) solar heated gas is transported towards the surface…. Sorry that doesn’t make sense to me.
    This has nothing to do with the basics of how Venus is shedding it’s (much reduced) solar insolation to space whilst heating it’s atmosphere to such an extreme.

    “Your reasoning is a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and a direct confirmation of what Dr. Grey was saying. You are looking at the delay of outgoing surface radiation only. However the primary energy transport away from the surface is not radiation, it is conduction, evaporation and convection. The primary transport of energy out of the atmosphere is radiation to space. Most of the energy being radiated by the atmosphere to space was not acquired by interception of surface LWIR.”

    ? You say that most energy is transported via conduction, evaporation and convection. No it is not. As ultimately energy MUST leave Earth as radiation – via TOA. If this was not so, heat would be transported aloft without having much effect in the interim and a hot zone appear aloft ( the opposite of your cooling aloft creating convection). Observations show this does not happen, apart from in the Strat. You are being internally inconsistent. To say “Most of the energy being radiated by the atmosphere to space was not acquired by interception of surface LWIR.” Is wrong –this …

    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html

    Shows that of the 46% of TOA solar is absorbed by the surface and 23% is absorbed by the atm.
    = 69% absorbed by climate system.

    31% is emitted via conv/LH transport – but note – just into the atmosphere – not out of it.
    60% is emitted by the atmosphere (which would include the above). Leaving an additional 29% from the atmosphere alone.
    9% leaves via the IR window.

    Therefore all energy exits TOA (69% tot sol abs vs 69% IR emit)
    Of which 31% is dispersed by cond/conv in the atmosphere THEN emitted as IR.

    “Basically both the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis depend on denying the following-
    1. Most of the energy the atmosphere is radiating to space was acquired from surface conduction and the release of latent heat.
    2. Radiative gases play a critical role in tropospheric convective circulation by allowing the subsidence of airmasses from altitude. Changing the concentration of radiative gases changes the speed of this circulation, the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface and the observed lapse rate.
    3. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.”

  197. Last Cont.
    Your point 1) No, shown incorrect above.
    2) No, shown wrong further above. Changing the concentration of GHG’s upward would accentuate is slowing” effect. If you accept that they absorb then re-emit LWIR then they must do that – it is akin to a resistor in a conductor. It does not allow electrons to pass through more freely. You turn logic and Meteorology on it’s head. I’m sorry I’m just astounded.
    3) Shown wrong above also by consideration of reduction in thermal gradient of skin to air interface which therefore reduces the conductive flux and allows slower cooling of the water body below the skin.

    Konrad. If you think that GHG’s cool then go to Dr Roy Spencer’s site and maybe he can advise you otherwise. I know you will not accept my reasoning but he is at least a skeptic..

    I am pretty sure that Anthony also accepts GHG’s slow cooling….

    From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/new-wuwt-tv-segment-slaying-the-slayers-with-watts/

    “As readers may know, Dr. Roy Spencer and I have had a long running disagreement with the group known as “Principia Scientific International” aka the Sky Dragon Slayers after the title of their book. While I think these people mean well, they tend to ignore real world measurements in favor of self-deduced science. They claim on their web page that “the Greenhouse gas effect is bogus” and thus ignore many measurements of IR absorptivity in the atmosphere which show that it is indeed a real effect. Rational climate skeptics acknowledge that the greenhouse effect exists and functions in Earth’s atmosphere, but that an accelerated greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 emissions doesn’t rise to the level of alarm being portrayed. Yes, there’s an effect, but as recent climate sensitivity studies show, it isn’t as problematic as it is made out to be.”

  198. Cont.
    Your point 1) No, shown incorrect above.
    2) No, shown wrong further above. Changing the concentration of GHG’s upward would accentuate is slowing” effect. If you accept that they absorb then re-emit LWIR then they must do that – it is akin to a resistor in a conductor. It does not allow electrons to pass through more freely. You turn logic and Meteorology on it’s head. I’m sorry I’m just astounded.
    3) Shown wrong above also by consideration of reduction in thermal gradient of skin to air interface which therefore reduces the conductive flux and allows slower cooling of the water body below the skin.

    Konrad. If you think that GHG’s cool then go to Dr Roy Spencer’s site and maybe he can advise you otherwise. I know you will not accept my reasoning but he is at least a skeptic..

  199. last Cont
    I am pretty sure that Anthony also accepts GHG’s slow cooling….

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/new-wuwt-tv-segment-slaying-the-slayers-with-watts/

    “As readers may know, Dr. Roy Spencer and I have had a long running disagreement with the group known as “Principia Scientific International” aka the Sky Dragon Slayers after the title of their book. While I think these people mean well, they tend to ignore real world measurements in favor of self-deduced science. They claim on their web page that “the Greenhouse gas effect is bogus” and thus ignore many measurements of IR absorptivity in the atmosphere which show that it is indeed a real effect. Rational climate skeptics acknowledge that the greenhouse effect exists and functions in Earth’s atmosphere, but that an accelerated greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 emissions doesn’t rise to the level of alarm being portrayed. Yes, there’s an effect, but as recent climate sensitivity studies show, it isn’t as problematic as it is made out to be.”

  200. Trick says:
    December 14, 2013 at 7:19 pm
    Konrad 6:07pm: Once again, you avoid the obvious need to demonstrate theory and empirically exactly where the Fig. 7-12 and Eqn. 7.16 are misleading. The basic science behind them will be thought sound and will keep being used successfully in text books, solar system and exoplanet research until you do so.

    “You cannot on one hand claim that changing the pattern of radiative energy transport within the land/ocean/atmosphere system can change the equilibrium temperature of the system while refusing to acknowledge that changes in mechanical energy transport can do the same.”

    Yes. I can. Do not count any energy that doesn’t cross the control volume of interest in calculating Tmean, only radiation crosses CV. Thermo. 101. Look it up. The mechanical energy doesn’t exit the control volume to deep space so don’t count it in eqn. 7.16. Wind doesn’t change the system equilibrium temperature Tmean=288K more than about 0.7K SST thru ocean emissivity which can cross the CV. This is the lesson you miss. Wind just moves the energy around in the CV.

    Mess with the radiation crossing the CV, energy in and out of your experiments and you can mess with Tmean. CO2 and every other gas in the atm. does so in Tmean=288K with f=0.77 thru Fig. 7-11. Nothing you have tested shows otherwise.

    Show a theory or empirical issue with eqn. 7.16 or Fig. 7-12 and I will again be interested.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Agreed in entirety Trick.

  201. Despite thousands of words, TB still cannot refute what Planet Earth is clearly telling us: CO2 has a negligible effect. It is too small to even measure at current concentrations.

    Thus, the entire “carbon” scare is thoroughly debunked by the ultimate Authority: the real world.

    By all means, TB, continue pontificating, splitting hairs, and nitpicking. Your comments add to the site traffic of this most excellent blog, while making no difference whatever to the planet.

    But don’t fool yourself into believing that catastropic runaway global warming predictions have any credibility. They don’t, as the rest of us can clearly see. Your side lost that debate long ago.

  202. Trick says:
    December 16, 2013 at 1:51 pm
    What I failed to mention is that the first year physics pass was mine and it was a ‘terminating’ pass which means that it was not accepted for further studies in physics at that uni.So that is where I start in all this.
    In anatomy we were always told ‘when in doubt, look at the horse’ rather than make up ideas about what the horse should look like.
    In high school the examiners were always commenting on students that applied numbers to formula that described laws, getting answers, but not knowing if it were the right formula and not understanding the answer anyway so it was not able to be applied to the next part of the problem.
    Any of the models of the climate,so far, have fallen over. We are told they rely on the physics of the atmosphere.I won’t be drawn on Callender as that could be a ‘lucky strike’.
    What Konrad is arguing, I think, is that there is a gap in the physics when AGW apply it in a GCM hypothetical model.
    He wants anyone with doubts to ‘examine the horse’, to look at convection.
    Views vary on this site as to why models fail.Some say that weather and climate are the same and the mathematics of fractals is invoked.
    Some say we have too little data but the science is in, others that the applied physics leaves gaps,others that errors compound making predictions wrong.
    Last week I was driving back from the country west of Sydney, Australia for three hours at 110km per hour.
    As the afternoon wore on a huge cumulus formed in front of me with a beautiful glowing anvil.
    As I drove into Sydney things cooled down.
    That’s the horse we need to look at.

  203. Konrad 5:13am: Doesn’t bring much if anything new to light but it is an interesting rehash. With that, I will try some hash tags. Wish me luck.

    “Nowhere do I dispute figures for ocean emissivity or absorption…But LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of the skin evaporation layer.”

    Good, maybe there IS less futility here, Konrad comes around to agree with that part of eqn. 7.16, this is all you need to agree with here. The oceanic evaporative cooling is recycled in the CV as latent heat. No loss or gain to deep space in that cycle so no affect on Tmean. As you note, since LWIR is absorbed by ocean water, then LWIR is emitted by ocean water, epsilon 0.98 or on a windy day 0.984. This all fits with eqn. 7.16 rounded up to 1.0 simply for understanding the basics.

    “I have both given you an empirical experiment confirming the radiative physics behind these, and also experiments proving why these alone cannot be used to determine atmospheric temperatures for a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field.”

    This is, again, your own incorrect conclusion since incompatible with current basic theory, from uncontrolled experiments that do not model an atm. because it is well demonstrated 7.16 computes atm. surface Tmean = 288K with measured input data and that is Earth near surface Tmean as measured by GHCN thermometers about 1.5-2m AGL. Again, the moving gas is completely within the CV of interest; as such does not cross the control volume of interest and has no effect on atm. Tmean. Or show your computation that replaces 7.16. And drive entire fields of planetary study forward.

    “But my statement nowhere claims conduction from the atmosphere to the vacuum of space.”

    I didn’t assume anything – I just read your own statement. What is there about all energy entering and exiting an atmosphere that can cause a reader to know you do not mean to deep space? Nothing. NOW you tell the reader what you really meant.

  204. Konrad continues: “..the surface is far better at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it.”

    You will want to look into Fourier conduction law to correct this new nonsense. If I show you, it will be dismissed as an appeal to Fourier’s authority.

    “Energy can only exit a non-radiative atmosphere through conduction back to the planets surface.”

    And eqn. 7.16 handles this equilibrium perfectly well, just set f=0.0 for no theoretical radiative transfer and calculate the new Tmean, Earth’s conduction is already part of the input numbers.

    “This is the wrong approach as it ignores gravity, pressure gradient, gas conduction and fluid dynamics.”

    Eqn. 7.16 does not ignore gravity, pressure gradient or conduction, 7.16 100% depends on them in the classic derivation (look up hydrostatic equilibrium in an atm. -Bohren 1998). Eqn. 7.16 ignores fluid dynamics because they do not exit or gain energy to/from deep space which is obviously unphysical.

    “this is little more than an attempt at “call to authority”, a poor form of debate.”

    Argument from authorities is perfectly ok if cited in debate as I have used it since a team is always better than an individual: 1) cited experts in the field, 2) the field of experts in text books are in agreement on use of basic eqn. 7.16, 7-11 and 7-12, and 3) no deductive reasoning context, I’ve shown reliance on the basic physics in 7-11, 7-12, 7.16.

    “For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.”

    Concur. But irrelevant to the futility of long range numerical climate prediction basics.

    “…every climate model based on the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has failed,…

    Not every one. Callendar 1938 has not failed, resistance to that is futile. So there IS one GHE model that has worked out just fine give or take. Ironic that increasing complexity failed to decrease the futility. But science progresses since can shoot a projectile close to Pluto and its moons now where once they just exploded on the pad.

    ******
    LP Buckingham 6:13pm: “What Konrad is arguing, I think, is that there is a gap in the physics when AGW apply it in a GCM hypothetical model.”

    No, Konrad is arguing against the basic atm. thermo. text book use of Eqn. 7.16. It is obvious to all interested that modern climate models have issues at current time.

  205. Lewis P Buckingham says:
    December 16, 2013 at 6:30 pm
    —————————————–
    Essentially I am confirming what Dr. Grey says in the essay this thread is based on claims –

    “the CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a “radiation only” perspective”

    and –

    “The simulations that have been directed at determining the influence of a doubling of CO2 on Earth’s temperature have been made with flawed and oversimplified internal physical assumptions.”

    Quite simply in the “basic physics of the settled science” gravity, atmospheric pressure gradient, gas conduction and fluid dynamics were not properly considered or in the case of gas conduction and fluid dynamics, not considered at all.

    Post 1990 radiative-convective models were just a patch up job to hold the sham together.

    Trick is urging you to run back to the textbooks. But every climate model based on the radiative greenhouse effect as described in the texts has failed. What to do? Just as you say, “examine the horse”

    I have shown the way to “examine the horse” with empirical experiments you can replicate for yourself.

    Does the two shell radiative model work?

    The answer is yes, the target plate in chamber 1 reaches a higher temperature.

    Does it work for a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field or are gas conduction and fluid dynamics also critical for determining gas temperatures?

    Build two EPS foam insulated gas columns 1m or higher with equal flow rates of heating and cooling water running through their aluminium heat exchanger tubes. Start both columns at the same temperature and run until they reach equilibrium. Despite equal temperatures of the exchanger tubes in both gas columns, one column stabilises at a far higher equilibrium temperature. Once equilibrium temperature is reached, equal amounts of energy can be flowing into and out of each column, but one has a higher average temperature. Quite simply the physics behind this experiment is critical to determining atmospheric temperatures and it is not included in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”

    Which gas column reaches the higher average temperature and why?

    Which column best represents an atmosphere with radiative cooling at altitude, and which best represents an atmosphere only conductively heated and cooled at the surface?

    How can you get both columns to run at the same average temperature without altering the flow rates through the heating and cooling tubes?

    Climate scientists claim downwelling LWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans. Can incident LWIR slow the cooling of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool as it does other materials?

    Fill both sample chambers with 40C water and observe the cooling rate under the two different LWIR sources. Is there any difference in cooling rate below the strong and weak LWIR sources?Now repeat the experiment with a thin film of LDPE plastic cling wrap floated on the surface of each water sample. Now the water can still cool by conduction and radiation, but not by evaporation. Is there now a marked difference in the cooling rate between the two samples?

    The “horse scientists” are telling you the horse is alive and well, but it doesn’t seem to be moving and there are a lot of flies and a terrible stench. You could take their word for it or examine the horse for yourself ;-)

    PS. If you are in Sydney you can check out some of my work at the new Central Park development. I can assure you that the aerodynamics and structural design of the big yellow structure in the park was not achieved by just running back to the textbooks. Empirical experiment was required. I worked on the aero, structure CAD, FEA and CNC. The Engineers Australia awards display showing the development should also still be up at the PowerHouse museum. You could report back to poster “BW2013” who wanted to know ;-)

  206. TB says:
    December 16, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    ———————————————
    Wow! What a snow storm! Shakespeare covered this – “methinks the lady doth protest to much” ;-)

    Amongst the storm, you raised the issue of the PSI group. I have no association with them, and as the blog record shows I have disputed their false claims here, at Dr. Spencer’s and Jo Nova’s sites. Any implication that I have any link with PSI will get you nowhere.

    As to Dr. Spencer, you may well be disappointed –

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/

    Here you will see that Dr. Spencer agrees that there would be no strong vertical convective circulation under the tropopause without radiative gases. He still claims that a doubling of CO2 could cause 0.5C of warming. I am claiming it would cause an immeasurably small amount of cooling. Did Dr. Spencer get something wrong? Yes –

    “Only the surface and a shallow layer of air next to the surface would go through a day-night cycle of heating and cooling. The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature. And without a falloff of temperature with height in the atmosphere of at least 10 deg. C per kilometer, all atmospheric convection would stop.”

    And the mistake? Right here – “ The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature”. The same error Trick makes. As empirical experiment shows, it is surface Tmax that will drive the temperature of such an isothermal atmosphere not surface Tav.

    TB, you have disputed my claim that radiative gases play a critical role in tropospheric convective circulation and that this circulation would stall in their absence. Then you invoked Dr. Spencer, who claims the same thing. I think this could be call pulling a “Trick.” Trick has an unfortunate habit of carelessly using cites like the Callender 1938 paper that undermine his argument ;-)

  207. Trick says:
    December 16, 2013 at 7:20 pm
    ————————————————
    I state –
    “Nowhere do I dispute figures for ocean emissivity or absorption…But LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of the skin evaporation layer.” And the critical part you left out of your reply – “It simply trips a few molecules from liquid to vapour slightly sooner than they otherwise would. It does not effect the cooling rate of liquid below this layer.”

    You try –
    “Good, maybe there IS less futility here, Konrad comes around to agree with that part of eqn. 7.16, this is all you need to agree with here. The oceanic evaporative cooling is recycled in the CV as latent heat. No loss or gain to deep space in that cycle so no affect on Tmean. As you note, since LWIR is absorbed by ocean water, then LWIR is emitted by ocean water, epsilon 0.98 or on a windy day 0.984. This all fits with eqn. 7.16 rounded up to 1.0 simply for understanding the basics.”

    But your reply in no way disproves what I have always been claiming and backing up with empirical experiment (since 2011?). Incident LWIR does not slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. This means at least two main claims of climate scientists are false. First there would be no “snowball earth” with frozen oceans in the absence of radiative gases and second, there is no “missing heat” hiding in the oceans.

    You state –
    “Again, the moving gas is completely within the CV of interest; as such does not cross the control volume of interest and has no effect on atm. Tmean.”
    And –
    “Eqn. 7.16 ignores fluid dynamics because they do not exit or gain energy to/from deep space which is obviously unphysical.”
    But then in response to to this –
    K- “For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.”
    You state –
    “Concur. But irrelevant to the futility of long range numerical climate prediction basics.”

    Concur? Finally!

    Now let’s see how irrelevant or not it is.

    For a non-radiative atmosphere energy would be only entering and exiting the atmosphere from the base of the atmosphere.

    For a radiative atmosphere energy would be entering the base and exiting the top of the atmosphere.

    Now if you concur that – “For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.”
    – that would be game, set and match. SB equations alone therefore cannot determine the temperature of a moving gas atmosphere over a liquid ocean. In the case of the radiative greenhouse hypothesis, the null hypothesis, that the 255K figure is in error and no extra 33K need be found to raise it to 288K , still stands.

  208. Earth’s climate in four thought experiments:

    1. no atmosphere = climate too cold, radiative equilibrium, no weather, effective temperature
    2. non-radiative atmosphere = climate too hot, radiative equilibrium, no weather, effective temperature
    3. radiative atmosphere = climate just right, radiative equilibrium, weather oscillating, effective temperature oscillating
    4. radiative atmosphere with composition in flux = climate chaotic, radiative non-equiibrium, weather chaotic, no effective temperature
    ;-)

  209. Konrad says:
    December 16, 2013 at 8:04 pm
    Recently I visited the Powerhouse Annex at Castle Hill for the open day.I will make it my task to have another look at the Powerhouse in Sydney to look for your work.It is good to see Australians involved in useful activities.
    Dr Gray made the initial point that most in society,that includes me,however independently qualified, know nothing of atmospheric physics.
    That does not mean most may not learn.
    I was hoping that Dr Gray may pass by and comment on the discussion so far, particularly the Trick, TB, Konrad Triad.
    It is one thing to argue that a known principal is in itself valid, another to say it applies to a particular physical interaction.
    Intuitively I would think that columns of heated air would respond most to the duration of maximum heat exchange that occurred at the greatest temperature difference, not the average temp, as an average would contain temperature differences where little heat flowed, so not reflect the outcome, that’s if I understand the debate.
    Perhaps the Mods could ask Dr Gray for an overview of this whole thread.

  210. LP Buckingham 1:12am -“.. know nothing of atmospheric physics.”

    I understand your issue. Astonishing to me is that many posters do not admit this or bother to study the basics of atm. physics, preferring to just have a view; it is easier to post shocking stuff that way.

    IMO Konrad’s view is that the futility of general circulation climate models long range predictions is because corpus of planetary and exoplanet basic science is wrong in that the corpus does not consider planets with atmospheres are windy.

    The science shows the futility of climate long range predictions comes from the input and output variables that do their thing – they vary chaotically. The basic corpus is correct with no or little futility and inherently allows for windy planets. Sea surface temperatures are known to vary by 0.7 degree Kelvin between no wind and windy conditions. This is 0.2% of the surface Tmean well within instrumentation error.

    Digging deeper, general circulation models (GCMs) are known to predict differently than observations of nature – this futility of predictions is evident at the moment and not because the basic science is unfounded. In my view, the GCMs complexity is not yet sufficient but will be eventually improved because, again, the fundamental science is sound (Chapt. 7, Fig.s 7-11, 7-12 and eqn. 7.16).

    Konrad disagrees with eqn. 7.16; his challenge remains to write out an improved eqn. Note in this thread Konrad studiously avoids doing so. In the scientific method, 1st step is write down your new theory a priori then proceed to step 2: show natural experiments back it up. Konrad completely skips step 1. If Konrad actually made basic progress, then it would be adopted in the basic corpus. Konrad offers no evidence of this coming about.

    It is always gratifying to see competitors adopt your new invention “baby”; so far Konrad’s stuff is not adopted – it is orphaned for good reason. Konrad’s view offers no theoretical progress in the field as yet.

  211. Konrad 10:00pm: “For a radiative atmosphere energy would be entering the base and exiting the top of the atmosphere.”

    Konrad misses quite more than even I can see. Those proficient in the subject know solar energy is absorbed (“entering”) the atm. throughout the entire column. TOA down to BOA, not just “the base”. They also know all of Konrad’s experiments follow 1st law as does eqn. 7.16.

    Most Konrad’s other questions/conclusions are not interestingly new from other posts, demonstrate no progress in the field, theory already shown in error by those proficient in the subject matter (cite corpus basic text books & published papers) and OT anyway.

  212. Trick says:
    December 17, 2013 at 9:20 am
    ———————————————–
    “IMO Konrad’s view is that the futility of general circulation climate models long range predictions is because corpus of planetary and exoplanet basic science is wrong in that the corpus does not consider planets with atmospheres are windy.”

    Wrong. First my claims relate primarily to the failure of the basic two shell radiation only models used in the “basic physics” of the “settled science” as in figure 7.12. This is not some trivial mistake about “wind”. This is about a critical error in modelling the role of radiative gases in driving strong vertical convective circulation in the troposphere. It is this circulation that generates the observed lapse rate and is the primary energy transport away from the surface into the atmosphere.

    “Konrad disagrees with eqn. 7.16” his challenge remains to write out an improved eqn. Note in this thread Konrad studiously avoids doing so. In the scientific method, 1st step is write down your new theory a priori then proceed to step 2: show natural experiments back it up. Konrad completely skips step 1. If Konrad actually made basic progress, then it would be adopted in the basic corpus. Konrad offers no evidence of this coming about.”

    No, that won’t work. I clearly do not disagree with equation 7.16, just its mis-application to a moving gas atmosphere above a liquid ocean. I even give an empirical experiment showing how the physics behind the equation work!

    “his challenge remains to write out an improved eqn. Note in this thread Konrad studiously avoids doing so.”

    No, that won’t work either. As past blog records show I have previously given you and others the answer to this. You cannot model atmospheric temperatures for a moving gas atmosphere with equation 7.16 or even an “improved equation”. The very idea is ridiculous. You are trying to use linear flux equations on a static atmosphere model just like figure 7.12. I have pointed out to you many times this cannot work. I have shown you by empirical experiment why it won’t work. You need to run flux equations for discrete moving air masses and you need to run them iteratively. There is a name for this. It is not “improved equation”, it is “computational fluid dynamics”. You know, that thing GCMs can’t do in the vertical dimension?

    “It is always gratifying to see competitors adopt your new invention “baby”; so far Konrad’s stuff is not adopted – it is orphaned for good reason.”

    Wishful thinking Trick. I am seeing quite a bit of progress. Not just to the end of the whole global warming inanity (that is now assured) but to something more important. That is the total destruction of any hope of a “soft landing” for any of the AGW believers. Many desperately hope that they can get away with the “there is warming but less than we thought” excuse. But that hope will also die. More and more former “lukewarmers” are now daring to ask “was there something wrong with the modelling of non-radiative energy transports” Even Viscount Monckton, die-hard lukewarmer, raised this very question a day ago. The tide is turning and it is unstoppable. When people begin to ask this question they will begin looking at why radiative-convective models were cooked up after 1990. They will find the papers, just as I have done. The corpse of global warming cannot be re-animated, nor can it be hidden.

    “Konrad’s view offers no theoretical progress in the field as yet.”

    Actually it lends support to the Nikolov and Zeller hypothesis. This hypothesis determines planetary atmospheric temperatures by atmospheric pressure and solar insolation alone for any atmosphere that has radiative cooling ability. The N&Z hypothesis shows that N2 and O2 are the true “greenhouse gases”, and radiative gases such as H2O are the “broken panes” in the green house. In early 2012 I used a simple empirical experiment to verify one of the central claims of N&Z regarding conductive energy transfer from SW heated target plates to gases at different pressures. They were right.

    It is notable that Ned Nikolov is also one of those that have realised that the trick to the radiative green house hypothesis was the decoupling of the role of radiative gases in surface/atmosphere radiative exchange from their role in driving mechanical energy transports and not solving for both simultaneously.

  213. Scott Wilmot Bennett says:
    December 14, 2013 at 9:48 pm
    TB:
    December 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    TB said:

    No, I mean quite specifically that the equation is for a body without atmosphere! The grey-body ‘emissivity’ quite clearly, means amount of radiation absorbed after accounting for reflection. The S-B equation can generate an average temperature given total energy absorbed. Earth is a grey-body because it reflects some energy, it has nothing to do with atmospheric absorption. I’m trying very hard and you keep avoiding answering my question! What is found, is that, It is too cold. This is uncontroversial! A separate calculation must be made to account for the higher temperatures recorded on Earth and this is where GHGs come in. This “Greenhouse” effect is not described by the S-B law because the problem enters the realm of more complex kinetic relationships.
    Scott
    The S-B eq when coupled with albedo can be used for the Earth and it’s atmosphere.
    It has everything to do with atmos absorption as that is what drops out when we factor in albedo
    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
    Mind you –you’ve prob seen it.
    And this – showing model success at bottom.

    http://earth.usc.edu/classes/geol150/stott/glbwarming/Climate%20Models.dwt

    The S-B calculation is made using albedo as a correction….
    Ie it is in the LH side of the Solar in = LW out
    (1-a)S=4e(sigma)T^4 a=albedo, S=solar constant, e=emmisivity of earth , sigma =S-B constant

    “This yields an apparent effective average earth temperature of 288 K (15 °C; 59 °F). This is because the above equation represents the effective radiative temperature of the Earth (including the clouds and atmosphere). The use of effective emissivity and albedo account for the greenhouse effect.”

    Also from: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/07/the-dull-case-of-emissivity-and-average-temperatures/
    PS: A very good website.

    “Emissivity in the wavelengths of interest for the earth’s radiation is generally very close to 1. Assuming “blackbody” radiation is a reasonable assumption for most calculations of interest – as other unknowns are typically a higher source of error.
    Because the earth’s surface has been mapped out and linked to the emissivities, if a particular calculation does need high level accuracy the emissivities can be used.
    In the terms of how emissivity changes the “surprising” result that temperature can increase while energy radiated decreases – the answer is “not much”.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “The radiative-convective models have advantages over the simple model: they can determine the effects of varying greenhouse gas concentrations on effective emissivity and therefore the surface temperature. But added parameters are needed to determine local emissivity and albedo and address the factors that move energy about the earth.
    But my question is even more specific:
    Q: A figure for Albedo (30-35%) is used as the emissivity term in the grey-body equation. Given that clouds and surface albedo are combined to produce this figure how can you derive an equilibrium temperature? Again, the albedo of the surface changes over time and the albedo due to clouds changes rapidly and even the ocean surface albedo changes hourly.”

    Yes albedo changes – but it seems not by that much (on short-time scales) and the “rapid” changes would cancel out to zero (again a chaotic process). I have spent some time looking for info but have the best I have come up with is the Scienceofdoom site.
    Albedo will be parameterised with seasonal and topology/geographic terms. GCM’s integrate over such long time scales that computational expense is a big constraint.
    It is certainly an area that needs to be addressed as computers progress.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    “It is intellectually dishonest to claim to know the equilibrium temperature of the Earth based on the S-B law.”

    I do not agree. The S-B law is the basis for calculation radiative equilibrium and science is endeavouring to find answers with the tools it has. In the modern age we are able to answer much more complex questions with the use of supercomputers/models. “All models are wrong – but some of them give useful information”. We model nuclear explosions with them FI.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “The simple radiative model imagines a black-body having no atmosphere absorbing all incident energy. The general model allows for bodies that reflect some of the energy, thus the figure for absorption is adjusted down for a grey-body. It has nothing to do with the energy balance, this is still dealing with the “energy-in” stage! This is at the very fundamental level of your argument. The radiative model at its simplest, asks first, how much energy is actually received given some is reflected! In the equation, this ‘emissivity’, is calculated by assuming an average albedo! The difficulty with the Earth is that the figure includes clouds! It is not simply albedo at the surface. This is a big fudge factor!”

    No it’s energy out. The S-B is adjusted via albedo and that is reflective.
    I addressed the clouds bit in an earlier post. Clouds are chaotic and so their albedo will average out. What needs more investigation is the feed-back behaviour of clouds long term.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “You keep saying the Earth is a heat engine but how much heat is actually going in? We both agree that heat comes out but how long does it take to come out? You often refer to a boiling pan of water. I keep seeing images of water boiling at room temperature in the partial vacuum of a suction flask or salt being added to boil pasta! Obviously pressure and salinity matter and this is a big problem for a linear equation, given that on Earth, they vary spatially and temporally.”

    The energy going in is measured at TOA (as the in vs out equation has to be balanced – it’s not quite but we know it to ~1W/m^2.
    I think it would take ~days/weeks for the atmos/land to lose all it’s heat but much longer from the oceans (which would still feed out into the atmosphere.
    No, the boiling water analogy I use is just to illustrate that climate cycles on Earth are internal chaos that ultimately don’t need to be considered in the fundamental Solar absorbed minus IR emitted equation….. apart of course from any that have feed-backs. Things like PDO/ENSO/AMO do not have feed-backs (of any long-lasting effect). Just view it as showing that heat in will do the same thing (always at given known initial conditions) NO MATTER how things jiggle around within the system before they flow out – that bit is conserved. The molecular flow in the boiling pan of water is re-distribution of heat around the system and NOT controlling its process. It is a symptom and not a cause. We want to put climate cycles in the GCM’s to discover initial sensitivity – we can know the starting conditions very well, but not the cycle lengths – which is why we have an “unforecast” pause. GCM’s cannot put the pauses in the right places. They compute them – but they cannot be correct in the TIMING – so ensemble runs are made, where all the dips/rises in each member will be averaged out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “If you still manage to ignore the problem of calculating absorption for the Earth, the figure for solar irradiance is extremely complex and controversial even without the difference between the expected 1,368 from the ‘observed’ 1,366 and ‘adjustment’ to 1,3361 W/m2. Changing albedo by 0.01 or solar irradiance by 6 W/m2 changes the equilibrium temperature by a degree. Solar irradiance doesn’t have to vary much over the longer term to be able to explain all of ‘global warming’ (0.1% or so).”

    I’m afraid it does have to change by a good bit more than we have seen in modern human time scales

    The 11 year cycle gives ~1% solar variation and that equates to 1.37 W/m^2 (though Wiki says 0.9 W/m^2) that’s certainly not 6 W/m^2 and nowhere near the forcing produced by increasing CO2 from 280 to ~400ppm + other GHG’s in industrial times – has given a forcing of 2.6W/m^2.
    Remember the solar cycle(s) are – just that – cyclical and only temporary forcings, GHG’s will last ~century even when not being added to.

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

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “There is much more to say about the Solar Constant and the simple radiative model describing Earth as a grey-body is invalidated by the inability to calculate absorption at any time scale.”

    Nope – it’s just not the sun, and reading the science – there’s a lot out there – the Earth’s emissivity is well represented (model variation are averaged out for the mean consensus figure). Modelling of past climate describes what we know happened and only GHG forcing added to the models produces the

    We started this discussion with you arguing that the Earth’s climate system plays a major role in the equilibrium temp – I hope at least my arguments have availed you of that.

  214. Konrad 7:18pm: By inspection, your post is devoid of any science based basic cites to respond, it is 100% assertion. In it, you are forced resort to the classic fallacious appeal to authority in that: 1) you do not establish the authors are experts in field of atm. thermo., 2) you do not establish the field of atm. thermo. experts have by and large adopted the authors theory (In a range of modern atm. thermo. text books for example), 3) and you use their reasoning as your own.

    You demonstrate little proficiency in basic atm. thermo. principles. As an example you don’t see “strong vertical convection in the troposphere” is same as “strong winds” which are spatially and temporally avg.d for Earth surface & atm. and used in eqn. 7.16 which is correctly applied from 1st principle by and large in many text books by experts in the field. Eqn. 7.16 calculates Tmean=288K as measured for near surface control volume over certain time periods.

    All is not lost Konrad.

    As I recommended to the OP, skip the blogs for a couple weeks; get a couple good modern atm. thermo. basic text books from the library; read and learn the basics if you have the pre-req.s. You will get much further in your quest to enlighten “former “lukewarmers”” if you successfully achieve first in that endeavor.

    Oh wait there’s this assertion: “They will find the papers, just as I have done.”

    Citations please. No fallacious appeal to authority will get my interest to respond.

  215. Trick,

    Now you’re getting personal with Konrad.

    Rather than incessant TB-like nitpicking around the edges of the debate, why don’t you try to explain this.

    See, the ultimate Authority, our planet, is busy proving you and the rest of the alarmist crowd flat wrong.

    Any effect from CO2 is so negligible at current levels that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. The belief in “carbon” has been so thoroughly debunked that I really wonder why people keep arguing about it.

    Furthermore, CO2 is good for the biosphere. More is better.

    Honest scientists admit it when their conjecture has been proven wrong. The CO2=cAGW conjecture has been repeatedly proven to be wrong. So consider this an ethics test: is “carbon” really a problem? Or not?

  216. dbstealey 11:32AM: Now you’re talking using cites, not assertion. Konrad should take notice once finished with reading assignment. Just go up thread where Konrad first referred to cite from Callendar 1938 paper. I provided a link to it.

    From that paper and for your “this” link, observe that it is not entirely futile for long-range numerical climate prediction:

    1) please examine Callendar 1938 Fig. 2. Learn from his discussion how CO2 has a logarithmic decreasing effect on the near surface global temperature Tmean “departure” 100ppm to 600+ppm.

    2) Re-center today’s observed Tmean anomaly shown from your link (easy to find this done on the ‘net) on 1921-1940 base for decent comparison to a 1938 paper. Use today’s updated emissions in Callendar’s formula and recalibrate.

    3) Examine the resulting recent and current Tmean anomaly (from your “this” link). This process updates Callendar table VI predictions. Find his updated predicted anomaly for comparable period reasonably coincides with observation at around 0.55C give or take.

    For this field, Callendar 1938 prediction is remarkably close to what has been observed in the preceding 75 years. So it is not entirely futile to have written down predictions from the basic atm. thermo. science which is still found in text books today.

    For your “negligible”, it is a view that need be formed. I negligible disagree with you, but haven’t a view; I just think the science is interesting to discuss after being astonished some posters demonstrate haven’t yet and won’t even read the most basic atm. thermo. text books.

    For your “more is better” I also agree with Callendar’s discussion of the benefits of recent surface Tmean increase in his conclusions – some modern papers and blogs don’t bother to include both sides (an understatement in this field).

    NB: one cannot have a view on the basic science based on 1st principles of the thermo. grandmasters.

  217. Trick says:
    December 18, 2013 at 10:38 am
    “Citations please. No fallacious appeal to authority will get my interest to respond.”
    ——————————————————————————————————-
    Trick, you do have an unfortunate habit of walking right into things, even when given fair warning. I would have thought painting “They will find the papers, just as I have done.” in big black and yellow stripes would have been enough. Apparently I needed to add warning lights ;-)

    For your requested cite you could try Ray Pierrehumberts glorious bafflegab from 1995 in which he tries to deny the thermostat effect of evaporation and clouds over the tropics –

    http://geoweb.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/JASRadiatorFins.pdf

    Here’s how “ScienceofDoom” summarises –

    “So increasing the emissivity from zero (increasing “greenhouse” gases) cools the climate to begin with. Then as the emissivity increases past a certain point the warm pool surface temperatures start to increase again.”

    So apparently radiative gases now initially cool the atmosphere but after a “certain point” they start to warm it? Is that mysterious “certain point” included in any of your linear flux equations?

  218. Konrad 3:10pm asks OT but provides interesting cites: “So apparently radiative gases now initially cool the atmosphere but after a “certain point” they start to warm it?”

    No. I read the paper you linked, I read the SOD piece. See it doesn’t take long. Unlike your non-reading of basic atm. thermo. texts. Did you notice in the paper eqn.s 2.5 are eqn. 7.16 in a bit of a disguise?

    Did you notice the paper is discussing regions in the tropics (humid, much more sea surface than land & more solar than on global avg.)? It shows some graphs varying tropical emissivity unnaturally from 0 to 1.0 where in the natural tropics the spatial and temporal avg. emissivity looking up is on the order of 0.9 & shows on all the curves a monotonic upswing in SST with increased atm. emissivity (0.7 to 0.95 as is natural).

    In your clip of SOD, he unfortunately uses the term “climate” when the contextual graphs clearly are labeled SST (in context tropical SST) which is the term that should have been used but generally climate term can be understood to mean regional not global.

    Konrad has been easily misled and misconstrues the discussion to concern global surface atm. Tmean when it is discussing SST in the tropics under certain theoretical non-existent conditions as a learning device.

    Konrad continues: “Is that mysterious “certain point” included in any of your linear flux equations?”

    Yes. Check out what happens at the non-mysterious certain point around 300ppm in Callendar 1938 Fig.2 as CO2 ppm decreases from 600ppm to 100ppm.

  219. Trick says:
    December 18, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    —————————————–
    Trick, you asked for cites you got one. The Pierrehumbet paper was a good example of the type of radiative-convective patch up jobs that were being attempted to save global warming post 1990. For engineers, the water cycle represents a giant vapour/condensate heat pump transporting energy away from the surface, high above the level of max IR opacity, where it is then radiated to space. Pierrehumbert was clearly acknowledging the critical importance of radiative gases in this cycle, but then attempting some fantastic hand-waving to claim that after a certain concentration, radiative gases would reduce the efficiency of the process. That paper is truly spectacular in its audacity!

    “Konrad continues: “Is that mysterious “certain point” included in any of your linear flux equations?”
    Yes. Check out what happens at the non-mysterious certain point around 300ppm in Callendar 1938 Fig.2 as CO2 ppm decreases from 600ppm to 100ppm.”

    No Trick. Callendars 1938 work had nothing to do with radiative gases cooling the atmosphere or surface at any concentration. Callendar does not attempt a radiative-convective solution, just as Sir George Simpson points out in your link. Figure 2 does not show anything like Pierrehumberts crazed claims. The figure clearly shows that Callendar believed radiative gases cause warming at all concentrations. The zero line on the vertical axis is not a line between cooling and warming. It is quite clearly labelled “present mean T” Why did you do that? Inspired by Pierrehumbert? ;-)

  220. Konrad 7:02pm: Clearly you have not completed your reading assignment.

    “..high above the level of max IR opacity.”

    Max. IR opacity is ground level in atm. so concur hydrological cycle begins by transporting energy up from ground level (evaporation), dumping it in atm. (not deep space needed for diabatic cooling as Konrad always infers) and radiating the same energy back to surface (condensation) for no net change in near surface Tmean or even Tmean of entire atm. for adiabatic cycle as no winds (strong convection in troposphere – Konrad term) or rain release energy to space, only radiation does.

    Konrad – your stuff plainly shows your own futility in long range numerical climate prediction. Please read up on the basics, make it a real challenge to find issues in your posts. Try not to live up to all my expectations.

    “Why did you do that?”

    The anomaly goes negative below the zero line. A cooling effect on surface Tmean~288K were you able to drain CO2 say to plants – due to emissivity of atm. declining in eqn. 7.16 as I have pointed out, repeatedly. Go – read up on the basics Konrad. Though it is fun while you are in basically uninformed mode.

  221. Trick says:
    December 18, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    ————————————————-
    “Max. IR opacity is ground level in atm. so concur hydrological cycle begins by transporting energy up from ground level (evaporation), dumping it in atm. (not deep space needed for diabatic cooling as Konrad always infers) and radiating the same energy back to surface (condensation) for no net change in near surface Tmean or even Tmean of entire atm. for adiabatic cycle as no winds (strong convection in troposphere – Konrad term) or rain release energy to space, only radiation does.”

    Again, as I have previously pointed out on this very thread, nowhere on this blog or any other have I ever implied that convective circulation or any other mechanical energy transport in the atmosphere moves energy to space. I clearly am repeatedly referring to radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere an its role in driving strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. No matter how many times you try to imply that I am claiming convection moves energy into space this tactic won’t work.

    As to “and radiating the same energy back to surface”, this is clearly wrong. Only about50% of the energy dumped by the release of latent heat in the atmosphere is radiated back towards the surface. Even less makes it. IR opacity increases with decreasing altitude. Most energy radiated back toward the surface from the release of latent heat is intercepted and thermalised in the atmosphere. And the problem here is that around half of the energy back radiated by the release of latent heat is intercepted by air masses that are rising.

    And referring to convective circulation as “winds”? Other readers can see that this is just trying to get rid of that little difficulty of the word “vertical” in strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. After all, without this strong vertical circulation across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere, the lapse rate would disappear and the atmosphere would trend isothermal with its temperature driven by surface Tmax. That would make the vast bulk of the atmosphere far hotter than present. And despite the assumptions of climate scientist in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”, this strong vertical circulation cannot continue in the absence of radiative gases.

    “Konrad – your stuff plainly shows your own futility in long range numerical climate prediction. Please read up on the basics, make it a real challenge to find issues in your posts. Try not to live up to all my expectations.”

    Futility? I’m not so sure. You do occasionally make some progress, although it takes time ;-)
    Remember how long it took you to finally admit that removing energy from a fluid column could drive convective circulation? And it has taken since December 2012 until you have finally conceded that my claim – “For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.” – is indeed correct.

    “The anomaly goes negative below the zero line. A cooling effect on surface Tmean~288K..”

    No, it wont wash. I cited Pierrehumbert trying to claim cooling then warming after a “certain point” for increasing concentrations of radiative gases. You cited Callendar figure 2 showing warming at all concentrations above 0.0ppm as evidence of this “certain point”. Anomaly from current temperatures was never the issue.

    Ultimately Trick, if you have conceded – that “For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.” – then you have effectively conceded that the NET effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Radiative gases provide the only means of energy loss from the atmosphere at altitude. The amount of energy being radiated to space by radiative gases far exceeds the net flux of radiative energy into the atmosphere as it also includes all the energy the atmosphere acquired by conduction and release of latent heat.

  222. Konrad 10:01pm: Offers nothing new. Asserts, provides no cites or eqn.s. Runs no numbers. Just makes stuff up. Lives up to all my expectations. Experts in the field continue ignore his assertions.

    ******

    Details reiterated to help Konrad improve by reading the basics:

    “..if you have conceded – that “For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.”

    Yes. The height of energy absorbed into the column matters due to P(z)=density(z)*R*T(z), whether convection even exists by fluid heated from below (tropopause), poisson eqn., and hydrostatic equilibrium consideration, science Konrad will have opportunity pick up when he completes the reading assignment – I rec. Bohren 1998.

    “…you have effectively conceded that the NET effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”

    No. After completing his reading assignment, Konrad will learn this fails the 1st law Eqn. 7.16, eqn.s 2.5 in the paper Konrad cited and atm. radiation principles (I rec. Bohren 2006).

    “Incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.”

    This fails 1st law if the LWIR energy into the control volume around the mass of water is greater than the energy out of the water mass by evaporative cooling. All of Konrad’s experiments obey the 1st law eqn. 7.16. Konrad has to run accurate numbers in each case; never has. Experts in the field have done so and clearly show Konrad wrong – Konrad simply has not read the basics.

    “…nowhere on this blog or any other have I ever implied that convective circulation or any other mechanical energy transport in the atmosphere moves energy to space.”

    No. Konrad has written many times the convective circulation cools the entire atm. as I clipped above (only to have Konrad correct what he really meant afterwards). The only way to do so is convect the energy to deep space. What happens as explained by authors Konrad has not yet read, is that convective circulation dumps the same amount of radiation into the atm. as is emitted by the atm. Convective circulation is adiabatic process because stays within the control volume of interest.

    Konrad’s failure to understand and use control volume basics appears to be the root cause of his unphysical assertions from not reading basic atm. thermo. text books.

  223. Konrad says:
    December 16, 2013 at 8:57 pm
    TB says:
    December 16, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    ———————————————
    “Wow! What a snow storm! Shakespeare covered this – “methinks the lady doth protest to much” ;-)

    Amongst the storm, you raised the issue of the PSI group. I have no association with them, and as the blog record shows I have disputed their false claims here, at Dr. Spencer’s and Jo Nova’s sites. Any implication that I have any link with PSI will get you nowhere.”

    Err – I didn’t raise the issue of the PSI group. That was merely within the quote I lifted from Anthony’s Blog and is irrelevant to the point I was raising. Try reading it again.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As to Dr. Spencer, you may well be disappointed –

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/

    If he has said something to the contrary to what I quoted from him then I suggest you take it up with Anthony. I am fairly new to this Blog and not fully aware of his views – but that quote says a definite thing. This is the pertinent bit…
    “They claim on their web page that “the Greenhouse gas effect is bogus” and thus ignore many measurements of IR absorptivity in the atmosphere which show that it is indeed a real effect. Rational climate skeptics acknowledge that the greenhouse effect exists and functions in Earth’s atmosphere.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “Here you will see that Dr. Spencer agrees that there would be no strong vertical convective circulation under the tropopause without radiative gases. He still claims that a doubling of CO2 could cause 0.5C of warming. I am claiming it would cause an immeasurably small amount of cooling. Did Dr. Spencer get something wrong? Yes –“

    If that is the case then I disagree with him. Simple as that. You cannot has a GHE that casues cooling. So something does not scan it your quotes vs the one I quoted.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “Only the surface and a shallow layer of air next to the surface would go through a day-night cycle of heating and cooling. The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature. And without a falloff of temperature with height in the atmosphere of at least 10 deg. C per kilometer, all atmospheric convection would stop.”

    “And the mistake? Right here – “ The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature”. The same error Trick makes. As empirical experiment shows, it is surface Tmax that will drive the temperature of such an isothermal atmosphere not surface Tav.2″

    That is NOT my quote Konrad –Anthony’s? I cannot and do not try to make sense of it. It is not my
    doing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    TB, you have disputed my claim that radiative gases play a critical role in tropospheric convective circulation and that this circulation would stall in their absence. Then you invoked Dr. Spencer, who claims the same thing. I think this could be call pulling a “Trick.” Trick has an unfortunate habit of carelessly using cites like the Callender 1938 paper that undermine his argument ;-)

    I certainly have. At no time in my meteorological studies/training was radiative cooling mention/discussed in regard it being a vital part of the circulation of a Hadley Cell. That is not to say that it does not happen – just that air aloft will inevitably sink when converged at 30N/S in the Sub-tropical jet – and sink. What is you cannot comprehend about convergence of mass?
    I did NOT evoke Spencer – Anthony did – I quoted Anthony in his agreeing (requoted above) the GHE – ie: warming due GHG’s.

  224. Trick says:
    December 19, 2013 at 6:16 am
    ——————————————–
    “Experts in the field……”

    Call to authority argument. Again, no it won’t work. Not after the inanity of Pierrehumbert, an “expert in the field” has been put on display.

    “….to help Konrad improve by reading the basics”

    You previously argued black and blue that removing energy from a fluid column could not possibly drive convective circulation as it wasn’t “adding energy to the control volume”. What was that again about the “basics”?

    “Yes. The height of energy absorbed into the column matters due to P(z)=density(z)*R*T(z), whether convection even exists by fluid heated from below…”

    Still avoiding those little words “or fluid cooled from above”?

    “This fails 1st law if the LWIR energy into the control volume around the mass of water is greater than the energy out of the water mass by evaporative cooling. All of Konrad’s experiments obey the 1st law eqn. 7.16. Konrad has to run accurate numbers in each case; never has. Experts in the field have done so and clearly show Konrad wrong – Konrad simply has not read the basics.”

    I have claimed that incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. I have backed my claim with empirical experiment. Others have checked the basic principles shown and confirmed (most recently at Dr. Spencer’s). I have repeatedly challenged you to produce just one simple empirical experiment that others can replicate demonstrating LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool. Hand waving about “experts” and “basics” won’t do. It is becoming painfully obvious that no CO2 thermageddon believer can produce such an experiment.

    “No. Konrad has written many times the convective circulation cools the entire atm. as I clipped above (only to have Konrad correct what he really meant afterwards).”

    That won’t wash either. How many times have I written that “the Net effect of RADIATIVE GASES in our atmosphere is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm”? Many, many times. My claims concerning convective circulation are very clear –
    1. Strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation depends on radiative cooling at altitude.
    2. It is this circulation that pneumaticaly generates the current observed lapse rate.
    3. Without this circulation the bulk of the atmosphere would trend isothermal with its temperature driven by surface Tmax not surface Tav.
    4. An atmosphere without radiative cooling at altitude would run far hotter than our current atmosphere.

    “What happens as explained by authors Konrad has not yet read, is that convective circulation dumps the same amount of radiation into the atm. as is emitted by the atm.”

    ??? No, the atmosphere is radiating not just energy acquired by conduction and release of latent heat transported by convection, but also energy acquired by the interception of surface and solar radiation.

    “Convective circulation is adiabatic process because stays within the control volume of interest.”

    Not relevant. What is relevant is where convective circulation transports energy TO in our DIABATIC atmosphere. Remember what you conceded? – “For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.”

    “Konrad’s failure to understand and use control volume basics appears to be the root cause of his unphysical assertions from not reading basic atm. thermo. text books.”

    I suspect the failure to understand may be yours. To understand the effects of radiative gases, you will need at minimum three “control volumes”. Land, ocean and atmosphere, and you need to calculate not just energy input and exit from theses “control volumes”, but because they are fluids in a gravity field, you need to model non-radiative transports within the ocean and atmosphere volumes and the height of energy input and exit. Why? Because as you conceded – “For a gas (fluid) column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.”

  225. TB says:
    December 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    ——————————————–
    It seems we have both mis-interpreted quotes. I tend to over-react to any mention of PSI a “false-flag” operation. Most irritatingly they seem to have adopted the results of an old 2011 experiment of mine (without attribution) to make themselves sound more “sciencey”.

    This quote –

    “Only the surface and a shallow layer of air next to the surface would go through a day-night cycle of heating and cooling. The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature. And without a falloff of temperature with height in the atmosphere of at least 10 deg. C per kilometer, all atmospheric convection would stop.”

    – was from Dr. Spencer.

    Dr. Spencer is claiming, as I do, that radiative gases play a critical role in strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation, and this circulation would cease in their absence and the atmosphere would trend isothermal via gas conduction. Dr. Spencer covered this in 2009, but I only found this out after independent empirical experiments after 2011 gave me the answer and I was backtracking to find out who else knew.

    You say –

    “At no time in my meteorological studies/training was radiative cooling mention/discussed in regard it being a vital part of the circulation of a Hadley Cell. That is not to say that it does not happen – just that air aloft will inevitably sink when converged at 30N/S in the Sub-tropical jet – and sink. What is you cannot comprehend about convergence of mass?”

    But it of course is only radiative energy loss that allows convergence of mass in air masses at altitude allowing subsidence. The following meteorology link –

    http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html

    – has a good explanation of the process, including-

    “As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence”

    In small scale experiments in shallow containers it is possible to generate convective circulation by only heating and cooling a fluid at disparate locations at its base. However the process involves the fluid dynamics of entrainment. This process breaks down as the container get taller, and layering starts to occur. While the troposphere at only 10 to 15 Km depth may appear shallow, the significant pressure gradient across this height gives it a far greater virtual depth with regards to Raleigh-Bernard circulation.

    The early two shell radiative models that are the foundation of not just AGW but the radiative greenhouse hypothesis, assume a tropospheric lapse rate in a non-radiative atmosphere. Worse, they set the atmospheric temperature using surface Tav, where as empirical experiment shows that if convective circulation has broken down, the bulk of the atmosphere would be isothermal with its temperature driven by surface Tmax. It should be noted that there would be no greater reduction of surface Tmax under a non radiative atmosphere, although Tmin over land in a very thin night inversion layer would be far lower. This means that for a non-radiative atmosphere the bulk of the atmosphere would be static with an isothermal temperature far hotter than present.

    This leads to the next problem. N2 and O2 are not truly “non-radiative” gases, they are poorly radiative gases. In a largely static atmosphere, as observed in the thermosphere, they are subject to radiative super heating. How hot could our atmosphere get without radiative gases? I’m not sure we would want to find out.

  226. Konrad says:
    December 19, 2013 at 4:27 pm
    TB says:
    December 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    ——————————————–
    You say –
    “At no time in my meteorological studies/training was radiative cooling mention/discussed in regard it being a vital part of the circulation of a Hadley Cell. That is not to say that it does not happen – just that air aloft will inevitably sink when converged at 30N/S in the Sub-tropical jet – and sink. What is you cannot comprehend about convergence of mass?”

    “But it of course is only radiative energy loss that allows convergence of mass in air masses at altitude allowing subsidence. The following meteorology link –

    http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html

    – has a good explanation of the process, including-

    “As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Konrad – there appears to be a little controversy/confusion about this. I accept that your interpretation is verified by your link. Can you find a more mathematical treatment of this claim?
    I disagree with it and I have not found a rigorous treatment of it say that.

    This is the bit I particularly disagree with “, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence”

    This says :…

    http://sparce.evac.ou.edu/q_and_a/air_circulation.htm

    From dia; “air sinks where Coriolis-turned air bunches up”

    From: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C3706%3ASPAETA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    “Of particular interest is the interaction between the quasi-stationary component and the transients in the subtropics. We have emphasized the importance of the reach of the energy transports by the transients well into the Tropics so that cooling results (of order 60 to over 100 W m−2 in winter) AND THIS IS COMPENSATED BY SUBSIDENCE IN THE DOWNWARD BRANCH OF THE HADLEY CIRCULATION. THE RESULTING RELATIVELY CLEAR SKIES PRODUCE RADIATIVE COOLING TO SPACE, WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE MUCH WITH SEASON AND SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A MODEST FEEDBACK, NOT A FUNDAMENTAL FORCING.”

    Further…
    “The seamless nature of the atmospheric poleward heat transports relates directly to how the Hadley circulation is driven and is linked with the mid-latitude storms. It is a picture consistent with views of the general circulation in Lorenz (1967) but nonetheless at odds with some current perceptions about the Hadley circulation (discussed in the introduction). The latter emphasize the importance of radiative cooling in the subtropics as a driver of the Hadley cell (albeit often deliberately to explore the possible atmospheric states without eddies), Whereas Both The Latent Heating In The Upward Branch And The Radiative Cooling In The Downward Branch ARE REALLY PROCESSES THAT RESULT IN LARGE PART FROM THE CIRCULATION.”

    Yes, it will, it is a mass diabatic process is relative to it’s surroundings – ie the air below will also cool. It remains in (more or less) balance.

    http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~snesbitt/ATMS505/stuff/07_Isentropic%20Analysis.pdf

    From above:
    “The troposphere, except in shallow, narrow, rare locations, is stable to dry processes. For the purpose of synoptic analysis, these areas can be ignored and potential temperature used as a vertical coordinate.”

    From: http://derecho.math.uwm.edu/classes/SynII/QGOmega.pdf
    “The contribution to vertical motion exclusively due to the Laplacian of diabatic heating can be expressed by:

    Omega *Is Prop* R/PCp Del^2 (dQ/dt)

    Omega = Vert motion. Q is the supply of heat per unit-time and mass. Cp the specific heat of dry air. R the gas constant for dry air. Del is the isobaric Del (grad) operator. dQ/dt is the diabatic heating rate.

    Diabatic warming refers to the situation where dQ/dt > 0, while diabatic cooling refers to the situation where dQ/dt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “In small scale experiments in shallow containers it is possible to generate convective circulation by only heating and cooling a fluid at disparate locations at its base. However the process involves the fluid dynamics of entrainment. This process breaks down as the container get taller, and layering starts to occur. While the troposphere at only 10 to 15 Km depth may appear shallow, the significant pressure gradient across this height gives it a far greater virtual depth with regards to Raleigh-Bernard circulation.”

    This does not model the Earth’s equatioral/subtropical atmosphere – there are large surface thermal differentials compounded by LH release on rising arm and also large thermal wind differentials (geopotential height gradient) aloft – But my concern is with Coriolis (the above neglects also) – I maintain that this is the major driver in the aloft part of the Hadley circulation as Poleward air converges.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “The early two shell radiative models that are the foundation of not just AGW but the radiative greenhouse hypothesis, assume a tropospheric lapse rate in a non-radiative atmosphere. Worse, they set the atmospheric temperature using surface Tav, where as empirical experiment shows that if convective circulation has broken down, the bulk of the atmosphere would be isothermal with its temperature driven by surface Tmax. It should be noted that there would be no greater reduction of surface Tmax under a non radiative atmosphere, although Tmin over land in a very thin night inversion layer would be far lower. This means that for a non-radiative atmosphere the bulk of the atmosphere would be static with an isothermal temperature far hotter than present.”

    No – empirical experiment cannot mimic the Earth in this regard. A natural lapse rate will develop regardless of atmospheric radiative responses. Due differential latitudinal heating > frictional turbulence > convection > overturning > geopotential height gradient > Coriolis > adiabatic cooling/heating – creating a heat pump and warming the lower layers/cooling aloft. Radiation is NOT needed. Models know this.
    If Earth had a non-radiative atmosphere it would be frigid – due immediate energy loss at terrestrial frequencies via a massive IR window.
    “This means that for a non-radiative atmosphere the bulk of the atmosphere would be static with an isothermal temperature far hotter than present.”

    I’m, sorry – I’m just gob-smacked at that.
    Why do you not accept that the BB temp of Earth (alright it’s a grey-body) is 255K?
    And there WOULD be a LR.
    You do also appreciate that there would be no thermodynamic equilibrium in this hypothetical World?
    Therefore there must be movement. (There would be radiational equilibrium – Solar absorbed Vs Ir emitted).

    You are aware of the gain/loss of internal energy via compression/rarefaction?
    Therefore there would be the inherent formation of a LR.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “This leads to the next problem. N2 and O2 are not truly “non-radiative” gases, they are poorly radiative gases. In a largely static atmosphere, as observed in the thermosphere, they are subject to radiative super heating. How hot could our atmosphere get without radiative gases? I’m not sure we would want to find out.”

    The “problem” is easily explained by realising that the Thermosphere is heated via collision with energy from energetic Solar particles. Particles that do not make it through the Tropopause.
    The Thermosphee is NOT heated via radiational exchange.

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

  227. Konrad 3:16pm: “Call to authority argument….”

    Perfectly ok if those consulted really are generally accepted text book science experts like citations in papers; it isn’t paranoia if they really are out to get you. Konrad – Science builds on the basics established by the expertise of the thermo grandmasters.

    “..you need to model non-radiative transports within the ocean and atmosphere volumes and the height of energy input and exit. Why?”

    The height of added external energy is important because a fluid heated from below will convect and one that is heated from above will not. Radiation exiting CV would be affected differently depending on whether I add same external energy across CV way above or way below tropopause so the surface Tmean would be affected differently. That Konrad fails to see this means he misses the basic thermo.

    The spontaneous movement of energy already in the CV has no effect on total internal energy since it does not affect energy in or energy out of CV unless forced from outside (refrigerator with an electric plug); Konrad’s argument about internal CV energy movement (convection) fails the basics.

    “Not after the inanity of Pierrehumbert, an “expert in the field” has been put on display.”

    Please point out formula number or Fig. in the paper you linked that holds exact science “inanity”. In eqn. form not in assertion which is Konrad’s expected but useless method of debate.

    Konrad – All of your experiments prove the 1st and 2nd law eqn. 7.16. So all of your experiments prove eqn. 7.16 is useful despite your assertions it is not.

  228. TB says:
    December 21, 2013 at 10:38 am
    —————————————————-
    “Konrad – there appears to be a little controversy/confusion about this. I accept that your interpretation is verified by your link. Can you find a more mathematical treatment of this claim?
    I disagree with it and I have not found a rigorous treatment of it say that.”

    I have claimed –
    Continued vertical circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar tropospheric convection cells depends on radiative energy loss from altitude. Without radiative cooling at altitude these circulation systems would stall.

    You have claimed –
    this circulation would continue because – “there are large surface thermal differentials compounded by LH release on rising arm and also large thermal wind differentials (geopotential height gradient) aloft – But my concern is with Coriolis (the above neglects also) – I maintain that this is the major driver in the aloft part of the Hadley circulation as Poleward air converges.”

    But claiming Coriolis forces as a major driver is clearly incorrect. Coriolis forces can only affect fluids already in motion within a rotating system such as a planets atmosphere. Coriolis forces do not drive tropospheric convective circulation. In the case of our planet, Coriolis forces only serve to break tropospheric convective circulation into three cells and deflect their ascending, translating and descending limbs.

    I have claimed –
    The observed tropospheric lapse rate is a product of continued vertical circulation across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere, and that this circulation ultimately depends on radiative cooling of air masses that have risen from the surface.

    You have claimed –
    “A natural lapse rate will develop regardless of atmospheric radiative responses. Due differential latitudinal heating > frictional turbulence > convection > overturning > geopotential height gradient > Coriolis > adiabatic cooling/heating – creating a heat pump and warming the lower layers/cooling aloft. Radiation is NOT needed. Models know this.”

    I would suggest that you have left out wizards, unicorns and climate “scientists” frantically waving their hands trying to drive megatonnes of gas in a giant flow from surface to 15Km altitude and back.

    I would further suggest that radiative cooling at altitude is the only real mechanism powerful enough to keep this circulation, and its resultant lapse rate going. How powerful? You asked for “a more mathematical treatment of this claim?” The amount of energy being radiated to space as IR from the atmosphere at altitude is more than TWICE the net flux of IR into the atmosphere from the surface and directly intercepted solar radiation combined. That’s all the maths you need.

    You claim –
    “If Earth had a non-radiative atmosphere it would be frigid – due immediate energy loss at terrestrial frequencies via a massive IR window.”

    Such an atmosphere would not be frigid, as it would be still heated by surface conduction, and release of latent heat. It would however no longer have an effective cooling mechanism. While the land surface under such an atmosphere would have a far lower Tmin, empirical experiment demonstrates that for a gas atmosphere in a gravity field, the surface is far better at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it.

    I state –
    “This means that for a non-radiative atmosphere the bulk of the atmosphere would be static with an isothermal temperature far hotter than present.”

    You respond –
    “I’m, sorry – I’m just gob-smacked at that.”

    Yep, thirty years of contiuous AGW propaganda can do that ;-)

    “Why do you not accept that the BB temp of Earth (alright it’s a grey-body) is 255K?”

    Because you were applying SB calculations to moving fluid bodies in a gravity field.

    And this –
    “The “problem” is easily explained by realising that the Thermosphere is heated via collision with energy from energetic Solar particles. Particles that do not make it through the Tropopause.
    The Thermosphee is NOT heated via radiational exchange.”

    No, what I was pointing out is that if full tropospheric convective circulation breaks down, stagnated N2 and O2 would be subject to radiative heating. Very high frequency UV does play a role in heating the thermosphere. However other wavelengths are absorbed and radiated (poorly) by N2 and O2. These include solar UV, SW, and IR which would all penetrate the full depth of an atmosphere devoid of radiative gases.

  229. Astute present and future readers may be wondering why I did not make a direct response to TBs’s cited papers in my previous response. This is because the response needs to be dealt with separately.

    I have previously mentioned on this thread, that post 1990 there was a frantic attempt to save global warming by changing radiative only models to radiative-convective models, introducing claims of “strongly positive water vapour feedback” and erasing the medieval warm period record that disproved these claims.

    The radiative-convective models are of course, utter tripe, or as it is otherwise known, “climate science”. These were a band-aid or patch up job to save global warming. There was no real attempt to advance science here, rather an attempt to erase inconvenient established meteorology.

    In response to Tricks ill considered demands for papers that were an example of this, I cited a 1995 Pierrehumbert paper, in which he tried to patch up global warming by claiming that at low concentrations, radiative gases could act to cool the atmosphere, driving convective circulation across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere through radiative losses to space, generating the observed lapse rate, but, strangly after a certain concentration they would case warming. Had any climate “scientist” ever claimed something this absurd about the science that was supposed to be “settled” well before this?

    But TB went further in trying to claim radiative gases were not critical to tropospheric convective circulation. He cited “Seamless poleward atmospheric energy transports and implications for Hadley circulation 2003”

    Most WUWT readers will instantly recognise one of the two authors, a certain “Kevin E. Trenberth”.

    That would be the Kevin infamous for the Trenberth/Khiel energy budget cartoon. The one that shows downwelling LWIR having the same effect over ocean as it does over land.

    That would be the same Kevin from the Climategate emails- “ we can’t account for the lack of warming of the oceans and it’s a travesty we can’t”

    That would be the same Kevin still searching for his missing heat in the oceans.

    That would be the same Kevin that stood up in front of a meeting of the AMS to demand “that the hull hypothesis be reversed in the case of global warming”.

    THAT Kevin Trenberth.

    (BTW Trick, how do you like my call to no credibility argument?)

    So what was the 2003 Trenberth patch up paper trying to claim? Only that LWIR emissions from the atmosphere to space were a feed back from atmospheric circulation rather than a driver of it! They were trying to trash the science of meteorology just to save the hides of a few worthless pseudo scientists, activists, journalists and politicians. The authors were trying to reverse cause and effect. This truly speaks to their motivations.

    I would urge other readers to take note of what was being attempted in the Trenberth paper. Now have a quick search of the web and see how many diagrams of tropospheric convective circulation actually include indication of LWIR emission from the circulation. Maybe check this against pre-Internet texts. Note how few recent diagrams actually show LWIR emissions. But note more importantly that post 1990 you can find some very strange diagrams that only show IR being emitted from the descending limb of tropospheric convection cells. Then maybe ask yourself how far you would trust Kevin E. Trenberth.

  230. Trick says:
    December 21, 2013 at 6:30 pm
    —————————————-
    You call on the authority of the “thermo grandmasters.”.

    Does this in any way involve orange robes and inaccessible mountain tops?

    Were their teachings responsible for your claiming that I couldn’t drive convective circulation within a fluid column in a gravity field by removing energy from the fluid?

    Do you ever consider consulting, if not a grandmaster, at least a student in their first year of fluid mechanics?

Comments are closed.