Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL

Guest essay by Dr. Ira Glickstein

We’ve reached a turning point where it is hard for any Global Warming Alarmist to claim (with a straight face) that the world as we know it is about to end in the coming decades unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone deluded or foolish enough to make such a claim would be laughed at by many audiences.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL

Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!

BUT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A BIG DEAL

Image

Alarmist Theory is Handcuffed to High Estimates of Climate Sensitivity

As the animated graphic clearly indicates, the theoretical climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are handcuffed to inordinately high estimates of climate sensitivity (how much temperatures are expected to rise given a doubling of CO2). Since the advent of good satellite-based global temperature data in 1979, observed temperatures have risen at a fraction of the IPCC predicted rate even as CO2 continues to rise.

Relax, there is not and never has been any near-term “tipping point”. The actual Earth Climate System is far less sensitive to CO2 than claimed the IPCC climate theory, as represented by their computer models. Global Warming since 1880 is mainly due to Natural Cycles and Processes not under human control. Yes, the same Natural Cycles and Processes that were responsible for the many Ice Age cycles that repeatedly occurred about every 100,000 years or so.

A GREAT TIME TO PUT ALARMISTS IN THEIR PLACE

Last week, by a stroke of good fortune, I happened to be scheduled to present “Visualizing the Atmospheric ‘Greenhouse’ Effect – Global warming is real, but how much is due to human activities and how big is the risk?” to the Philosophy Club in the Central Florida retirement community where I live.

Everyone in the highly interactive and supportive audience was aware of newspaper and TV reports of the drama of those ill-fated Global Warming “Research” activists whose Russian ship, the Academik Shokalskiy, got stuck in the summer ice of the Antarctic. (Fortunately, those people are safe, having been rescued by a helicopter from a Chinese icebreaker.) In addition to the Antarctic adventure gone wrong, in the week leading up to and following my talk, the media was overrun by stories of the “polar vortex” literally freezing large parts of the US and even causing Florida temperatures to drop below 30°F (0°C).

Of course, everyone knows that the cold wave is only anecdotal evidence and “weather is not climate”. However, photos and videos of researchers stuck in the Antarctic summer ice as well as scenes of American life frozen in place for days on end, when combined with clear and irrefutable evidence of a slowdown in warming since 1979 and no statistically significant warming since 1996 (as depicted in the graphic above), has considerable emotional impact. Audiences often react more to emotions than their reason.

My animated PowerPoint Show, which should run on any Windows PC, is available for download here. (NOTE: I knew that many members of the Philosophy Club audience, while highly intelligent and informed, are not particularly scientifically astute. Therefore, I kept to the basics and invited questions as I proceeded. Since most of them think in Fahrenheit, I was careful to give temperatures in that system. By contrast, my 2011 talk to the more scientifically astute members of our local Science and Technology Club Skeptic Strategy for Talking about Global Warming was more technical. Both presentations make use of animated PowerPoint charts and you are free to download and use them as you wish.)

My presentation is based on my five-part WUWT series entitled “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse Effect'” – 1 – A Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, and 5 – Light and Heat.  The series, which ran in 2011, generated tens of thousands of page views at WUWT, along with thousands of comments. I wrote the series this website attracts some viewers who reject the basic physics of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect.

HOW A REAL GREENHOUSE WORKS

I explained how a real physical Greenhouse works and how that is both similar and different from the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. The Greenhouse descriptions I learned in high school, as well as those available on the Internet, consider only the RADIATIVE effect. The glass roof of the Greenhouse allows visible light to pass through freely, heating the soil, plants, and air, but is opaque to the resultant infrared radiation, which is partly re-radiated back down into the Greenhouse, warming it further.  That part is true, but far from the whole story. The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION. In fact, it is possible to construct a successful Greenhouse using a roof made from materials that allow both visible and infrared to pass freely, but is impossible to make a working Greenhouse that is not both airtight and insulated.

HOW THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT WORKS

All warm objects emit radiation at a wavelength dependent upon the temperature of the object. The Sun, at around 10,000 °F, emits “short-wavelength” infrared radiation, centered around 1/2 micron (one millionth of a meter). The soil, plants, and air in the Greenhouse, at around 60°F to 100°F (15°C to 40°C), emit “long wavelength” radiation, centered around 10 microns (with most of the energy between 4 and 25 microns).

The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect works because:

  1. Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up  the Atmosphere,
  2. About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space,
  3. The remaining two-thirds of  the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,
  4. The warm Surface cools by emitting long-wavelength radiation at the Bottom of the Atmosphere, and this radiation passes towards the Top of the Atmosphere, where it is ultimately lost to Space,
  5. On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called “Greenhouse” gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,
  6. The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.
  7. In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)

THANK GOODNESS FOR THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT

If not for the warming effect of “Greenhouse” gases, the Surface of the Earth would average below 0°F (-18°C), which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60°F (33°C) of warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth Surface has warmed about 1.5°F (0.8°C) since good thermometer data became available around 1880. Some skeptics (including me) believe the actual warming is closer to 1°F, and that government agencies have adjusted the thermometer record to exaggerate the warming by 30% or more. However, it doesn’t really matter whether the actual warming is 1°F or 1.5°F (0.6°C or 0.8°C) because we are arguing about only 0.5°F (0.2°C), which is less than 1% of the total warming due to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect.

HOW SENSITIVE IS THE CLIMATE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES?

The IPCC claims that the majority of the warming since 1880 is due to human activities. It is true that we are burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas), and that we are making land use changes that may reduce the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Surface. Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.

The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3°F and 8°F (1.5°C and 4.5°C).  Some skeptics (including me) believe they are off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three, and that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1°F to 3°F (0.5°C to 1.5°C). As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.

VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT

As I noted above, I wrote the “Visualizing” series for WUWT (1 – A Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, and 5 – Light and Heat) because some WUWT viewers are “Disbelievers” who have had an “equal and opposite” reaction to the “end of the world” excesses of the Global Warming “Alarmists”.  By failing to understand and accept the basic science of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, they have, IMHO, “thrown the baby out with the bathwater”.

1 – A Physical Analogy

Albert Einstein was a great theoretical physicist, with all the requisite mathematical tools. However, he rejected purely mathematical abstraction and resorted to physical analogy for his most basic insights. For example, he imagined a man in a closed elevator being transported to space far from any external mass and then subjected to accelerating speeds. That man could not tell the difference between gravity on Earth and acceleration in space, thus, concluded Einstein, gravity and acceleration are equivalent, which is the cornerstone of his theory of relativity.  Einstein  never fully bought into the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics that he and others have called quantum weirdness and spooky action at a distance. He had trouble accepting a theory that did not comport with anything he considered a reasonable physical analogy!

So, if you have trouble accepting the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect because of the lack of a good physical analogy, you are in fine company.

Well, getting back to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect, a “disbelieving” commenter on WUWT suggested we think of the Sunlight as truckloads of energy going from the Sun to the Earth Surface, and the infrared radiation from the Surface as equal truckloads going the other way. How, he asked, could these equal and opposite truckloads do anything but cancel each other out as far as the amount of energy on the Surface of the Earth? In reply, I posted a comment with an analogy of truckloads of orange juice, representing short-wave radiation from Sun to Earth, and truckloads of blueberry juice, representing longwave radiation between Earth and the Atmosphere and back out to Space.

That thought experiment triggered my creativity. I imagined the Sun as a ball-pitching machine, throwing Yellow balls towards the “Earth” Surface (representing short-wave radiation) and Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation) bouncing back towards Space and interacting with the Atmosphere. The graphic below is one of my depictions of the physical analogy. Follow this link for more graphics and detail.

I imagined the Earth as a well-damped scale. The Yellow balls would bounce off the Surface and turn into Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation as the Earth absorbed the short-wave radiation and then emitted an equal quantity of long-wave radiation). The scale would read “1” unit.

If there was no Atmosphere, or if the Atmosphere contained no “Greenhouse” gases to obstruct the flight of the Purple balls, they would fly out towards Space.

I then imagined the Atmosphere as an obstacle that absorbed the Purple balls, split them in two, and emitted half of the smaller balls to Space and the other half back towards the Earth. The balls going towards Earth would be absorbed, further heating the Earth, and the warmed Earth would emit them back towards the Atmosphere. The process would be repeated with the balls being absorbed by “Greenhouse” gases in the Atmosphere, and then emitted with half going out to Space, and half back to the Earth. The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 … = 2 (approximately), so the scale reads “2” units.

Thus, in my simplified analogy, the “Greenhouse” gases in the “Atmosphere” cause the scale reading to double. So, the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect causes the Earth Surface to be warmer than it would be absent the “Greenhouse” gases. I think Einstein would be pleased!  Read more detail, including the 340 responses.

2 – Atmospheric Windows

A real greenhouse has windows. So does the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. They are similar in that they allow Sunlight in and restrict the outward flow of thermal energy. However, they differ in the mechanism. A real greenhouse primarily restricts heat escape by preventing convection while the “greenhouse effect” heats the Earth because “greenhouse gases” (GHG) absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.

There are two main “windows” in the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The first, the Visible Light Window, on the left side of the graphic, allows visible and near-visible light from the Sun to pass through with small losses, and the second, the Longwave Window, on the right, allows the central portion of the longwave radiation band from the Earth to pass through with small losses, while absorbing and re-emitting the left and right portions.

Sunlight Energy In = Reflected Sunlight Energy Out + Thermal Energy Out

The graphic is an animated depiction of the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” process.

On the left side:

(1) Sunlight is shortwave radiation with a wavelength centered around 0.5μ (microns, millionths of a meter). That energy streams through the Atmosphere towards the surface of the Earth.

(2) A portion of the Sunlight is reflected by clouds and other high-albedo surfaces and heads back through the Atmosphere towards Space. The remainder is absorbed by the Surface of the Earth, warming it.

(3) The reflected portion is lost to Space.

On the right side:

(1) The warmed Earth emits longwave radiation with a wavelength centered around 10μ towards the Atmosphere. This consists of thermal energy from about to about 25μ. For convenience in description, I have divided this range into three bands: ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ.

(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by water vapor (H2O), and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O and CO2. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. The ~7μ and ~15μ photons go off in all directions until they run into an H2O or CO2 molecule, and repeat the absorption and re-emittance process, or until they emerge from the Atmosphere or hit the surface of the Earth.

(3) The ~10μ photons that got a free-pass from the Earth through the Atmosphere emerge and their energy is lost to Space. The ~10μ photons generated by the heating of the air emerge from the top of the Atmosphere and their energy is lost to Space, or they impact the surface of the Earth and are re-absorbed. The ~7μ and ~15μ generated by the heating of the air also emerge from the top or bottom of the Atmosphere, but there are fewer of them because they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted, each time with some transfered to the central ~10μ portion of the longwave band.

Read more detail, including the 489 responses.

3 – Emission Spectra

The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” effect has been analogized to a blanket that insulates the Sun-warmed Earth and slows the rate of heat transmission, thus increasing mean temperatures above what they would be absent “greenhouse gases” (GHGs). Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up. The graphic below, based upon actual measurements of long-wave radiation as measured by a satellite LOOKING DOWN from the Top of the Atmosphere as well as from the Surface LOOKING UP from the Bottom of the Atmmsphere, depicts the situation.

,

Description of graphic (from bottom to top):

Earth Surface: Warmed by shortwave (~1/2μ) radiation from the Sun, the surface emits upward radiation in the ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ regions of the longwave band. This radiation approximates a smooth “blackbody” curve that peaks at the wavelength corresponding to the surface temperature.

Bottom of the Atmosphere: On its way out to Space, the radiation encounters the Atmosphere, in particular the GHGs, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the ~7μ and ~15μ regions in all directions. Most of the ~10μ radiation is allowed to pass through.

The lower violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 8.1 in Petty and based on measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking UP) indicates how the bottom of the Atmosphere re-emits selected portions back down towards the surface of the Earth.  The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300 K (equivalent to 27ºC or 80ºF). Note how the ~7μ and ~15μ regions approximate that curve, while much of the ~10μ region is not re-emitted downward.

“Greenhouse Gases”: The reason for the shape of the downwelling radiation curve is clear when we look at the absorption spectra for the most important GHGs: H2O, H2O, H2O, … H2O, and CO2. (I’ve included multiple H2O’s because water vapor, particularly in the tropical latitudes, is many times more prevalent than carbon dioxide.)

Note that H2O absorbs at up to 100% in the ~7μ region. H2O also absorbs strongly in the ~15μ region, particularly above 20μ, where it reaches 100%. CO2 absorbs at up to 100% in the ~15μ region.

Neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in the ~10μ region.

Since gases tend to re-emit most strongly at the same wavelength region where they absorb, the ~7μ and ~15μ are well-represented, while the ~10μ region is weaker.

Top of the Atmosphere: The upper violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 6.6 in Petty and based on satellite measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking DOWN) indicates how the top of the Atmosphere passes certain portions of radiation from the surface of the Earth out to Space and re-emits selected portions up towards Space. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300 K. Note that much of the ~10μ region approximates a 295 K curve while the ~7μ region approximates a cooler 260ºK curve. The ~15μ region is more complicated. Part of it, from about 17μ and up approximates a 260ºK or  270ºK curve, but the region from about 14μ to 17μ has had quite a big bite taken out of it. Note how this bite corresponds roughly with the CO2 absorption spectrum.

Read more detail, including the 476 responses

4 – Molecules and Photons

In this part, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules.

The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere.

  1. During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to , which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
  2. Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about to 25μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. As noted above, the primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
  3. The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
  4. The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
  5. This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
  6. The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
  7. The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
  8. Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.

Read more detail, including the 743 responses

5 – Light and Heat

As noted above, Sunlight Energy In = Reflected Sunlight Energy Out + Thermal Energy Out ! That’s old news to those of us who understand all energy is fungible (may be converted to different forms of energy) and energy/mass is conserved (cannot be created nor destroyed).

Answering Some Objections to the Atmospheric “Greenhouse”Effect

Some WUWT commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This section is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)

The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is “not much”, because perhaps 0.2ºC to 0.4ºC (0.1ºC to 0.2ºC) of the supposed 1.5ºF (0.8ºC) increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is “not much”, because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.

So, my motivation for this Visualizing series was not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.

Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.

Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.

Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.

Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.

Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.

Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works mainly by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution.

Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.

Read more detail, including the 958 responses

About these ads

324 thoughts on “Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL

  1. On your slide of ‘400 Years of Sunspot Observations’ you mis-label the cycles. What you label SC24 should be SC23, and SC25 should be SC24. SC05 should be SC04, SC06 should be SC05. The problems seems to start at the beginning. SC01 is not the first ‘blue’ cycle [which is incomplete], but the second one [which is the first complete cycle].

  2. I have a few questions regarding EVs. One is that I am hearing fantastic claims of ranges
    that I find hard to believe. The Volt claimed 40 miles per charge, yet gets between 25-35.
    The Tesla is claiming 400 miles on an 85kw battery, so has Tesla managed to improve
    power density on Lithium Ion batteries by orders of magnitude?

    I also heard Tesla faked videos of their “90 second” battery exchange in order to qualify
    for tens of millions in California’s phony carbon credits. Another question is how can an
    aging infrastructure support the demand charging millions of these EVs? Is anyone
    investigating these angles of the green hoax?

  3. 2.About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space

    Puzzling, this is. Though it probably comes all the way back its near-origins in Trenberth’s oft-used flat-plate simplication of earth’s greatly-simplified radiation budget.

    At temperate latitudes, – even on “perfectly clear days” with no clouds at all – some 28 to 32 percent of the incoming radiation is “absorbed” by the atmosphere itself, and by aerosols and dust and particles. All of which will subsequently heat up – but which are apparently and conveniently merged into “reflected from the clouds” type of summary used above.

    True – When clouds are present, much radiation IS reflected back towards space (the upper atmosphere) and this effet can be seen from any window seat on any commercial flight at 36,000 feet above clouds. The ground is darkened below the clouds, the sky is lightened above the clouds.

    But on clear days, some 30% of the available solar energy still heats the atmosphere directly, and must be re-radiated into space directly. The remainder of course gets through to heat the ground and ocean as described.

    Now, one can claim that the oxygen and nitrogen and argon are “perfect transmitters” and – in the laboratory measures of a few millimeters or even meters of pure gas – they are almost pure transmitters of visible light. But over an air mass of 2, 4, 6 8, or 14 air masses (100 to 700 kilometers of real air at 50 km nominal thickness) … the real-world atmsophere DOES absorb significant energy that nver gets to the ground or ocean to be absorbed.

  4. the last ice age stated warming up about 15000 years ago.then the ice was 10000 feet thick whear new york is now. the temp has very gradualy getting warmer ever sence. this cycle has been going for about 2 billion 5 hundred thousand years. and will keep up the cycles for many more millions of with or with out mans indervors. the temp change is due to the change in the eliptical cange, and the tilt of the earth changing on its axis, man has nothing to do to the natural cycle.

  5. The delusion begins with accepting a theory first postulated by a roundly debunked 19th century geologist and picked up by the father of the “scary hole in the ozone layer” (remember that my chickadees?) that CO2 generated by humankind at ground level has any effect whatsoever on the earth’s climate.

    Once you buy into that preposterous theory space cadets, you are lost in hyperscience dreamworld..

  6. ” However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.”
    By just looking at that beautiful grey body in our sky we know that the sun is only capable to create an average surface temperature of around 197K (Diviner project) at our distance of it.
    So the temperature difference to explain in not 33K, but over 90K.
    I believe there is a much more realistic explanation than back-radiation warming the surface, and even the deep oceans according to present climatology.
    Just ask yourself how a cold atmosphere with a heat storage capacity equal to ~ 3 meter of water could warm the deep oceans over 70K above what the sun is capable of doing.

  7. “Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, ”
    Perhaps you’d like to share the evidence for that with us ?

  8. A little hint to the picture of the section “4 Molecules and Photons”:

    It might not be very important in this context but never the less: CO2 Molecules are linear…

  9. How come there is no hotspot over the tropics? If the atmosphere is warming due to a “greenhouse effect”, the atmosphere between 8 and 12 kilometres above the tropics should be warmer – it isn’t.

  10. You are assuming that some of the “warming” is due to humans/ Well as a scientist with 4 higher degrees in statistics I am assuming that you are 100% wrong you do not have the faintest clue whether it is or not/ Sorry I am now a 100% denialist and proud of it. I think time will vindicate me.

  11. Ira;
    Are you suggesting that humans are responsible for 40% of the rise in C02? That is highly unlikely. I think the main debate is how much CO2 is good and at 400ppm we are still on the low end of history. It has already been proven that CO2 has no significant impact on temperature at all. There is hardly anyone who disagrees that gases, and primarily H2O keep earth warm. It was unfortunate it was named the greenhouse effect. Burning more dense carbon based fuels is the only way to raise the 3rd world out of abject poverty and despotism, and the more the better for their quality of life. Your attempt is admirable but misses the mark. The human footprint in regards to CO2 and albedo has had no effect on climate or weather. It may effect the local environment and quality of life, especially in regards to the stripping of tropical forests for date palm plantations; as well as chemical dumping and strip mining. But nothing in regards to climate or weather.
    Kind regards, Tim

  12. What a load of blx! Just 1% of which 96% is natural is a determining factor bit it doesnt stop ice ages and if believed to be true temp rises before co2. The truth is no one has a clue and even if they did they couldnt do anything about it, one side of the argument is corrupt as the other the only difference is that Al Gore and his mates have made millions and the other side have not, who dares wins!

  13. One little thing – does your theory explain how, in the 800.000 year icecore data CO2-levels almost always lag temperature by up to 800 years.

    While I dont doubt the premise that the earth has an atmosphere that contains heat reflecting gases, I find the claim that minute changes in the levels of one of these gases changes the thermal equilibrium of the planet unproven.

  14. Although I respect Dr Roy Spencer I think also he is wrong on this one (humans have some influence on global temperatures). Humans have NO effect whatsoever on climate and never will. The natural negative feedbacks completely outweigh any other effects we would have fried thousands of years ago if it were not so duh.

  15. If I understand the ‘Janet & John’ explanation in the above presentation, the sun can’t heat us warmer than -18C. That would mean that ice wouldn’t melt, water wouldn’t evaporate and there would be no water cycle on this planet. Unless, that is, the surface can heat itself up by +33C, using the same energy it just radiated, only some of which has returned from a brief trip to a colder sky.

    If someone cares to advance me unlimited streams of research money I’ll mix all the above together, put some echo on it, and blame trace quantities of a vital atmospheric gas.

    Nobel prize please.

  16. Thank you for an excellent summary! Just 2 small typos:
    “because perhaps 0.2ºC to 0.4ºC (0.1ºC to 0.2ºC) of the supposed 1.5ºF (0.8ºC)” should be:
    “because perhaps 0.2ºF to 0.4ºF (0.1ºC to 0.2ºC) of the supposed 1.5ºF (0.8ºC)”

  17. Thanks for taking the time to post this, Ira.
    You’ll probably catch hell, in fact I see it beginning.
    Good stuff.

  18. Friends:

    Certainties about the existence or absence of man-made global warming have been expressed in this thread. I write to summarise what we know about the matter.

    Unless our understanding of radiative physics is wrong then increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the air must induce some additional warming all things being equal. But the climate system is constantly changing “all things being equal” never happens.

    We do not know to what degree human activities have altered GHGs in the atmosphere
    and
    we do not know to what degree altered GHGs in the atmosphere have contributed to the natural global warming which is recovery from the Little Ice Age.

    Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence.

    What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.

    Richard

  19. “””””……GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL

    Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. …….”””””””

    Well I don’t know what a relatively good 1880 thermometer looks like; but I’m quite willing to believe that quite good ones, did in fact exist.

    Well ho hum ! so what ? A relatively good thermometer, can likely make relatively good measurements, of the temperature, of a relatively good thermometer.

    But what was apparently desired, was in fact a relatively good measurement, of the temperature of the entire earth; and of course relevant to some actual point in time.

    Just because a thermometer is relatively good, or even bloody accurate, is no cause to believe it is actually measuring the temperature of something else; excuse me; make that anything else, even something very local to it.

    I seem to recall, that when I actually bought a good mercury in glass thermometer (which I really did), it was intended for measuring the temperature of a liquid; and it was stated that the calibration accuracy was only guaranteed for the thermometer being immersed in that liquid for some fixed distance. For some idiotic reason, I’m inclined to believe that immersion length was 76 mm, which is damn close to three inches; but I can’t swear that my memory of that is correct.

    In any case; quality of thermometers, is not a guarantee of good temperature measurement, of anything important.

    And then there is that annoying Nyquist theorem for sampled data systems, that says whether you are actually measuring real data or simply noise, from which no real information can be recovered..

    So maybe earth has warmed since 1880; maybe not; how about since 1080 (or 1066 if you prefer important dates ?

    Like I said; ho hum !

  20. Although the average temperature of the earth would be 33K colder without the green house effect, could it be warm enough at the equator to support life?
    Also:
    The temperatures may have risen since 1880, but it is generally acknowledged in the climate science community that CO2 levels were not of significant levels until starting around mid 20th century, i.e. natural warming then matching rates of modern warming in later half of 20th century.
    It would also appear that thermometers were invented about the same time the earth was coming out of the little ice age. Long term records in England, including proxies for temperature show no global warming.
    Some day some what soon I will have an app, that will let me explore many of these questions so I don’t have to try to recall from memory or try to hunt down sources of information (Colossus-in-a-Box | part of the code named Wattson project):

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/#comment-1521105

  21. In two places, the author as claimed as fact that mankind’s unprecedented burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 (” Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.”).

    This assertion is unproven, and as far as I know, largely unexplored. We know that there are a number of undersea volcanos which spew incredible amounts of CO2 into the seas, but how much? How many volcanos? How long for any of that CO2 to reach the atmosphere? Plus, how much atmospheric CO2 is due release from other sinks due to post LIA warming?

    The article in general is very informative, and well done to put across a complex subject to non-scientists, but still hypes that man-made CO2 meme which is unproven, and one used by the Green Machine to whip their brainwashed masses into action against the “evils” of “mankind” (e.g., websites of evil ‘Deniers’ like our host…).

    Let’s not help them spread nonsense, and insist upon scientific rigour, and whatever our own convictions, stick to the facts: as yet, no one can explain the source or primary cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2, whether man made or natural.

  22. People who are looking for “warming” due to the greenhouse effect are barking up the wrong tree.

    The greenhouse effect slows the rate of cooling.

    As calculated by Lord Kelvin over a century ago the earth should be frozen. It is not because of radioactive energy in the core. The greenhouse effect slows the rate of energy loss.

  23. I enjoyed this post very much. Thank you Ira!
    Who is Elizabeth – the link to your name was not found.

  24. Ira, what is the contribution of each GHG to the 60 degree warming? If you could do an experiment where you kept all variables constant and then eliminated each particular GHG, where does the 60 degree warming end up. How much of the 60 degrees is H20?, how much is due to CO2?, how much is CH4?, etc.

  25. Hmmm – Some examples of what the greenies would term deniers of climate change have chimed in. Didn’t see that coming.

  26. Leonard Jones says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    Stuff about EVs (not electron volts which might be on topic, but electric vehicles which definitely are not).

    1) I consider it very rude of commenters to hijack a thread immediately after it’s up. Please pick a thread that’s a couple days old or wait for an open thread. When I take a few days to write a post, an OT comment feels as disrepectful as grafitti.

    2) On the quick change battery packs see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-tesla-battery-swap-is-the-hoax-of-the-year/ I found the link by using the search window in the nav bar to look for |tesla battery|.

  27. The headline says:

    Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL

    Why plead? It should say:

    Global Warming is REAL and a BENEFICIAL Big DEAL

    Can you please list the benefits next time? Like lower heating bills, an ice free North West Passage (LOL), reduced Antarctic sea ice extent (Huhhh!), bigger Scottish sheep, smaller birds, dead lizards, frogs croaked it, un-busy bees, Earth to explode. (All appear in the peer review of course).

    Abstract – 31 May, 2013
    CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments

    [1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. …….Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%.…..

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

    _____________________________

    Abstract – May 2013
    A Global Assessment of Long-Term Greening and Browning Trends in Pasture Lands Using the GIMMS LAI3g Dataset

    Our results suggest that degradation of pasture lands is not a globally widespread phenomenon and, consistent with much of the terrestrial biosphere, there have been widespread increases in pasture productivity over the last 30 years.

    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/5/5/2492

    _____________________________

    Abstract – 10 April 2013
    Analysis of trends in fused AVHRR and MODIS NDVI data for 1982–2006: Indication for a CO2 fertilization effect in global vegetation

    …..The effect of climate variations and CO2 fertilization on the land CO2 sink, as manifested in the RVI, is explored with the Carnegie Ames Stanford Assimilation (CASA) model. Climate (temperature and precipitation) and CO2 fertilization each explain approximately 40% of the observed global trend in NDVI for 1982–2006……

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gbc.20027/abstract

    _____________________________

    Abstract – May 2013
    The causes, effects and challenges of Sahelian droughts: a critical review
    …….However, this study hypothesizes that the increase in CO2 might be responsible for the increase in greening and rainfall observed. This can be explained by an increased aerial fertilization effect of CO2 that triggers plant productivity and water management efficiency through reduced transpiration. Also, the increase greening can be attributed to rural–urban migration which reduces the pressure of the population on the land…….
    doi: 10.1007/s10113-013-0473-z
    _____________________________

    Abstract – 2013
    P. B. Holden et. al.
    A model-based constraint on CO2 fertilisation
    Using output from a 671-member ensemble of transient GENIE simulations, we build an emulator of the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration change since the preindustrial period. We use this emulator to sample the 28-dimensional input parameter space. A Bayesian calibration of the emulator output suggests that the increase in gross primary productivity (GPP) in response to a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial values is very likely (90% confidence) to exceed 20%, with a most likely value of 40–60%. It is important to note that we do not represent all of the possible contributing mechanisms to the terrestrial sink. The missing processes are subsumed into our calibration of CO2 fertilisation, which therefore represents the combined effect of CO2 fertilisation and additional missing processes.
    doi:10.5194/bg-10-339-2013

    April 2013
    Abstract
    Terrestrial satellite records for climate studies: how long is long enough? A test case for the Sahel

    As an example, the Sahelian drought and the subsequent recovery in precipitation and vegetation will be analyzed in detail using observations of precipitation, surface albedo, vegetation index, as well as ocean indices.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0880-6

  28. Other than the statement that green house gasses absorb radiation, I agree with very little of what you said in this post.

    For folks like me, it’d be nice to provide links to science papers backing up the various points you’re making rather than just declaring them to be true or reasoning by analogy.

  29. Elizabeth says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:45 pm
    Although I respect Dr Roy Spencer I think also he is wrong on this one (humans have some influence on global temperatures). Humans have NO effect whatsoever on climate and never will. The natural negative feedbacks completely outweigh any other effects we would have fried thousands of years ago if it were not so duh.
    +++++++
    Elizabeth: Maybe you’re wicked smart. Maybe there’s something you could say that adds to the conversation. I’m interested in hearing it.
    But, your post is confusing and assumes we all know what you know. I read it as somewhat contradictory –could be my interpretation.

    You say it’s wrong that humans have some influence in one sentence. And then say negative feedbacks outweigh them [the influence that they have?]. So they have some influence then?

    Anyway – who are you, your link seems to have an alias -youareassu8mingtha.???

  30. Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Absolutely correct. 10x higher levels of co2 in the past resulted in humans still here. Co2 has done most of its stuff, that’s it. There will never be runaway warming for well over a million years. It will not happen. The past says it will not happen.

  31. Jimbo says:
    January 12, 2014 at 4:39 pm
    +++++++++++
    Great points. But I believe the post stayed very even keeled on telling a story without trying to give pros and cons of benefits and potential problems associated with warming.

  32. Am I missing something? When I step out of the ocean, or the shower, I feel much cooler than I should for the ambient air temperature, compared to when I am not wet. That would be because of the water evaporating off my skin, using my energy, to change state. Why then is there any notion that water vapour somehow heats the surface of the earth, or me? When I say ‘heats’, I mean exactly that – ie makes its source warmer than it was originally.

    When the evaporated water vapour recondenses in a cloud, the latent heat is released. The net effect of evaporation at the surface is that heat is transported away from the surface to somewhere cooler, from which it must further cool. I can ‘do’ the notion of reduced, or delayed, surface cooling, but any idea that the surface’s own energy, which it has recently lost, can somehow return and make the same source warmer than when it started makes me think of inventing a self-licking ice cream which never runs out.

  33. Richard Courtney, ” Unless our understanding of radiative physics is wrong then increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the air must induce some additional warming all things being equal.”
    Richard, you seem to hold a vast repository of information about all things climate. Is the ability of CO2 to absorb and emit LWIR dependent on CO2 atmospheric concentration? In others words, has its’ efficacy changed as we progressed from 280ppm to 400ppm? I guess what I am asking is the ability of CO2 to absorb and emit radiation linear or logarithmic?

  34. I should add that humans will likely not be around in 500,000 years. What is my evidence? None at all, I just look at the massive drop in fertility rates over the last 45 years and it looks like it might lead to certain issues, like to few young as opposed to the elderly. This might be a problem after 2100 (or 2060) but it is not being focused on enough.

  35. Tom, ” Am I missing something? When I step out of the ocean, or the shower, I feel much cooler than I should for the ambient air temperature, compared to when I am not wet.”

    Tom, recall that kinetic energy is directly proportional to absolute temperature. As you leave the ocean, water molecules evaporate from your skin, reducing Ke and thus temperature.

  36. Tom 4:50 pm.

    Wrong analogy. Think of yourself in bed, warm under a layer of blankets in a room that is cooler. You are not warm because the blankets draw heat from the air, but because they retain your heat.

  37. Wholly agree that there has been warming and it is no big deal. I believe it is even less of a deal in that several tenths of a degree have been added on by impatient warmers – mainly pushing the early temps down to steepen the rise (they are constrained by satellite data from just thumbtacking 1945 and tilting the curve counterclockwise). The curve was especially steepened by Hansen’s coterie in 1997/98 to finally submerge 1937 as the all time instrumental hot year in the US (and years around this year pretty much around the world) because he felt the El Nino of 1998 may have been the best opportunity to create a new world hot temp. Look at where Hadcrut 4 has 1937 now relative to these dates!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/hadcrut4-revision-or-revisionism/

  38. Tom says:
    January 12, 2014 at 4:50 pm
    +++++++++
    If the water molecules in the air get warmed by radiation, and hold onto that energy until they warm you, they will warm you. When I step out of a shower in the tropics I do not feel colder but then my radiator is not evaporating into the saturated air. :)

    I do believe, however, that there is ample research that agrees that in total, water vapor has acted in a negative feedback exactly as you described with the latent heat energy being released as the water changes state from gas to liquid and to solid way up high where the energy radiates into space.

  39. P@ Dolan
    “Let’s not help them spread nonsense, and insist upon scientific rigour, and whatever our own convictions, stick to the facts: as yet, no one can explain the source or primary cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2, whether man made or natural.”

    Sorry, this is wrong. We do know exactly where it has come from. The burning of fossil fuels leaves an isotopic fingerprint in the CO2 it produces. There is no doubt it is us who are responsible for the 40% increase.

    I really like this article. It makes some very good points. Personally I think there is little doubt we have been responsible for the recent warming. The only question from here is how much more will temps go up and how much damage will happen on the way. I have faith in the earth balancing things out which is why I am optimistic. But I am in total agreement with the point made here that the days are long gone when we can say with any credibility that the earth hasn’t warmed and we are not responsible for at least some of it. To do so just is plain ignorant.

  40. Guest essay by Dr. Ira Glickstein
    Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it.
    ===========
    Dr. Glickstein

    Isn’t this much more than a “bit of a misnomer”? Isn’t this in fact at the heart of the problem? We have an incorrectly labelled physical process. We are calling the “radiative warming effect” the “greenhouse effect”, when it is not at all like a greenhouse. As you yourself stated:

    “it is possible to construct a successful Greenhouse using a roof made from materials that allow both visible and infrared to pass freely, but is impossible to make a working Greenhouse that is not both airtight and insulated.”

    Thus, from the start, the very foundation of the science behind the “greenhouse effect” is wrong, because it is based on a false understanding of how a greenhouse works.

  41. Sorry Ric, I must plead ignorance of the rules. As soon as I see it as a topic, I will re-post.

  42. The Vostok ice-core suggests that the decrease in temperature since the Holocene optimum is the most gradual after the five optima in the record. It is possible that the agricultural revolution, clearing the boreal forest and the industrial revolution have been factors in surface temperature. The continuous lag of CO2 after temperature in the Vostok record, however, requires an infantile misinterpretation of cause and effect for CO2 to be considered a factor.

  43. @Bob 4:56pm
    So I have transferred some of my heat (prop to KE) to the water, which changes state, and, at some later point, changes back again. Chuck in a bit of entropy; how can these interchanges ever reappear as a net warming to me (assume for now all else is fixed)?

    @lowercasefred 4:57pm
    You unwittingly highlight the exact problem, lcf. The truth is obscured by inappropriate analogies. In the example I gave, I was cooling by evaporation of water in contact with me. In your reply, you raised an entirely different mechanism in heat transfer, namely, (blocked) convection – blocked by the blanket. This doesn’t happen in an open atmosphere, or even when I step out of the shower. Convection continues until the ascending air finds itself at the same temperature as the surrounding air, unlike in a physical glass greenhouse, which prohibits this. Continuing this inappropriate analogy between a glass greenhouse and a ‘greenhouse’ with no roof, or walls, really isn’t helpful.

  44. I think few if anyone would state that no global warming exists.

    The problem is as we get MORE and more hard numbers we find the effects seems to be LESS and LESS and LESS! How low can you go?

    The amount of man’s CO2 output in the last 100 years is trivial. In fact in the last 16 years we output the SAME amount of as the previous 248 years. That means in just the last 10 years we DWARF the outputs of the post war industrial boom and about 100 years of co2 output in just 10 years!!!

    Ironic that in the last 16 years we output the SAME amount of co2 as from 1766 to about 1998. So if the last 16 years in which we see NO warming is any indication of the effects of our C02, it sure is rather darn trivial.

    As more data and info comes in, then I even question if the effect of our CO2 output can be seen or felt above the noise levels of temperature variation with todays much better equipment. At this point in time we don’t even see a math correlation between our CO2 output and temperature.

    At the end of the day, it is REALLY hard to make a case that our CO2 output is affecting anything in any way that even worthy of debate.

    So while global warming is real, the numbers show that we are HARD pressed to even “see” the effects of our co2 on temperature. On the other hand, slowing down some recent cooling is likely a good thing of our co2 output if it can be shown to be effecting temperatures by even .1 of a degree.

  45. Great IPCC science summary Ira though you seem to have included so many other stated-as-fact statements that I know after reading so many of your prior posts that those are but your firmly held beliefs, too many to counter right now. Great effort as usual though.

  46. richardscourtney says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:52 pm
    Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence. What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.
    ============
    spot on Richard. Agree 100%

    1.5F over 130 years is insignificant. We get order of magnitude bigger swings in temperature between morning and night. It is less than previous warmings (medieval, roman, minoan, holocene optimum). It is much less than the rapid warming/coolings seen in the ice cores at the end of previous interglacials. So that is no way to know if humans are the cause or if nature is the cause.

    Now there are those that believe humans are the cause, and others that believe that humans are not the cause. And in evidence both groups turn water into wine and raise Lazarus from the dead as proof they are correct. And both these groups are practicing religion, they are not practicing science.

  47. January 12, 2014 at 5:06 pm : Simon says:

    The burning of fossil fuels leaves an isotopic fingerprint in the CO2 it produces. There is no doubt it is us who are responsible for the 40% increase.

    Maybe Murray Selby disagrees with you … it’s not that cut and dried.

  48. Dr. Ira Glickstein says

    “The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION.”

    “The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect works because
    7. In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)

    So “The Atmospheric Greenhouse” Effect works because the Atmosphere is not restricted like a “Greenhouse”? The above statements contradict each other!

  49. lsvalgaard says: January 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm
    On your slide of ’400 Years of Sunspot Observations’ you mis-label the cycles. What you label SC24 should be SC23, and SC25 should be SC24. SC05 should be SC04, SC06 should be SC05. The problems seems to start at the beginning. SC01 is not the first ‘blue’ cycle [which is incomplete], but the second one [which is the first complete cycle].

    Leif: THANKS for looking at my PowerPoint slides and for finding my error in numbering the Solar Cycles. I plan to fix that chart and upload the corrected version. Ira

  50. Tom
    In your reply, you raised an entirely different mechanism in heat transfer, namely, (blocked) convection – blocked by the blanket.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    lowercasefred is entirely correct. One thin blanket is all that is required to block convection. Two thin blankets warms you up more than one. Three thin blankets stop no more convection than do two or one, but keep you warmer than both. Etc.

    IraG, RichardC,
    Tx to both of you, have learned a great deal from each of you over the years.

  51. Tom 5:25

    While any analogy will fall short in some respect, the effect of enhanced radiative cooling when the dry air of a cool front passes is well known and accepted for a long time. The effects are not just convective.

    The earth is a heat source, space is a sink, any absorber between them will slow the rate of heat transfer..

  52. Since CO2 lags temperature by approximately 800 years, does anyone here know what happened 800 years ago to effect the increase from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million in the last 100 years or so?

  53. Don’t tell me Global Warming is real and don’t tell me it’s marginal. Global Warming is one big pile of BS, especially because the highest temps were measured in the thirties of the past century.

    We never matched those temperatures again.

  54. wayne says:

    January 12, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    Great IPCC science summary Ira though you seem to have included so many other stated-as-fact statements that I know after reading so many of your prior posts that those are but your firmly held beliefs, too many to counter right now. Great effort as usual though.
    =============
    Just say when.

  55. R Taylor says:
    January 12, 2014 at 5:23 pm
    It is possible that the agricultural revolution, clearing the boreal forest and the industrial revolution have been factors in surface temperature.
    ======================
    In 1880 humans used 4% of the land surface in total for agriculture and cities. Today we use 4% for cities alone and 40% for agriculture. Where there was farmland there is now pavement. Where there was forests is now fields. Perhaps that explain why the thermometers are reading 1.5F higher?

    Could it be that there is a much better correlation between temperature and the rate of urbanization than there is with CO2?

  56. This seems to be yet another posting that is all about radiation and only momentarily touches on the amount of heat moved upward by convection, then ignores the subject further. I have yet to find an authoritative source of information, but it looks as if the convection mechanism is at least as important as the radiative. (I have seen much higher values and I have seen lower.)

    IanM

  57. The greenhouse effect is real, but negative feedback totally negates it’s potency beyond a certain threshold. My reasoning for thinking this is this:

    1.) Ice ages are a perturbation to Earth’s complex climate system. They are not a direct driving force. Why? Well the forcing of Milankovitch cycles is too weak to directly drive Earth’s climate into and out of ice-ages (at least according to ‘models’). Also Ice-ages are synchronized with the weakest of the Milankovitch cycles. This only makes sense if Milankovitch cycles are perturbations which Earth’s climate synchronized to over millions of years, and not a direct driver.

    2.) Strong delayed positive feedback drives the Earth’s climate into and out of ice-ages. It must be strong feedback in order to make such a large difference in climate and it must be delayed in order to create such strong periodic oscillations. Such feedback is probably mostly albedo (ice creation or loss) and water vapor. No CO2 is even required (in my opinion). The greenhouse effect works perfectly fine without it.

    3.) When the Earth is coming out of an ice-age the very strong feedback makes dramatic changes over relatively short periods of time e.g. getting rid of up to a mile of ice in some places in just 10,000 years. But then, it suddenly stops. How is that possible? It can only be possible if at the end of this rise the positive feedback is cancelled by an equally strong negative feedback (such as changes in albedo due to cloud cover) or the system has reached saturation (no more ice left to melt).

    In either scenario, once you are at the peak and negative feedback and/or saturation has kicked in, a small change in some other forcing is not going to make much difference. If the major positive feedback coming out of an ice-age is stopped cold by some mechanism, then climate is unlikely to respond much to some other minor perturbation such as an increase in CO2. CO2 increases dramatically throughout the warming cycle and continues to rise after temperature increase has stopped. How is it possible for it to continue to rise after temperatures have stopped rising – unless of course it is relatively unimportant (more than canceled by the negative feedback mechanism).

    Just some thoughts I had. It bothers me that we still don’t understand ice-ages and somehow this doesn’t seem to concern climatologists in the slightest. If we don’t have a full and solid theory of how ice-ages work, how can we pretend to understand the effect of a small change in a minor trace gas?

  58. @lowercasefred 5:46pm
    Nearly there …

    Agreed – any analogy can fall short in some respect; however, an inappropriate analogy is designed to obfuscate and mislead and needs to be called out, lest we be taxed, for no reason.

    Any heat source, transferring heat to any sink, can never be warmed beyond its starting temperature by any intermediate exchange on the way to the sink, in the absence of a new energy source in the system. If you disagree with that then I’d really like to see your experimental evidence.

  59. R. de Haan

    “Warming is one big pile of BS, especially because the highest temps were measured in the thirties of the past century.”

    That’s very interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I have one that says you are talking nonsense.
    Have a look at the first graph.

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

    This is the whole point of this article. The days are gone when you can spout rubbish like this and get away with it.

  60. “(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by water vapor (H2O), and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O and CO2. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. ”

    The energy levels are the ones on which H2O and CO2 absorb AND emit; N2 and O2 absorb and emit next to nothing. For all practical matters only H2O and CO2 and O3 are IR-active. Therefore, energy they give to neighbouring molecules must and will pass back to a CO2 or H2O or O3 again before it is re-emitted; most likely and nearly always on exactly the same frequency where it was absorbed. N2 and O2 can only play the role of intermediaries.

    Here’s the absorption spectrum of H2o vapor. It basically cannibalizes CO2.

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

    What kills the theory of the cult of Steve Schneider is the interplay of CO2 and H2O. They needed positive water vapor feedback for their alarmism and it doesn’t happen. Exists only in models and explains the total failure of the models.

  61. Any attempt to model an Earth’s climate without taking a biosphere into account (that is, picturing Earth as a black body with [atmosphere]) is destined to fail. Glickstein’s pictures are no better than IPCC’s graphs: simplistic self-supporting mind games. There is plenty of scientific evidence of the increase of temperatures precedingthe increase of carbon oxide concentration in the atmosphere. Ignoring this evidence could be only explained by self-delusion or intentional dissembling.

  62. Simon says:
    January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    “This is the whole point of this article. The days are gone when you can spout rubbish like this and get away with it.”

    Because you operatives now have a new propaganda outlet? Doesn’t sound THAT convincing. Not that everything in the wikipedia is false. But the page you linked to is pure propaganda; a William M. Connolley creation.

  63. richardscourtney says:

    “We do not know to what degree human activities have altered GHGs in the atmosphere and we do not know to what degree altered GHGs in the atmosphere have contributed to the natural global warming which is recovery from the Little Ice Age.

    “Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence.

    “What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”

    Ira, Richard Courtney is stating facts.

    The entire debate is over a minuscule rise in CO2: from only 3 parts per 10,000, to only 4 parts per 10,000, over the past century and a half. Some of that rise may be due to human activity. However, as noted upthread: past rises in CO2 follow rises in global temperature. But there is little if any evidence that ∆CO2 causes ∆T.

    This is a good article, Ira. I liked it. But I think you’ve gone a bridge too far in assuming — without any verifiable, testable scientific evidence — that human CO2 emissions are unequivocally the cause of global warming.

    That is a question that has not been decided. It may turn out that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. Or, it may turn out that human emissions are but a tiny cause of global warming. Or, it may be that human emissions — and even CO2 itself — have no effect on global warming at all.

    There is certainly no current scientific evidence showing conclusively that CO2 causes global warming. None at all. That is only the presumption of computer models, of radiative physice, and of peer reviewed papers. But doesn’t it seem strange that the real world does not provide any measurable, empirical evidence to support those presumptions?

    It pays to be skeptical. When the real world does not validate a conjecture, it seems there may be something wrong with the conjecture.

  64. My mistake: the Boreal forest is still mostly with us. A better word for the forest cleared from Asia, Europe and North America is temperate.

  65. Is it conceivable that the Earth managed to cool from white heat to a comfortable temperature over a period of around four and a half billion years, then magically stopped cooling, and started to increase its temperature in 1880 or thereabouts?

    According to Dr. Glickstein, warming is due to the introduction of reasonable thermometers.

    Solution to imaginary global warming? Ban reasonable thermometers, and the Earth will immediately recommence cooling.

    Problem solved.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  66. Simon says:

    January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    ==============
    Wow,
    you throw Wiki “global warming” out there, with no mention of climate change.
    You bet all your horses to win, too?

  67. Sorry, but I can’t buy into this nonsense. There is no evidence that man is causing the climate to warm, and in fact there is NO evidence of any warming whatsoever. Anthony’s Surface Station project proved that the alleged warming was caused by improper siting of temperature instruments and not a real increase in temperature.

  68. lowercasefred says:
    January 12, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Wrong analogy. Think of yourself in bed, warm under a layer of blankets in a room that is cooler. You are not warm because the blankets draw heat from the air, but because they retain your heat.

    ————————————————–

    Then Earth needs a wife, who will steal the blanket every night.

  69. “On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called “Greenhouse” gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,
    The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.”

    1) The amount of IR actually absorbed and converted to heat is very small and unlikely to be measurable. The IPCC had to artificially augment the thermodynamic alpha factor for CO2 by 12-fold to make it more significant and then had to pretend that water vapor was enslaved by CO2 to magnify this augmented, still tiny effect another 10-fold.

    2) The radiated IR from this slight warming is rejected, reflected, and not absorbed by the surface, which is warmer than the atmosphere. The energy levels in the surface are already full for this IR and thus it cannot be absorbed. To think so goes against thermodynamics. The atmosphere cannot warm the surface using IR sent back down by the atmosphere.

  70. Never mind the details, you can agree climatology, the cause, has now gone full circle.
    1984 sum of knowledge= we don’t know.
    2014 sum of knowledge= we don’t know.
    Except the busy little bandits from our respective governments have hoovered up trillions of dollars and imposed thousands of senseless regulations.
    How many children still die before their 5th birthday?
    How many poor people still wait for reliable electricity supply ?
    Are we better off, having lived through this popular delusion and the madness of crowds?

  71. u.k.(us) says:
    January 12, 2014 at 6:18 pm (Edit)
    Simon says: [ " ... "]

    January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    ==============
    “Wow,
    you throw Wiki ‘global warming’ out there, with no mention of climate change.
    You bet all your horses to win, too?”

    u.k.(us) is being sarcastic, but he is right. Arguing based on Connolley’s Wikipedia has no credibility. It is propaganda, nothing more.

    Of course there is global warming. The planet has warmed since the LIA. But there is zero scientific evidence showing that the warming is anything but natural. If you will look closely, you will see that the planet cooled starting in the 1940’s, when CO2 was ramping up.

    Those presuming that “carbon” is the cause of global warming always neglect to explain that inconvenient fact. If CO2 causes global warming, then the globe should have warmed during the 30 year period beginning around 1940.

    It didn’t, thus: skepticism.

  72. Tom 6:03

    The temperature at the core of the earth is estimated to be nearly 6,000 K. As a first approximation we might assume that to be fairly uniform, although surely it is not. The flow of heat is from there to space. The crust and the atmosphere are boundaries through which the heat is transferred and subject to local variance. At the surface and atmosphere, two of those variances are solar input and the composition of the atmosphere and these effect the rate of transfer.

    The fact remains that the earth is the SOURCE and space is the SINK. Anything at the boundary that slows the rate of transfer will back up heat in the system. This can be effected by changing the “delta T” or by changing the transfer coefficient. My point is that warming does not depend on trapping or transferring solar energy, although that may happen, but simple physics says that, ceterus paribus, the temperature of the atmosphere will rise if the rate of heat transfer from the SOURCE to the SINK slows and heat accumulates in the atmosphere.

  73. u.k.(us), so much has been brought to light since May 7, 2011, what, 2½ years ago, time flys, that tackling this is like starting over at ground zero (IPCCs ground zero) and rerunning all of the thousands of post and comments and our current understanding once again. It’s going take a while to even decide where to begin if I can cubby enough time to start.

    We all now know temperature is not tracking co2 concentration so something, maybe even our understanding of the radiative nature of not small scale (factory size) but at atmosheric scale radiation. Something does not jibe and everyone is searching for the reason why. One may very well be that it is not the science but the adjustments themselves that are merely based on papers accepted-as-fact, after all they were peer-reviwed, and applied to the global temperature records. That is a possibliblity though, I for one, cannot seem to put my finger on it but I look at HadCRUT4 or GISS without the adjustments and wonder, that looks like what you read in history.

    If it is in our understanding of planet size radiation properties I find one other curious relation between the only other atmosphere that we have adequate data to even question. It has to due with the upward reistance or impedance to IR radiation upward from the surface per kilogram of a unit area column for the factor is basically identical between the two planets, Earth and Venus. I find that so telling that there is something there.

    I just keep waiting for some one else to also look into these areas, that others also should at least question why they are so. I can no long buy this mad is causing “global warming” anymore without some of these good questions being answered.

  74. @higley7 6:20pm
    Ye shall be burnt. Ye are a wizard. That sort of basic physics gets people [snip]‘ed around here.

    Whatever you do, don’t mention that, to arrive at the cold sun/-18C fallacy, you have to halve the actual incoming solar flux and spread it over the entire earth’s surface, 24 hours per day. Then you get -18C, except that’s physically meaningless. But hey, a story needs legs.

  75. The “Mighty Polar Vortex” has ended!

    Where were Hansen, Gavin, Jones and “The” Trendberth? (dug deep in holes meters below ground and shivering in mortal fear … they will still not emerge before February 2 for safety and precautionary measures against CFC, CO2, Ozone and PM2.5 contaminations)

    Wimps!

    Ha ha

  76. u.k (us)
    “Wow,
    you throw Wiki “global warming” out there, with no mention of climate change.
    You bet all your horses to win, too?”

    It wouldn’t matter which of the major data sets you choose. They all show significant warming during the 20th century so trying to say it was warmer in the 30’s than today is simply ignoring the facts. If you can find a recognised dataset that say otherwise then good on you, let’s see it. Otherwise simply saying it is wikipedia so it is rubbish is ridiculous. I see wikipedia quoted here all the time by both sides.

  77. u.k.(us)… maybe that was a little Freudian slip… I meant to type “man is causing ‘global warming'” [not], not “mad is causing ‘global warming'”. Heh.

  78. wayne says:

    January 12, 2014 at 6:29 pm
    ===========
    I know the feeling.
    I mostly try to listen, unless I see what appears to be a slight upon the author of a post that obviously took a lot of work.

  79. This is where I get lost (let me explain) …

    Where is the heat sink? I can buy the notion that CO2 absorbs IR in a specific range (that water vapor is transparant to). But where does this energy go? You say some of this energy is re-emited back to the surface — but this can’t make a difference, because CO2 is a trace gas.

    I can buy the notion that the heated CO2 passes energry by convection to other gases which in turn can heat the earth (and the seas) by conduction. And once the energy leaves the CO2, the gas can absorb more IR radiation. But where’s the heat sink? Eventually, all of this heat will leave the earth, right?

    Why do deserts cool off sharply at night? Why do humid nights retain more heat (nighttime in Miami is oppressive in the summer months)? My answer is that there are many more H20 molecules in the atmosphere and they form a much more effective heat sink than the very few CO2 molecules.

    And the higher the gas pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more quickly will the oceans absorb the gas. And the higher the CO2 percentage, the faster the growth rate of green plants which removes the gas from the atmosphere.

    And what can anyone say will be the date of the onset of the next ice age?

  80. The temperature at the core of the earth is estimated to be nearly 6,000 K. As a first approximation we might assume that to be fairly uniform, although surely it is not. The flow of heat is from there to space. The crust and the atmosphere are boundaries through which the heat is transferred and subject to local variance. At the surface and atmosphere, two of those variances are solar input and the composition of the atmosphere and these effect the rate of transfer.

    The fact remains that the earth is the SOURCE and space is the SINK. Anything at the boundary that slows the rate of transfer will back up heat in the system. This can be effected by changing the “delta T” or by changing the transfer coefficient. My point is that warming does not depend on trapping or transferring solar energy, although that may happen, but simple physics says that, ceterus paribus, the temperature of the atmosphere will rise if the rate of heat transfer from the SOURCE to the SINK slows and heat accumulates in the atmosphere.

    @lcf 6:28pm

    But the warmie nutters aren’t majoring on accumulated heat in the atmosphere. The exact allegation is that stuff in the atmosphere is causing the surface temperature to increase. This is an important distinction from the surface cooling less slowly, upon which, I think we agree. The latter does not equal the former.

    If heat were accumulating in the atmosphere, then the mythical ‘tropospheric hotspot’ would have been found by any number of means. It wasn’t, because it doesn’t exist. Lastly, there’s no need to SHOUT.

  81. The AGW question isn’t whether or not certain gases absorbe and re-emit LW infrared thus warming air space. Of course they do and water vapor is the major player. The AGW question is three-fold. 1) How much water vapor needs to change before a change in temps is measurable, 2) How much anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for a change in water vapor, and 3) Does the AGW change rise above natural variability. And all 3 questions need to be answered for in-situ conditions, not lab conditions. A gas can and will act one way in the lab and a different way in-situ.

    I dislike simple statements that are not based on solid mechanisms under in-situ conditions.

  82. Dr. Glickstein,
    I would like to raise two points –

    A- I believe you have in some measure used “strawman” arguments against those sceptics like myself that object to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.

    B- You’re late to the party. I have already demonstrated how the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis can be disproved by empirical experiment.

    With regard to my first point, sceptics who reject the GHE hypothesis do understand radiative physics and why two shell radiative models fail. There is little wrong* with radiative physics, it’s just that climate “science” is giving it a bad name. The central claim of the radiative greenhouse hypothesis is that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the planets radiative cooling ability. The critical flaw here is believing that temperature profiles for moving fluids in a gravity field can be derived from SB equations alone.

    It is worth reviewing Sir George Simpson’s criticism of Callendar’s 1938 global warming claims –

    “..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..”

    – This criticism from 1938 is still valid. The original claims of global warming Doooooom! were based on two shell radiative models that simply parametrise non-radiative transports within the atmosphere. Even today GCMs do not have the vertical resolution to model these energy transports correctly.

    With regard to my second point it is possible to disprove not just AGW but the hypothesis of a net radiative greenhouse effect via simple empirical experiments. A full climate model is not required.

    I have previously show empirical experiments that demonstrate that the radiative physics behind the two shell model work for materials that are not fluid (just like Willis’ “steel greenhouse”).

    *But I have also shown experiments that that demonstrate that incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool. (all climate models have this fault as they show DWLWIR as having the same effect over the oceans as it does over land)

    Another important experiment demonstrates why Sir George Simpson was right. The temperature profile of gas column in a gravity field cannot be determined by just measuring the energy entering and exiting the column. The relative height of energy entry and exit must be known.

    It is also possible to show by empirical experiment why gravity is important in determining atmospheric temperature. The surface is far more effective at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it. (almost all two shell radiative climate models do not include this “gravity bias”)

    But the simplest way to disprove the entire radiative greenhouse hypothesis is with this simple (yet expensive) empirical experiment.

    This experiment simulates what would happen to the oceans if the planet did not have an atmosphere (and the oceans could be prevented from boiling into space). The experiment heats a water sample with an intermittent SW source at depth. The sample can cool only by IR emitted from the surface. Conductive and evaporative cooling is restricted. There is also virtually no LWIR incident on the surface of the water. Initial temperature of the water 15C

    How hot will can the water get?
    Will it freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface?
    Or will it rise toward 80C?
    What effect will the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the final temperature?

    If the oceans can reach 80C in the absence of an atmosphere (assuming they didn’t boil into space) that would prove that the net effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling. There is only one effective means of cooling the atmosphere. Radiative gases. This would mean that not just AGW but the hypothesis of a net radiative greenhouse effect is disproved.

    I have not conducted this last expensive experiment due to lack of “dark money” and “big oil dollars”

    However I have conducted a quick check to see how hot water exposed to sunlight can get if evaporative and convective cooling is restricted –

    That’s 76.4C the thermometer is showing and I’m nowhere near the equator.

    Sadly that experiment is not “clean” The water is exposed to DWLWIR and there are considerable conductive losses.

    Dr. Glickstein,
    Looking at the clean (yet expensive) version of this experiment –

    Could you give me your answer to the following questions –

    Will the water sample freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface?
    Or will it rise toward 80C?
    What effect will the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the final temperature?

  83. @Pamela Gray 6:54pm
    Good points. I was listening to 2 CAGW zealots on the BBCO2 a few days ago, waxing lyrical about “warmer air can hold more water vapour, so expect heavier rainfall”.

    Set aside there has been no global warming since 1998. They never complete the cycle and never mention that if there is increased evaporation due to localised warming, then more heat will be transported away from the surface. More clouds will form, therefore more sunlight will be blocked by the clouds, hence the locality will cool down again. It’s nature’s thermostat doing what it should do for a system blessed with a water cycle. It is not a cause for alarm.

  84. Tanner says: January 12, 2014 at 5:40 pm
    Dr. Ira Glickstein says
    “The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION.”
    “The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect works because
    7. In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)

    So “The Atmospheric Greenhouse” Effect works because the Atmosphere is not restricted like a “Greenhouse”? The above statements contradict each other!

    Tanner, thanks for your comment.

    Clarifying the first point you quote above:
    (1a) The interior surface of a physical greenhouse is warmed by RADIATIVE effects (Sunlight radiation being absorbed by the soil and plants).
    (1b) If, as is usually the case, the roof is made of glass is opaque to upwelling infrared radiation from the soil and plants, the glass will absorb the upwelling infrared energy and become warm and then re-radiate infrared energy in all directions. Some of the infrared energy will be radiated back down to the interior surface of the greenhouse, causing some additional warming. [However, if the greenhouse is made of rock salt or other material that is transparent to infrared radiation, the upwelling infrared will pass through to the outside air and the greenhouse will be a bit cooler than it would with a glass roof.]
    (1c) Some of the greenhouse warmth is lost to the outside air via infrared RADIATION from the warmed glass roof and walls.
    (1d) Some of the greenhouse warmth is lost to the outside air and ground via CONDUCTION and/or CONVECTION because no practical greenhouse can be perfectly insulated or totally airtight. However, the MAIN reason a physical greenhouse STAYS warm is that it is pretty well airtight and insulated. A physical greenhouse would not stay very warm if it was subject to major CONVECTION (say from an inadvertent leak or an open door or window).
    So, for a physical greenhouse, radiation warms and convection and conduction (if and when they occur) cools. OK?

    Clarifying the second point you quote above:
    (2a) The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect causes the Earth Surface to be warmed by RADIATIVE effects (Sunlight radiation being absorbed by the ocean and land Surface).
    (2b) Given an Atmosphere that includes so-called “greenhouse gases” (GHG – mostly water vapor but also including carbon dioxide) that absorb upwelling infrared radiation, the Atmosphere will warm. The warmed Atmosphere will radiate infrared energy in all directions and some of it will be downwelling towards the Earth Surface and cause additional warming. [Fortunately, our Atmosphere has GHGs. If there were no GHGs the upwelling infrared radiation would pass out to Space and the Earth Surface would be too cold to support life as we know it.]
    (2c) The only way the Earth System (Surface plus Atmosphere) can lose energy is via RADIATION to Space. If there is more incoming Sunlight energy than outgoing reflected Sunlight plus infrared from the Top of the Atmosphere, the Earth System will warm, and vice-versa.
    (2d) Some of the Earth Surface warmth passes into the Atmosphere via CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.). Indeed, I subscribe to the idea put forward by Willis Eschenbach and others that there is a kind-of “thermostatic” system where a warmer Earth Surface generates more thunderstorms and clouds, or generates them earlier in the day, and these effects help to cool the Surface and partially counteract the effect of additional GHGs.
    So, for the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, radiation warms the Earth Surface and convection and conduction (via thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.) cools. OK?

    If you compare (1a) and (2a), (1b) and (2b), and so on, you will see how a physical greenhouse and the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect are, in some respects, similar, and in other respects, quite different.

    Ira

  85. only MSM carrying this so far is Murdoch’s News Ltd. in Australia. unbelievable!

    12 Jan: News Ltd: ANTHONY SHARWOOD: Peter Gwynne, reporter who wrote story about global cooling, is a climate change believer after all
    PHOTO CAPTION: It may well be time for so-called “deniers” and “warmists” to mend the fence between them, much like this NSW farmer toiling away in 49 degrees last week. Source: News Limited
    A SCIENTIST who 40 years ago wrote about global cooling has admitted his story was probably wrong and has distanced himself from climate change deniers who champion his story to this day…
    But the counter-theories aren’t always particularly robust. For example, climate change deniers often cite a story which appeared in Newsweek magazine in 1975 about the theory of “global cooling”. That humble nine paragraph story which appeared on page 64 of the respected journal is one of the key weapons deniers turn to.
    However the science and technology reporter who wrote the story has today distanced himself from it. His name is Peter Gwynne. Now 72-years-old, Gwynne spoke this week to US website climate.org.
    “When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster,” Gwynne told the site. “It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking.”
    Since then, the science of climate changed has evolved greatly. The relationship between human generated carbon dioxide output and warming was not clearly established then. Though still far from universally accepted in its fine print, the basic theory is now so well-documented that virtually every scientist accepts it…
    Peter Gwynne, who penned the original global cooling story in Newsweek, today accepts the warming science. He still writes science stories and is the North American correspondent for Physics World, based in England…
    “I’ve been willing to accept that some of [my writing] is misused and misinterpreted,” Gwynne said.

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/peter-gwynne-reporter-who-wrote-story-about-global-cooling-is-a-climate-change-believer-after-all/story-e6frflp0-1226800020634

    ——————————————————————————–

  86. Ian Schumacher says:
    January 12, 2014 at 6:00 pm
    . . . It bothers me that we still don’t understand ice-ages and somehow this doesn’t seem to concern climatologists in the slightest. If we don’t have a full and solid theory of how ice-ages work, how can we pretend to understand the effect of a small change in a minor trace gas?

    It bothers me, too. Long before I found WUWT, my teenage son had to write a paper on ‘Global Warming’ for an English class. I told him, “Twenty thousand years ago Boston was under a mile of ice [OK, maybe it wasn't a mile, but that sounded impressive]. One thousand years ago northern England was warm enough for wineries, and the Vikings settled Greenland. Can these ‘global warming’ hysterics explain those events? If not, what credence can you give their ideas, which seem more like fear-mongering than real science?” I don’t know if he convinced the instructor, but he did all right on the paper.

    It would really help to know what causes ice ages, as we may not be that far from the next one.

    /Mr Lynn

  87. Satellite data shows zero increase when you use equipment margin of error and re-calibration of satellites in 2002 to match Aqua. ZERO increase since 1979

  88. Ira, I think you’ve got it right up to the point you state the back radiation warms the surface. That is only a small part of the story. The surface is primarily covered in H2O. When IR hits H2O it enhances evaporation. Essentially, much of the energy that might have warmed the surface is instead used to accelerate the water cycle. The amount of actual warming is probably less than .5C/doubling.

    We actually have a measured, increased trend in global precipitation that supports this view. The overall effect is a small warming, a small increase in rainfall along with the CO2 increase. These are the 3 main ingredients in plant growth. Added CO2 leads to a balanced enhancement to the biosphere. Just exactly as we see so often in Nature.

    This is one reason I never argue with people that claim humans are responsible for all the increases in CO2. The added CO2 is the best thing we could do for our planet. The benefits outweigh negatives 100-1. It would be nice if we could push CO2 up to 1000 ppm as that would be close to optimal. Too bad we don’t have enough cheap fossil fuels to ever get there.

  89. I tend to agree with
    richardscourtney says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:52 pm
    What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.
    And
    Elizabeth says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:45 pm
    The natural negative feedbacks completely outweigh any other effects we would have fried thousands of years ago if it were not so duh.

    I read a lot of criticism that the GCMs aren’t representative of the real world (e.g. treatment of clouds is either nonexistent or incomplete, feedback is only a guess, no definitive knowledge of atmospheric CO2 cycle, etc.). Lets assume the physics in this post is 100% accurate and applies to the climate. Just like the GCMs you can’t draw conclusions based on this physics without including clouds, feedback, knowledge of the atmosphere CO2 cycle, etc.? It is just another incomplete model that may or may not have anything to do with the climate.

    Those who believe the magic money molecule CO2 is causing AGW base their opinion on science that is only partially understood. All things are not equal. No discernible global warming from human activity has been detected. Natural variability is almost a complete unknown. If in the real world GHG physics is a climate factor, the fact that the temperature of the earth has been bounded at 22°C for at least 600M years http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif implies negative feedback. The IPCC guesses climate sensitivity of “between 3°F and 8°F”. Presumably based on this post, Dr. Clickstein guesses they are “off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three.” Based on data my guess is that “Elizabeth” and “rscourtney” are correct and sensitivity is zero or negative (possibly nonlinear). The elephant in the room is data which trumps physics.

  90. Have you ever considered the fact that human activities may have zero effect on weather climate:
    1. Because they simply do not.
    2. Because negative feedbacks completely overwhelm any effect.positive effect on temps.
    3 If living things were to possibly affect affect climate, there probably is much greater effects from insects, cattle, birds, bacteria planckton etc etc on temps if at all, than human effect!
    4. C02 has been 1000 times more in atmosphere during global Glaciations! ???(stand to be corrected here)
    This is just more pandering to the AGW mantra

  91. Simon says:

    January 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    “……. Otherwise simply saying it is wikipedia so it is rubbish is ridiculous.”
    ==========
    I never said that.
    You did.
    Defensive much ?
    It has its uses.

  92. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the most important number in all of climate science. Yet, despite a decade with an unprecedented increase in the quality and quantity of new data, the IPCC’s uncertainty in ECS has increased by 20% from the already wildly imprecise [2.0C - 4.5C] to [1.5C - 4.5C] between the IPCC’s AR4 and AR5, which is also a retreat to the “likely” range reported in the Third Assessment Report.

    What are the conditions that cause the uncertainty in the estimate of a natural constant to increase, rather than decrease, with the addition of new and better data? The estimates of the speed of light, or the age of the Earth, all became more certain with the addition of more and better data.

    The failure of the estimate of a natural constant to reduce uncertainty with new and better data is the hallmark of a mistaken assumption – a wrong model. One does not even need to understand anything about greenhouse gasses to appreciate this basic principle of the practice of science. Dr. Glickstein correctly identifies the mistaken assumption a high ECS as preventing the refinement of this constant with new data, despite ever more powerful computer models, with higher spatial and temporal resolution. They can never arrive at a more confident estimate until they are unchained from the mistaken assumption of dominant positive feedbacks, and they are free to follow the data, wherever it leads.

  93. If the greenhouse effect were not a “scientific fact”, it would not be possible for more energy to cycle between the surface and the atmosphere than the earth receives from the sun. That does not mean that human CO2 is a contributor. CO2’s concentration by volume is one part in 2500 and if all the increase since 1850 is ours, our contribution is one part in 10,000. Even as a percentage of greenhouse gasses, CO2 is a wimp. Water vapor’s concentration, on average, is a couple of orders of magnitude higher. To raise the temperature of the atmosphere, our one part (which is the very outside limit of our contribution) must raise the energy level of 10,000 other molecules.

    And then there is the material properties thing. Some commenters have tried to help me understand how SW is converted to LW. One expounded on the Plank temperature, but that is overwhelmed by material property variations at this scale range. Another kindly explained that asymmetrical molecules, like ozone, resonate like the Mamba and can transfer energy for emission at lower wavelengths. But ozone is up in the stratosphere and nobody is suggesting that lots of IR is coming from ozone.

    Sticking with the hypothesis that the oceans convert for now. What materials besides ozone in the system efficiently absorb SW? Chlorophyll?

  94. Tom, here is your answer as to why water vapor is a greenhouse gas: In the Winter of 1999,
    I did 2 month long stints (a month apart) on a refinery shutdown in Puget Sound in Northern
    Washington.

    With average temperatures at about 25 degrees F, It did not take long to notice if you woke up
    and saw cloud cover, it would be a Hell of a lot warmer than the clear day before (Or after.)
    The clouds trapped the heat, resulting in a warmer day. On the clear days, we froze our
    nads off! This happened so many times in the course of 60 days, every Millwright in our crew
    looked up as he left the hotel for work in the morning looking for signs of clouds.

    Water vapor is indeed the primary greenhouse gas. And on the hot days, clouds shield
    us from the heat of the sun. The proponents of global warming predict that we are all
    going to fry, yet ignore the fact that increasing temperatures would cause an increase in
    evaporation, which would lead to increased cloud cover which would mitigate “Global
    warming.”

  95. pat says:
    January 12, 2014 at 7:11 pm
    “But the counter-theories aren’t always particularly robust. For example, climate change deniers often cite a story which appeared in Newsweek magazine in 1975 about the theory of “global cooling”. That humble nine paragraph story which appeared on page 64 of the respected journal is one of the key weapons deniers turn to.”

    Yawn. We all know the esteemed chief Global Warming strategist Steven “efficient or honest” Schneider featuring prominently in that big Global cooling TV production narrated by Spock so please. When the chief TV scientist and Kapo of the later Global Warming catastrophism tried to rent-seek on the back of the ice age scare back then what more do you ask for?

  96. Ira, I read some bucking your point that gases about a planet “warm” the surface but it all depends on what you mean by “warm” and your definition. That is a bad term to use for by the science that most people are used to, warm means raising the temperature, THAT radiation raising the temperature. I do read what you mean though, it is that because there is mass in the atmosphere and all matter, and all matter has mass, radiates when above absolurte zero and this radiation from the atmosphere impedes the surface from shedding a portion of heat by radiation that it normally would lose if there was no atmosphere at all, and that is precisely correct.

    But LW radiation from the atmosphere does not “warm” the surface, the radiation-that-is-absorbed-from-the-sun is the radiation that literally warms the surface and to a degree warmer with any atmosphere, even an argon or nitrogen atmosphere if not so cold that all degrees of freedom are frozen out, above what it would be without an atmosphere at all. There, on that precise point I do agree with you so I am not always trying to counter everything you say. ;)

    The fact this leads to a correct view as Willis’s “steel shelled planet” idea of shells inside shells inside shells and that is what atmospheres do. That is why Venus is so much hotter, not from co2 per se instead of mainly water vapor, but from the physical sheer mass and what that means to an e/m vibrating atmosphere that is isotropically radiating (and that is where the amount of window radiation from the surface directly to space becomes so important and often ignored in thought experiments).

  97. “Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. ”

    So in 1880 you had the world plastered with thermometers including 70% of Earth: that stuff called Oceans and Seas you know? plus + Deserts+ Mountains, African Savana and Siberian Stepe? Plus Interior China?
    I would not even go to precision, location, etc…
    Not even today you get 0.2C…

    “Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. ”

    Really? where is the evidence?

  98. “Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available.”

    We will have to agree to disagree. The world has not warmed. What has happened is Global Warming Faux Scientists have cooked the books.
    Keepers of weather station temperature records chose to use “adjusted” records over actual (raw) temperature records. Same keepers chose to make upward adjustments, when they should have been adjusting downward for Weather Stations that have over time become effected by Urban Heat Island effect. Those keepers also chose to leave leave off or lose temperature records as time progressed for weather stations located in colder climates vs. warm climates, further upward biasing overall annual temperatures.
    Using raw temperature data, and using approximations for missing records based on previous and following temperatures recorded; there is no indication of Global Warming due to humans. Using raw temperature data, and using the few weather stations that have been around since early recording began that have continuous records; there is no indication of Global Warming due to humans.

  99. Dr. Glickstein

    Your PPTx presentation also runs fine on my Linux (Mepis) system with LibreOffice. I would also assume that Macs have a suitable application so everyone should be able to use the presentation without worrying about their platform.

  100. Great read. The greenhouse models not being anywhere near the same as the Earth re: warming is spot on in my uneducated opinion.
    With your indulgence I’ll post this bit of trivia you may find interesting.

    Redcliffe grandmother finds 110 million year old fossil of Ichthyosaurs at Richmond in outback Queensland

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/moreton/redcliffe-grandmother-finds-110-million-year-old-fossil-of-ichthyosaurs-at-richmond-in-outback-queensland/story-fni9r1i7-1226799214070

    And so far not one single evil coal-fired power-station has been credited with the demise of the poor creature. Amazing. But give it time. This’ll end up being the fault of AGW in the end. :)

  101. no surprise – it’s now in Scientific American, with an odd url:

    10 Jan: Scientific American: How the “Global Cooling” Story Came to Be
    Nine paragraphs, written for Newsweek in 1975, continue to trump 40 years of climate science. Its a record that has its author amazed
    By Doug Struck and The Daily Climate

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciam%2Fenergy-and-sustainability+(Topic%3A+Energy+%26+Sustainability)

  102. Doesn’t matter how much logic you use or explaining you do. To the vast numbers of indoctrinated warmers the “science is settled”. Their minds are made up and they’re ready to throw tons of YOUR money on the alter of carbon forgiveness…

  103. You know, there is something really, really, really interesting (but I have never seen mentioned anywhere) in this conversation

    Simple “experiment” Take those Ice Core temps and place a marker at every 1000 year period.

    …what do you see?

    It is shocking in it’s consistency. Every 1K (+/- ~100) years we are seeing a temperature spike, ranging from very large to unbelievably extreme.

    Maybe someone should look at that when trying to figure out why we saw a bit of a rise in this, a ~1K period we have been experiencing.

    Extra credit “experiment”: Go back and look what happens after all but one of those peaks – the Temps pretty much go back to where they started pre-spike. Looking at this odd coincidence(? …I guess that is what the AGW crowd would have to call it?), those saying there is possibly a Little Ice Age in our future seem to be on the right path, based off a seemingly established pattern playing out right before our eyes, in plain sight, with no one seemingly noticing.

    [Request you explain the (negative ?) values on the scale on the right side of this plot. Mod]

  104. “Tom Harley Says
    Picking the ’30s is easy because all the data were adjusted lower then to make it look like warming now. News reports find them out: http://pindanpost.com/2014/01/13/hot-hot-hot/
    Not Wiki-doo doo …”

    Pretty clever then of those sneaky scientists to manage to manipulate all the data sets.
    Went to your site and frankly it had the smell of someone on a crusade. Incidentally, didn’t you guys in OZ just record(by some measure) your hottest year on record?

  105. Ira,
    re your point 6 of the greenhouse mechanism, you refer to re-radiation of IR in all directions. Seems to me that some of this that hits the Earth goes up, through the same type of cycle again, then some repeats down again, and so on, so that maths using just one pass instead of a cascade will be somewhere between about 50% too low an estimate depending on a few side effects.
    On the broader point of whether greenhouse is real, there are very many long term sites in Australia that show cooler times recently than the hot days of pre-1900. That is, they don’t show any warming. There are others that do, as you’d expect from noisy data. And, of course, there are other times like the last 20 years in which there has been not much change at all, globally and not just in Australia.
    I’ve never seen any attempt at an explanation for a patchy response of warming caused by CO2. The initial expectation is that it is quickly well mixed (established by the bomb test isotope studies) so that GHG warming would be expected to be pervasive and uniform, not the patchy pattern we see.
    My doubt about there being any GHG effect of significance is waning as I read even more papers.

  106. “Simon says:

    January 12, 2014 at 9:16 pm

    Incidentally, didn’t you guys in OZ just record(by some measure) your hottest year on record?”

    Records that stared in 1910 apparently. The other issue with the statement is that the BoM here in Australia changed the way it calculates a national average (A completely meaningless term) and temperatures using satellite data in early 2013. And, as if by magic, in early 2014 the BoM tells us 2013 was the hottest ever. But I would not pay too much attention to the BoM, they use only ~112 thermometers, most located at airports or in cities, to calculate a national average. That’s just 1 thermometer for every ~68,500 square kilometers.

  107. “Mike Jowsey says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm
    How come there is no hotspot over the tropics? If the atmosphere is warming due to a “greenhouse effect”, the atmosphere between 8 and 12 kilometres above the tropics should be warmer – it isn’t.”

    The “hot spot” is not a consequence of the “greenhouse effect”. any warming, including warming due to solar, will cause it.

    If you really want to see the fingerprint of global warming due to GHGs you need to look for stratospheric cooling. Which you will find. As it stands the “hot spot” is undetectable given the uncertainties in the satilite data and observations. In other words

    All warming ( say from solar or ghgs ) will lead to a a tropospheric hotspot and surface warming. GHG warming will lead also to stratospheric cooling. So the latter is the most important signal. what do observations say?

    1. we see the stratospheric cooling
    2. The case on tropospheric warming is still before the jury. Its uncertain.
    3. we see surface warming

    In short the evidence is uncertain on one consequence and the evidence confirms the theory on the other bits of evidence.

  108. How sweet, it is like reading about epicycles because the article.like so many others, doesn’t begin with the motions of the planet in defining what global climate is and resorts to a stationary greenhouse Earth.

    Reminds me of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ where both sides play the ace of spades,in this case ,a greenhouse Earth and global warming –

    “The pigs and humans begin to play poker, and a fight erupts when Napoleon and Pilkington both put down the Ace of Spades at the same time. As the animals witness the pigs and humans quarreling over their poker game, they cannot distinguish between them.” Animal farm analysis

  109. The cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down are no longer a mystery.

    The two primary drivers of average global temperatures that explain the reported measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and credible estimates back to 1610 have been identified.

    The science is settled, CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers. http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

  110. So the temperature of the whole earth has risen 0.6C to 0.9C over 130 years. And you think we can measure less than 1degree o warming (or cooling for that matter). From our inadequate global coverage for almost 90% or this time period and with “adjusted” temperature data.
    No, we can’t.

  111. R. de Haan says:
    January 12, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Don’t tell me Global Warming is real and don’t tell me it’s marginal. Global Warming is one big pile of BS, especially because the highest temps were measured in the thirties of the past century.

    Wasn’t that true only for the US?

    Steven Mosher says:
    January 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm

    If you really want to see the fingerprint of global warming due to GHGs you need to look for stratospheric cooling. Which you will find.

    But isn’t its rate of cooling over the past 15 or 20 years pretty low–lower than predicted?

  112. “Global Warming since 1880 is mainly due to Natural Cycles and Processes not under human control. Yes, the same Natural Cycles and Processes that were responsible for the many Ice Age cycles that repeatedly occurred about every 100,000 years or so.”

    You have no more proof of that statement than IPCC has that it is “mostly” AGW. In fact probably less. You may be correct but that is just an assertion which is just as worthless as the alarmist arguments.

    Just making equally unfounded statements will not bring the “enlightenment” you think you are offering.

  113. Global Warming was real the day ice started melting during the last ice age – perhaps this Dr would care to answer why that ahppened? Otherwise we’d be still in an ice age, correct? And who caused that CO2 to melt the ice?

  114. JJ says:

    January 12, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    While I have some sympathy for what you said, I did not say it. Please change your handle to help others avoid confusing us.

    Thx,

    JJ

  115. RE the updated Mod request of
    [Request you explain the (negative ?) values on the scale on the right side of this plot. Mod]
    to my 8:49 pm post

    …they are the Temperatures at the location the Ice Cores were taken. That location is in Central Greenland, and the average Temperature is in the -30 Celsius range (and on a 10K downward arc, as you can see)

    Here is the NASA writeup on the cores

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/paleoclimatology_evidence_2.php

    You can also look at their mapping of the data on that NASA page, and although expanded out greatly in both directions, you can still mark the 1,000 year periods (the hashes are every 500 years) and see the spikes happen at absolutely every single 1K marker over the entire timeline, like clockwork. (might help looking at the graph at 2x or higher though, it’s a pretty small image)

    The jumps at 9,000 and 6,000 are smaller than the others, but you can still spot the rise. The one we are in right now is also small in comparison, ironically. (but this one apparently spells “immanent doom”, somehow, to the AGW crowd) Those three smaller spikes are easier seen in the condensed closeup image I provided earlier (which was here: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png ) Oh, and the 5,000 one is rather extreme, but follows a huge drop that happens so quick it is extremely difficult to pick up on the condensed NASA page.

    …really, it seems unbelievably obvious to me that we should not only disregard the alarmists concerns over CO2 causing warming, but should honestly even expect large temperature spikes around every 1,000 year mark (conveniently, they are even tracking rather perfectly with our year system as well, making for extremely easy factoring.) This plays out with our known history too; see Vikings, Romans, etc – other known periods of extremely warm temperatures.

    And with that being the case, how likely is it that this very minor jump (relatively speaking) we have been witnessing at a current 1K period is somehow caused by CO2, some other GHG or whatever else other then the (unknown, but visible) natural pattern you can see for yourself we have been experiencing for at least 20,000 years (seems pretty unlikely to me, at least. I mean that would be one hell of a coincidence if 19,000 years worth of perfectly placed 1K spikes went off exactly on time, then this one didn’t at all… but we conveniently raised CO2 or whatever to make a similar spike happen instead, right?)

    I’ll just stick to the unbelievably easily spotted natural cycle I can instantly see with my own two eyes, and place good money on other spikes coming and going at all the 1K marks in the future. (hopefully one day soon others will even catch on and try to figure out why the temps consistently spike at 1K marks, instead of chasing their CO2 boogeymen)

  116. Leonard Jones says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    I have a few questions regarding EVs. One is that I am hearing fantastic claims of ranges
    that I find hard to believe. The Volt claimed 40 miles per charge, yet gets between 25-35.
    The Tesla is claiming 400 miles on an 85kw battery, so has Tesla managed to improve
    power density on Lithium Ion batteries by orders of magnitude?

    A foolish and deceptive comment. The Volt limits how full or empty its battery gets, quite aggressively. Those mileage figures for it are at standard testing speeds (~55 mph) in varied conditions. The 400 mile “claim” for Tesla was a controlled max range challenge, at 25 mph, in warm, dry, weather, in dead flat Florida. (Actually achieved 428 miles). The EPA figure for its battery is 265 miles, and many do this routinely, and some exceed it with careful driving. Others get much less because they drive more aggressively, often just to enjoy the superb acceleration.

  117. “Point 7: In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)”

    Point 7, with all due respect SHOULD BE POINT 1, A VERY, VERY, VERY, BIG POINT ONE, and certainly not “an addition” but a primary driver of our weather machine.
    Only the fact you put this most important driver of atmospheric dynamics at place 7 points out you really overestimate the effect of radiative influence heat distribution in our atmosphere.

    Ever asked yourself why the hottest place we have in the USA during the day time is the colder place in the USA during the night. (57 degrees Celsius high, minus 9 degrees Celsius, low).
    In short where is your greenhouse in Death Valley?

    To claim AGW is Real you keep the argument alive for the warmists and government apparatchiks to apply the” precautionary principle” which today is the biggest stick in the EPA propaganda machinery.

    You don’t need to make your case the way you do in your header of your article. This is IMO because the influence of CO2 and human activity is so minor that with the exception of the urban heat island effect which is by definition a local effect, we can’t measure the radiative effect in a dynamic system, let alone point a finger to the human influence. Especially now we have increased CO2 levels for over more than a decade coinciding with declining temperatures.

    There is a reason why NASA and NOAA are “playing with our historic temperature records”, making the past colder to get a hockey stick.

    This and all above tells me the entire AGW theme is just a pile of hog wash.

    Please treat it accordingly and deny it any standing.

  118. It is my understanding that the existence of the hot spot is one of the “projections” made by the general circulation models (GCM’s), based on the premise that greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, initiates a forcing on the temperature. Yet, to date, there has still been no conclusive evidence of such a hot spot being created. Whether or not other sources of warming could also heat this area bears no consequence to the fact that these models remain inaccurate on this count, and as such, are not valid.

  119. The greenhouse gas theory seems plausible but does it pass the reality check?

    Every now and then several plausible explanations are given about some physical process.
    Take the science of tides.
    People debate the influence of Sun Moon and Earth rotation, each theory with different emphasis.

    The science of climate is no exception.
    IPCC science is plausible enough, but does it pass the reality check?

    Orthodox physics was quite clear after R W Woods experiment that the greenhouse theory was false.
    There is no description in any fundamental physics or thermodynamics book of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
    Kittel now includes it as a footnote but refers back to IPCC for support.
    A perfect example of circular reasoning.

    Lets be quite clear what the atmospheric greenhouse effect claims.
    A 33K increase of temperature inside a glass fronted shoebox.
    Since the glass is a better radiator than air its a fair test.
    The long list of failures now include Vaughan Pratt, Roy Spencer , De Witt Paine and others.
    Some claim success if any tiny difference between a box topped with a radiator such as glass and a non radiator such as polyethylene.

    The historical temperasture record shows no evidence of CO2 driving temperature.
    Quite the reverse .
    Warmists and sceptics agree that CO2 lags temperature in the historical record.
    Another reality check is the pause of the last 17 years in surface temperature increase despite CO2 rising considerably.
    If Ian is correct then why is reality failing to support him?

  120. Simon says:
    January 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    R. de Haan

    “Warming is one big pile of BS, especially because the highest temps were measured in the thirties of the past century.”

    That’s very interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I have one that says you are talking nonsense.
    Have a look at the first graph.

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

    This is the whole point of this article. The days are gone when you can spout rubbish like this and get away with it.”

    You refer to a MANIPULATED WIKIPEDIA GRAPH and I spout rubbish?

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/nasa-destroying-evidence-in-2011/

    When I spout rubbish, so does Burt Rutan.
    Please have a look at the graphs he produced and than tell me again Global Warming, let alone Anthropogenic Global Warming is real (I posted the link below).

    The reality is that with with the exception of a few warming periods (the Minoan warming period, followed by the Roman Warmth Period followed by the Medieval Warming Period where the Minoan Period was warmer than the Roman Period and the Medieval Warming Period was cooler than the Roman Warmth Period, the planet is slowly but clearly cooling down over the past 9000 years. Wattsupwiththat?

    However I have limited my argument to the first half of the past century.
    Temperatures achieved during that period (the years of the Dust Bowl) have not been matched since, as the (not manipulated graph published at Goddards blog shows).

    Burt Rutan’s comprehensive report on Global Warming science fraud:
    Version 4.3 dated January, 2011

    http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm#

    Have a nice day.

  121. A few other links that make you go Mmmmmmmm.
    Global Warming Scamsters celebrating 40 years of ignoring actual science:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-scamsters-celebrating-40-years-of-ignoring-actual-science/

    NASA 1990, No Global Warming Surface Temperature Record, Should be replaced by more accurate Satellites:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/nasa-1990-no-global-warming-surface-temperature-record-should-be-replaced-by-more-accurate-satellites/#

    In 1989 NOAA said there had been no warming in the US and no correlation with the climate models: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/1989-noaa-said-that-there-had-been-no-warming-in-the-us-and-no-correlation-with-climate-models/

    NASA and NOAA data tampering makes legitimate climate science impossible.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/nasa-and-noaa-data-tampering-makes-legitimate-climate-science-impossible/

    World’s hottest day was 100 years ago: http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/07/10/death-valley-temperature-record-anniversary-134-degrees/2505333/

  122. Radiation is transport of energy not heat. High frequency radiation has high energy levels and low frequency radiation has low energy levels. Planck’s rule.
    If you could create a laser that emits a very narrow band of radiation of about 2 or 3 microns wide and direct that radiation at a black body, Wien’s Law will predict the maximum possible temperature. The black body, being a black body, will be radiating a much wider band of radiation and thus will not quite reach the predicted temperature. EVER!
    CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are effectively black bodies with an emissivity/absorbance factor of 1 over the electromagnetic range 13 to 17 microns and two further bands centred around 2.7 and 4.3 microns. The CO2 molecules have ZERO emissivity/absorbance at all other radiation frequencies (apart from one very weak band at ~1.9 microns which seems to be ignored).
    CO2 is a gas with a lower heat capacity than standard air thus the CO2 easily aquires the local air temperature via kinetic collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere. These collisions effect the vibrational levels of the CO2 molecule to raise the molecule’s temperature to the local air temperature.
    Peak radiative temperature of 13 microns is ~223K (-50C) from Wien’s Law.
    From the surface to the tropopause, some 80% of the total atmosphere, the air temperature is much warmer than -50C. Thus all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, from the surface to the tropopause, will be fully occupied RADIATING over the 13 to 17 micron band. These molecules are in no condition to ABSORB any 13 to 17 micron radiation from the surface. Also the surface will be unable to absorb any so called ‘back radiation’ from the CO2 as IT IS ALSO TOO WARM!
    When the sun is shining the CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands and little, if any, of that energy will reach the surface. The CO2 molecules are unlikely to re-radiate in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands as this requires the molecules to reach temperatures in excess of 200C, not encountered in the atmosphere, but those CO2 molecules can emit strongly at the lower frequency levels of 13 to 17 microns but the surface is too warm to absorb at those bands. CO2 has some 3,800 lines of absorbance/emittance over the 13 to 17 micron band making it quite effective at converting high energy radiation to low energy radiation.
    Increasing or decreasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will not change the radiative characteristics of the CO2.
    CO2 cools the atmosphere but is most effective above the tropopause where radiation can escape directly to space. By cooling the top of the atmosphere CO2 helps maintain the convective path for heat up through the atmosphere otherwise known as the lapse rate.
    To blame CO2 in the atmosphere for hurricanes and other extreme weather events is absolutely ludicrous.

  123. Jimbo says:
    January 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    I should add that humans will likely not be around in 500,000 years.
    —-l
    Don’t write humankind off so easily – there may be the option of cloning. Not so much fun, but passes the species survival test :)

  124. Bob:

    At January 12, 2014 at 4:53 pm you ask me

    Is the ability of CO2 to absorb and emit LWIR dependent on CO2 atmospheric concentration? In others words, has its’ efficacy changed as we progressed from 280ppm to 400ppm? I guess what I am asking is the ability of CO2 to absorb and emit radiation linear or logarithmic?

    David Archibald provides a fine answer to each of these questions with several clear graphs in his WUWT article WUWT at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    I commend use of the WUWT Search facility. Yours is the third time in 24 hours that someone has questioned me but could have obtained what they wanted by use of the WUWT Search facility. Its use is quicker than waiting for me and it provides references which I have to look up (or not get complete).

    Richard

  125. Simon:

    At January 12, 2014 at 5:06 pm you assert

    The burning of fossil fuels leaves an isotopic fingerprint in the CO2 it produces. There is no doubt it is us who are responsible for the 40% increase.

    Sorry, but you are completely wrong.

    The isotope ratio change is in the correct direction to agree with your assertion (there is equal chance that any change would be in that direction or the other), but it is wrong by a factor of three.

    It cannot be known whether or not ALL the isotope change is caused by an unknown natural effect when most of the change is certainly caused by an unknown natural effect. Indeed, ENSO induces change in isotope ratio similar to the change from burning fossil fuels; see

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

    At present, available information does not enable determination of whether the recent observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely natural, entirely anthropogenic, or some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes.
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

    Richard

  126. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities,

    Show the proof !! There is none! Is a gut feeling.

  127. Bonus ??? for anyone. The basic assertion is “the average temperature of the earth would be 33K colder without the green house effect,”

    What is the relationship between conduction, convection and radiation? This is a serious question, purely academic.

    If an atmosphere, currently in a radiative balance, suddenly has reduced GHG molecules, then it will be cooler, relative to the warmer surface, correct? The cooler atmosphere will then receive an increase in conduction from the surface, correct? This same atmosphere will then, while simultaneously receiving increased conduction from the surface, also lose less heat to space due to fewer GHGs, and lose less heat back to the ground, also due to reduced GHGs, correct? This triple factor, more conduction to the atmosphere, less atmospheric heat loss via radiation to space, and back to the ground, will in fact to some degree reduce or cancel the affect of less GHGs, correct.??

    Someone please talk me through this. Notice I put no numbers on my questions. The point is, SOME of the decrease in energy into the atmosphere (due to reduced number of GHG molecules) is made up by an increase in conduction, and an increase in energy staying within the atmosphere due to the fact that less energy now radiates to space, or to the ground. Now it seams likely that some of the increased energy, now in the atmosphere through greater conduction, which will stay there longer due to the fact that it cannot radiate as often, will be conducting energy to other molecules instead of radiating to the ground or space.

    How would anyone quantify this “Newtonian” relationship, and where did I go wrong in my basic assertions? By Newtonian, I am drawing a metaphor to the phrase “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. The action is less GHG The reaction is more conduction, and greater in atmosphere residence time of energy. So again, what is the relationship between conduction and radiation.

    Bonus ??? for the brave and kind. If a GHG molecule receives a burst of energy from some LWIR radiation, will it always re-radiate that energy before it can possibly impact another molecule and conduct to it?

    Feel free to throw convection into the equation. Keep in mind, less convection, means more time to conduct heat within the atmosphere. An increase in GHG molecules means some energy in the atmosphere, which is always partially made up of conducted energy from the surface, not just radiated energy, will now exit sooner due to increased GHG molecules.

    If there were no GHGs in the atmosphere, that conducted energy would have to bounce around far longer. During the time it was bouncing along in the atmosphere, instead of leaving it via GHG, more energy would conduct from the surface steadily warming the atmosphere.

    So there must be a negative feedback ratio, between conduction, convection and GHGs.

  128. This is an excellent article, Ira. Congratulations.
    Unfortunately, the comments seem to be swamped by what you call the true ‘Disbelievers’. There is nothing to be done about that. It is no good explaining, even those who are capable are determined not to believe. What they don’t realise is that such wilful ignorance plays into the hands of the alarmist doom-mongers. It provides ample evidence that sceptics are simply scientifically illiterate and, when I read some of the comments, I have to agree with them.

  129. Correction: The climate sensitivity is the change in the EQUILiBRiUM temperature from a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Unlike the temperature, the equilibrium temperature is not an observable.

  130. Simon:

    At January 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm you say

    It wouldn’t matter which of the major data sets you choose. They all show significant warming during the 20th century so trying to say it was warmer in the 30′s than today is simply ignoring the facts. If you can find a recognised dataset that say otherwise then good on you, let’s see it.

    Well, all the data sets do not NOW say “it was warmer in the 30′s” but they did say it was warmer then before they were altered; see e.g.

    Perhaps you can explain why aggregations of measurements taken decades ago need to be altered as a result of measurements taken now? Or do you prefer to simply ignore the facts?

    Richard

  131. MikeB

    Am I mistaken in the belief that the entire topic is not really about global warming/climate change but rather the ideology that humans,by some act of doing or undoing, can control the planet’s temperature like one would a thermostat ?.

    The article not only muddies the distinction between common sense and a cult ideology but actually gives those unfortunate people a footing in climate science where they really haven’t any – it is really climate done through Simcity,no offence to the modeling game.

  132. This an old story, but useful to illustrate a point. A man says to a Lady in a party “would you make love to me for £1,000,000 ? The Lady shyly agrees that she would. He then asks “Would you make love to me for £1 ?” She angrily replies, ‘No! What do you take me for’? He replies, that what she is has been established, they are now negotiating a price. In a similar way when I see the statement “Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!” I get a similar feeling, the principle has now been agreed, we are moving into detail regarding the effect. It is a good day for us warmists.

  133. Steven Mosher:

    At January 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm you assert

    The “hot spot” is not a consequence of the “greenhouse effect”. any warming, including warming due to solar, will cause it.

    The “hot spot” is warming at altitude which is at a rate ~3 times greater than at the surface in the tropics. This has not happened: radiosonde measurements from weather balloons (since 1958) and microwave sounding unit measurements from satellites (since 1979) each show this has not happened.

    So, the “hot spot” is missing and you assert that “any warming, including warming due to solar, will cause it”.

    Your assertion is a claim that there has been no global warming – from any cause – since 1958.
    Perhaps you would care to explain why the data sets of global temperature indicate there has been warming since 1958?.

    Richard

  134. Mr Phillips

    You are spot on in your analogy because the terms of agreement are based on human control over planetary temperatures and running this ideology through atmospheric insulation,normally an issue that would be number 8 on a list of 20 things important to global climate, has roughly the same effect as Copernicus once noted –

    “They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified.” De revolutionibus, 1543

    Quite incredible,truly !.

  135. Global warming: it was nice while it lasted. The geologic record suggests quite strongly, however, that the Holocene interglacial has about run its course. So much ado about a trifling variation in temperature…

  136. No idea if it’s answered here, but can I just get a simple answer to this:

    Can a cool molecule heat a warmer molecule through IR emittance/absorption?

  137. David A says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am
    ———————————-
    David,
    I have answered almost all of your questions using empirical experiments up-thread –

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1533969

    It’s very simple. The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.

    There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.

    Without radiative gases, our oceans and atmosphere would super-heat.

    There is no net radiative green house effect on this planet. AGW is a physical impossibility.

  138. The ”GREENHOUSE EFFECT” is NOT a fact but a poorly labeled theory. It fails important laws of physics, that of thermodynamics, It is IMPOSSIBLE for heat from a cool area to increase the temperature of a warm area, it is also questionable as to whether radiated LIR can be adsorbed by CO2 for this effect to work since that spectral ensemble is not within the adsorption spectra of CO2 or water vapour. Water vapour will adsorb microwave energy but those are not within the spectral ensemble we are talking about.

    There are two sources of heat for our atmosphere, one is the sun the second is atmospheric adiabatic compression, which results in the ALR or lapse rate. There are no other heat inputs. The atmosphere cools the surface by restricting total insolation and other so called drivers cause negative feedback. There is not a shortage of solar heating, as claimed by the IPCC, since their model is a non-rotating planet with 24/7 sunlight and 167W?m2 at the surface. Actual measured zenith energy is 1000W/m2. The GHE is not needed.

  139. Garett Phillips:

    However, Dr. Glickstein’s argument is fallacious, for it relies upon the existence of the climate sensitivity but as the equilibrium temperature is not an observable the climate sensitivity does not exist as a scientific concept. Glickstein fInesses this weakness through the claim that the climate sensitIvity is defined on the change in the temperature but this claim is untrue.

  140. Gareth Phillips says:
    January 13, 2014 at 2:13 am
    “..the principle has now been agreed, we are moving into detail regarding the effect. It is a good day for us warmists”
    —————————————–

    This is of course the last desperate hope of the warmists. That the radiative GHE will be accepted, that AGW will just be downgraded and all the global warming fellow travellers can slink off relatively unscathed to “bio-crisis” or “sustainability”

    That’s not how its going to go down. Despite all the work with the “false flag” P.S.I thing, warmist efforts to scare all sceptics away from examining the radiative GHE hypothesis failed. This is the age of the Internet. Crowd psychology techniques like the Alinsky method don’t work any more.

    It is not just the AGW hypothesis that is in error but the radiative GHE hypothesis that is it’s foundation.

    This can be shown by repeatable empirical experiment.

    This experiment simulates what would happen to the oceans if the planet did not have an atmosphere (and the oceans could be prevented from boiling into space). The experiment heats a water sample with an intermittent SW source at depth. The sample can cool only by IR emitted from the surface. Conductive and evaporative cooling is restricted. There is also virtually no LWIR incident on the surface of the water. Initial temperature of the water 15C

    How hot will can the water get?
    Will it freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface?
    Or will it rise toward 80C?
    What effect will the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the final temperature?

    If the oceans can reach 80C in the absence of an atmosphere (assuming they didn’t boil into space) that would prove that the net effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling. There is only one effective means of cooling the atmosphere. Radiative gases. This would mean that not just AGW but the hypothesis of a net radiative greenhouse effect is disproved.

    This is an expensive experiment to run and “dark money” and “big oil dollars” only exist in the crazed imaginations of warmists. But it is not necessary to even run the experiment. We can just check what the situation is in the solar system. Warmist pseudo scientists claims that the oceans would freeze in the absence of radiative gases as solar radiation alone is not enough to keep them liquid. What is the “snow line” of the solar system? Even adjusting for the diurnal cycle, earth is well inside that line.

    Still having a good day Gareth?

  141. To accurately determine the true cause of climate change, it is necessary: Seriously, find the cause of the sunspot cycle and reconnection of magnetic poles SUN.
    Once this is determined, the rest is easy to determine, and it is certain that these are the main indicators of the causes of climate change, but not their own agents. Tell A place where the most competent, I will give an explanation of why these cycles occur every 11 years (shift max., And min. Spots and mag. Poles of the Sun). Without it there is no solution.

  142. Steven Mosher says, January 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm:

    “If you really want to see the fingerprint of global warming due to GHGs you need to look for stratospheric cooling. Which you will find.”

    Curiously, not for the last 20 years, though. After the effects of the last major (stratospheric) volcanic eruption, Pinatubo, had waned. Meanwhile the total atmospheric content of CO2 increased by 11%.

    Some GHG ‘fingerprint’, don’t you agree …?

  143. I assume that the greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in the laboratory. But the climate system is not a laboratory, where many variables are held constant in order to make meaningful measurements.

    Whether the greenhouse effect does work in the climate system is another matter altogether. As far as I’m aware there is not a single historical example of a change in CO2 being followed by a corresponding change in temperature, as predicted by AGW.

    The ice cores clearly show that CO2 follows the temperature, and not the other way around. In this century CO2 has increased by around 10% but there has been zero warming.

    So: to anyone who believes changes in CO2 can drive the climate system, please give an example of historical data that shows a change in CO2 being followed by a corresponding change in temperature. The data would have to show that the CO2 changed first in order to prove that CO2 was the cause.

    If no such data can be found then the greenhouse effect in the climate system is completely unproven.
    Chris

  144. Friends:

    At January 13, 2014 at 3:03 am Terry Oldberg attempts to refute the above article by Glickstein when he writes.

    Garett Phillips:
    However, Dr. Glickstein’s argument is fallacious, for it relies upon the existence of the climate sensitivity but as the equilibrium temperature is not an observable the climate sensitivity does not exist as a scientific concept. Glickstein fInesses this weakness through the claim that the climate sensitIvity is defined on the change in the temperature but this claim is untrue.

    As usual, Oldberg makes an assertion which demonstrates he does not have a clue what he is talking about. He confuses equilibrium climate sensitivity as being the same as effective climate sensitivity and transient climate response.

    In the above article, Glickstein says

    The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3°F and 8°F (1.5°C and 4.5°C).

    Clearly, Glickstein is discussing effective climate sensitivity (n.b. NOT equilibrium climate sensitivity) because that is obtainable from observations and he says

    As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, …

    Richard

    FOOTNOTE

    The IPCC AR5 Glossary

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_AnnexIII.pdf

    defines equilibrium climate sensitivity, effective climate sensitivity and transient climate response as follows.

    Climate sensitivity In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity (units: °C) refers to the equilibrium (steady state) change in the annual global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. Due to computational constraints, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a climate model is sometimes estimated by running an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is largely determined by atmospheric processes. Efficient models can be run to equilibrium with a dynamic ocean. The climate sensitivity parameter (units: °C (W m–2)–1) refers to the equilibrium.

    The effective climate sensitivity (units: °C) is an estimate of the global mean surface temperature response to doubled carbon dioxide concentration that is evaluated from model output or observations for evolving nonequilibrium conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state, and therefore may differ from equilibrium climate sensitivity.

    The transient climate response (units: °C) is the change in the global mean surface temperature, averaged over a 20-year period, centred at the time of atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling, in a climate model simulation in which CO2 increases at 1% yr–1. It is a measure of the strength and rapidity of the surface temperature response to greenhouse gas forcing.

  145. Gareth Phillips wrote –

    ” The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!” I get a similar feeling, the principle has now been agreed, we are moving into detail regarding the effect. It is a good day for us warmists.”

    The last time I saw a mistake like allowing a thread like this appear was the ‘glove doesn’t fit’ so indeed it is a good day for the people who unfortunately not only control the education system but imagine they can control the planet’s temperature !.

    Can’t see this website recover,shame really,but that is the way these things go.

  146. Sorry Ira, but your step 6 is nonsense. Take the tyre from your bike and connect it via a very small tube with a soccer ball. To make the model a bit resembling, wrap the tyre around the soccer ball. Make many microscopic small holes in the tyre and pump air into the ball. Measure the pressure. If you stop some holes in the tyre next, you will observe higher pressures in both ball and tyre with the same pumping effort. This already explains the GHG effect as the accumulation of energy by output restriction (your step 5). For the same reason a river becomes wider when you put a dam into it. It has nothing to do with back flow.

    The surface of the earth cannot be heated by its own waist radiation. We would need an additional pump, e.g. ignite nuclear fusion in the atmosphere. Your step 6, in which the earth is warmed by back radiation, is so basically flawed that we can explain it to our children.

  147. Regarding richardscourtney says:
    January 13, 2014 at 3:58 am
    =========================================
    Richard, I am able to follow your well stated posts. Please read my post here….David A says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am

    My questions are questions, and I am not trying to be clever, I am asking sans any ulterior motive except to improve my understanding.

  148. Sorry but the basic is wrong:
    “1 Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up the Atmosphere”
    No. A significant part of incoming radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere by the atmosphere
    ” 2 About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space,”
    No some is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way out.
    ” 3 The remaining two-thirds of the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,”
    No only half is absorbed by the surface, the remaining is absorbed by the atmosphere.
    ” 4 The warm Surface cools by emitting long-wavelength radiation at the Bottom of the Atmosphere, and this radiation passes towards the Top of the Atmosphere, where it is ultimately lost to Space,”
    No, most of surface net cooling is done by evaporation,
    “5 On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called “Greenhouse” gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,.
    No Green house gases block heat transfer from the earth surface that casue the temperature to rise on the surface. The atmosphere is cooled by GHG:s towards space. The atmosphere is mainly heated by evaporation and thermal heat transfer and cooled by radiation to space by GHG at a high and cool altitude due to it very efficient blocking capacity at lower altitudes.
    ” 6 The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.”
    GHG:s absorb and emitt energy but without a temperature gradient is heat transfer blocked by GHG. That is why net transfer by radiation is very limited between surface and atmosphere. The limited temperature difference reduce possible heat transfer by radiation. A good example is clouds which stop heat transfer by radiation very efficent.
    “7 In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)”
    No, those are the main sources of surface cooling. Very efficent by the way.
    Source: Trenberths heat balance here http://www.agci.org/classroom/images/trenberth_energy.png

    Result: CO2 make a even lesser contribution to atmosphere and surface heatbalance than Ira state.

  149. Konrad’s experiment are interesting but I do not follow them well. I am looking here,.. David A says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am at some very direct questions which I think are both cogent and informative.

  150. Dr. Ira Glickstein, I agree with [johnmarshall says: January 13, 2014 at 3:02 am]:

    “The ”GREENHOUSE EFFECT” is NOT a fact but a poorly labeled theory.”

    and with [Konrad says: January 13, 2014 at 3:24 am]

    “This is of course the last desperate hope of the warmists.”

    The GHG effect is a misnomer – there is no “greenhouse” because Earth is open to outer space at the upper levels of the atmosphere. Further, what happens in near-Earth space as a result of solar activity has not been touched on by anyone on this thread in spite of its primary vital significance.

    Finally, I’m in agreement with [Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) says: January 13, 2014 at 5:44 am]:

    “There is no greenhouse effect. Climate is obviously a convection system. If there was a greenhouse effect there would be no life on this planet.”

    Dr. Glickstein – nice try – but no cigar! Don’t go back to the drawing board. It’s over. If you don’t think it’s over and if you think the GHG effect theory is still worth reviving – good luck with that. I think most of the people with common sense in this world are over it by now. Have a nice day ;-)

  151. Chris Wright says: “The ice cores clearly show that CO2 follows the temperature, and not the other way around. In this century CO2 has increased by around 10% but there has been zero warming.”

    The fact Global Warmers claimed evidence for their man-made CO2 causality assertion (changes in CO2 forces changes in temperature) was not only wrong, but in fact opposite (changes in CO2 follows changes in temperature), was a monumental mistake. In any normal, rational scientific debate, this fundamental monumental mistake alone would have been enough to have terminated the Global Warming claim. Along with summarily dismissing any scientist, alarmist, or politician who continued to make claims of Anthroplogical Global Warming.

    But here we are still having to listen to Global Warmer’s continuous morphing gibberish. Which goes to show, claimed Global Warming has never been Scientific. Instead the Global Warming has been about keeping a group of Faux GW scientists well funded, keeping GW Alarmists in hyped headlines, and keeping GW politicians in power over populaces.

    Isn’t it time we put an end to this Global Warming charade?
    Shouldn’t Faux GW scientists be charged with fraud, and loose their standing?
    Shouldn’t GW Alarmists be vehemently mocked at their every sighting?
    Shouldn’t GW politicians have their bureaucratic tails tossed to unemployment line?
    While we are at it, shouldn’t the Reboot button be pushed on E.P.A., N.O.A.A., and N.A.S.A.?

  152. David A:

    Your post at January 13, 2014 at 6:40 am says in total

    Regarding richardscourtney says:
    January 13, 2014 at 3:58 am
    =========================================
    Richard, I am able to follow your well stated posts. Please read my post here….David A says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am

    My questions are questions, and I am not trying to be clever, I am asking sans any ulterior motive except to improve my understanding.

    None of my posts have referred to you or anything you have said. This includes my post at January 13, 2014 at 3:58 am. So, I am at a loss to understand your implication that I have or do ascribe any motive to you.

    As to your post at January 13, 2014 at 1:58 am, you need a course that I cannot provide here to explain all that. However, the above article is by Ira Glickstein so I link you to two WUWT articles by him which may help.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/

    and

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/

    Please feel free to get back to me if I have misunderstood and, therefore, these links don’t provide what you want.

    Richard

  153. richardscourtney:

    The “climate sensitivity” whose value, accordng to the IPCC, is in the interval between 1.5 and 4.5 Celsius is the equilibrium climate sensitiviy. The effective climate sensitivity does not have a value but rather has a range of values.

    By the way,as you well know, your continuing attacks on my person are illogical and illegal.

  154. MikeB says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:59 am
    This is an excellent article, Ira. Congratulations.
    Unfortunately, the comments seem to be swamped by what you call the true ‘Disbelievers’. There is nothing to be done about that. It is no good explaining, even those who are capable are determined not to believe. What they don’t realise is that such wilful ignorance plays into the hands of the alarmist doom-mongers. It provides ample evidence that sceptics are simply scientifically illiterate and, when I read some of the comments, I have to agree with them.

    [my emphasis]

    It is not a matter of ‘belief’, which has no place in science. Ira Glickstein jumps to conclusions that many find unjustified and mistaken; some have provided alternate explanations for the phenomena we do observe. But in point of fact, there is a certain ‘blind men and the elephant’ quality to the whole debate. The state of our knowledge of climate (or lack of it) was neatly summed up above by Richard S. Courtney. I repeat his post to save you the trouble of scrolling up:

    January 12, 2014 at 3:52 pm
    Certainties about the existence or absence of man-made global warming have been expressed in this thread. I write to summarise what we know about the matter.

    Unless our understanding of radiative physics is wrong then increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the air must induce some additional warming all things being equal. But the climate system is constantly changing “all things being equal” never happens.

    We do not know to what degree human activities have altered GHGs in the atmosphere
    and we do not know to what degree altered GHGs in the atmosphere have contributed to the natural global warming which is recovery from the Little Ice Age.

    Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence.

    What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.

    Richard

    It’s all about the evidence, not what we want to believe.

    /Mr Lynn

  155. Leonard Jones says:
    January 12, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    Tom, here is your answer as to why water vapor is a greenhouse gas: In the Winter of 1999,
    I did 2 month long stints (a month apart) on a refinery shutdown in Puget Sound in Northern
    Washington.

    With average temperatures at about 25 degrees F

    That’s pretty cold for NW Washington. Definitely doesn’t stat that cold for more than a few days. And you’re saying “average” which means half the temps must have been much lower. Sorry, that’s not been my experience in the 11 years I’ve been here (and the last few have been some of the coldest in 50 years out here).

  156. Terry Oldberg:

    re your silly post at January 13, 2014 at 7:35 am.

    It is not a “personal attack” to point out that you are again plain wrong, especially when I provide both quotation and link to source information which proves it.

    But you say

    By the way,as you well know, your continuing attacks on my person are illogical and illegal.

    OK. If you think that then sue me, but be aware that I will make a counter-suite for damages because I could use the money.

    Richard

  157. I liked the article, it was well written and explained a lot. I too believe water vapor is what controls the earths climate, ever since I noticed how greatly humidity affects temperatures.

    As for GHG theory, not AGW theory, I find it to be the only explanation that I’ve seen that explains why the earth keeps it’s warmth. I do believe CO2 has an effect but it is very trivial and water vapor is the main control knob of climate.

    Are there any other theories besides the GHG theory that explains why the Earth remains warm?

    Lastly, Do we understand how the energy from the Sun accumulates over the day, morning to night and how this energy is distributed or does this not matter?

  158. richardscourtney says:
    January 13, 2014 at 7:16 am
    ========================================
    Thanks Richard, and no, I knew you had not engaged my questions I just admire your ability to communicate, and so I wished to have some very BASIC questions answered; first in direction, but not quantified. In essence does the ration of energy conducted to the atmosphere increase, as the amount of GHG molecules decrease? Or, stated differently, if the heat differential between the atmosphere and the surface increases, does not increased conduction make up for some of this loss in the manner I described in very specific questions in my post… increased amount of energy flow to atmosphere via conduction, reduced escape of conducted energy to space due to reduced GHG molecules.

    I was only stating the sincerity of my request to let you know I am not attempting debate, but requesting education. I will check out your links, and look forward to any basic answers to my questions.

  159. Richard Courtney,
    Your second link states..”As in the other postings in this series, only radiation effects are considered because they are the key to understanding the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”.
    This ignores my question.
    I do understand that fundamentally redirecting energy leaving the system, increases the residence time of said energy, while additional input, TSI” continues, thus more energy in the land, ocean, atmospheric system. (The GHE explained via David’s law; “There is only two ways to change the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in input, or a change in the residence time of some aspect of that energy.” GHG increases the residence time of LWIR radiation.

    However my question relates to the ration of energy leaving the surface via changes in conduction due to changes of GHG molecules. A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via back conduction, instead of back radiation?? A question masquerading as an assertion.

  160. I stopped reading at #6 and did a [ctrl F] on ” surface ” and came up with 146 finds. As I scrolled through most of them, I see that I am not alone in understanding that back radiation from a cooler atmosphere is not going to heat up the warmer surface, Indeed all it does is impede the cooling process some. The much hotter sun does the warming necessary to achieve a “radiation in” equals “radiation out” equilibrium.

  161. Ira says: “Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.”

    Using your numbers here is basic radiation heat transfer equation with a missing input. The missing input is for the back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface.

    288 K = 390.1 W/m^2

    390.1 W/m^2 = 5.67E-8 * e* (XXXX^4 – 255^4) (e is emissivity use 1 for ease of operation)

    There is your claimed net transfer of heat with the missing (XXXX) temperature for the atmosphere.
    So what does the temperature of the atmosphere have to be to warm the surface 33 K?

    I have yet to see a radiation heat transfer equation showing how the atmosphere sends heat back to the surface warming it.

  162. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No. Attribution of the circa 1980-1997 temperature increase to CO2 is conjecture with only theoretical support, which theory is incorrectly applied. The rise is in fact due to SST increase during that era which increase is not attributable to the greenhouse effect. Your assertion is also refuted by the temperature record of the last 17 years.

    I agree that climate is determined largely by H2O in its various phases, or lack of it. CO2 makes no appreciable contribution to the greenhouse effect, as the recent temperature records prove.

  163. MikeB says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:59 am
    This is an excellent article, Ira. Congratulations.
    Unfortunately, the comments seem to be swamped by what you call the true ‘Disbelievers’. There is nothing to be done about that. It is no good explaining, even those who are capable are determined not to believe. What they don’t realise is that such wilful ignorance plays into the hands of the alarmist doom-mongers. It provides ample evidence that sceptics are simply scientifically illiterate and, when I read some of the comments, I have to agree with them.

    Thanks MikeB for your kind words.
    I agree it is a pity that the true “Disbelievers” have come out in force in responses to this thread. Many of them seem beyond reason. Even those who show the ability to reason in their postings seem to be determined not to believe.

    This proves Newton’s Law about “equal and opposite reactions”. The Alarmist BS, and the actions of the official Climate Team, including “cooking the books” by repeatedly “adjusting” the temperature record, are so outrageous that the true “Disbelievers” have an opposite and equally outrageous reaction.

    My posting and your comment may not change too many of their minds, but, IMHO, “It is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness.” (That is, until the Alarmist politicos make it illegal to sell candles and matches :^)

    Ira

  164. Mr Lynn says:
    January 13, 2014 at 7:41 am [" ... "]

    Excellent comments, both yours and Richard Courtney’s. Scientific EVIDENCE is necessary. But there is still no evidence for AGW.

    AGW may exist. But without evidence it cannot be quantified, and without that, it is hardly science.

  165. What if we all have it wrong? What if the GHG’s are the result of a misinterpretation of the (long ago) fundamental experiment, the 1859 Tyndall experiment? To me, the real elephant in the room are the non- GHG’s (N2 and O2):as they ‘apparently’ do not absorb IR, we right them out of the argument, but they are 98% of the atmosphere. If it were the universe we were arguing, we’d call them something like the dark gases. But they have a Specific heat capacity similar to the GHG’s – they absorb (IR) energy : it’s just that they are transparent to IR detectors(!) at the frequencies of interest – but so is salt, and is thin plastic.
    I think, and can prove (as an amateur) that the real issue is the Tyndall apparatus, the thermopile and the way it reads (or not) IR opacity. One only has to use and understand a thermal camera to understand the limitations of such devices, and I argue that it is this flaw, this magic trick, that has gone on too long, and has lead us into this mess. Just think of the IR similarities of glass and CO2: both visibly transparent, and both IR (thermopile) opaque. So why then is glass not considered a greenhouse solid, and thus a climate problem?
    In my blog I have attempted to isolate the issues surrounding CO2 – without mentioning changes of climate. I would love to develop my discoveries with someone.
    1. Where does CO2’s heat trapping property repeat and explain other phenomena where is it present? http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/03/5-fractal-record-of-heat-trapping-co2.html
    2. Thermopile magic, ‘the greenhouse gases’: http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/12/the-gassy-messenger-magic-of-ir.html

  166. Richard111 says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:03 am
    Radiation is transport of energy not heat. High frequency radiation has high energy levels and low frequency radiation has low energy levels. Planck’s rule.
    If you could create a laser that emits a very narrow band of radiation of about 2 or 3 microns wide and direct that radiation at a black body, Wien’s Law will predict the maximum possible temperature. The black body, being a black body, will be radiating a much wider band of radiation and thus will not quite reach the predicted temperature. EVER!

    You appear to misunderstand Wien’s law which gives the wavelength of peak emission at a certain temperature. The technique of laser induced incandescence uses a laser beam of about 1micron wavelength focussed onto soot (a black body) which is heated up to about 5,000K (hence the incandescence).

    CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are effectively black bodies with an emissivity/absorbance factor of 1 over the electromagnetic range 13 to 17 microns and two further bands centred around 2.7 and 4.3 microns. The CO2 molecules have ZERO emissivity/absorbance at all other radiation frequencies (apart from one very weak band at ~1.9 microns which seems to be ignored).
    CO2 is a gas with a lower heat capacity than standard air thus the CO2 easily aquires the local air temperature via kinetic collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere. These collisions effect the vibrational levels of the CO2 molecule to raise the molecule’s temperature to the local air temperature.

    CO2 has a higher heat capacity (28 J/K) than N2 and O2 (21 J/K). The collisions primarily effect the translational energy of the molecule not the vibrational levels unlike absorption which directly excites the vibrational level. The 667cm^-1 CO2 energy level corresponds to a temperature of ~950K.

    Peak radiative temperature of 13 microns is ~223K (-50C) from Wien’s Law.

    Wien’s Law says that a radiating black body at a temperature of 223K has its peak emission at 13 microns, you have it backwards).

    From the surface to the tropopause, some 80% of the total atmosphere, the air temperature is much warmer than -50C. Thus all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, from the surface to the tropopause, will be fully occupied RADIATING over the 13 to 17 micron band. These molecules are in no condition to ABSORB any 13 to 17 micron radiation from the surface. Also the surface will be unable to absorb any so called ‘back radiation’ from the CO2 as IT IS ALSO TOO WARM!

    You have this completely wrong, look up the Boltzmann distribution, the probability that the vibrational levels will be excited by those collisions is extremely small. In addition the vibrational levels have a long lifetime compared with collisional rates so the excited molecule predominantly loses energy by collision in the lower atmosphere. Only in the high troposphere/stratosphere is the collision rate sufficiently low that emission is the dominant route.

    When the sun is shining the CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands and little, if any, of that energy will reach the surface. The CO2 molecules are unlikely to re-radiate in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands as this requires the molecules to reach temperatures in excess of 200C, not encountered in the atmosphere, but those CO2 molecules can emit strongly at the lower frequency levels of 13 to 17 microns but the surface is too warm to absorb at those bands. CO2 has some 3,800 lines of absorbance/emittance over the 13 to 17 micron band making it quite effective at converting high energy radiation to low energy radiation.
    Increasing or decreasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will not change the radiative characteristics of the CO2.

    There is very little solar irradiance in those bands, however if a molecule is excited by 2.7 micron light it is able to re-emit at that wavelength provided it isn’t first deactivated by another process such as collision.

    Also your idea that the surface can’t absorb the 15micron band because of temperature is a complete misunderstanding of radiational heat transfer.

    CO2 cools the atmosphere but is most effective above the tropopause where radiation can escape directly to space. By cooling the top of the atmosphere CO2 helps maintain the convective path for heat up through the atmosphere otherwise known as the lapse rate.
    To blame CO2 in the atmosphere for hurricanes and other extreme weather events is absolutely ludicrous.

  167. David A:

    Your post to me at January 13, 2014 at 8:29 am concludes saying

    However my question relates to the ration of energy leaving the surface via changes in conduction due to changes of GHG molecules. A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via back conduction, instead of back radiation?? A question masquerading as an assertion.

    OK. My suggested links did not meet your need. Sorry.
    I provided those because – as I said – the subject is large and as introduction I thought links to writings by Ira Glickstein were the most appropriate in a thread discussing a new article by him.

    You ask;
    “A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via back conduction, instead of back radiation??”

    Well. Yes, but so what? The Earth’s atmosphere does include GHGs.
    Perhaps it would help if you looked at the cartoon of Trenberth’s energy budget and you solidified your questions in relation to that. You can see it at this link

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Topics/energybudgets.html

    Please note that I agree the diagram but dispute several of the numbers on it so I don’t want you to think I am commending it as ‘truth’. I am saying it shows how the energy arrives from the Sun and how it distributes prior to returning to space, which I think that is what you are asking.

    I ask you to be assured that I am trying to help.

    Richard

  168. The atmosphere is not opaque to infrared – long wave radiation leaves the toa in a constant stream maintaining the equilibrium or heat balance otherwise we would overheat and boil.

  169. This is a very simple question for those that believe CO2 causes warming.
    What caused the Cooling from the 1930/40s to the 1970s when CO2 was Increasing?
    Ditto for the so called “Pause” for the last 17 years?

    Even if the CO2 had stayed stationary during those periods the Earth should not have cooled, the temperature should also have been kept stationary by the CO2 and it was not.
    Please do not use the “natural causes” excuse, as you believe CO2 dominates.

  170. Robert S, of course overall the atmosphere is not totally opaque to IR but in certain lines of primarily of h2o and co2 the immediate radiation from the warm surface is totally (but really never exactly zero) opaque to those lines and bands, just look at the transmittance spectum provided courtesy of the navy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric.transmittance.IR.jpg, looks opaque to me in those bands. But high in the troposphere and higher this lack of transmittance gradually opens to allow the radiation to space that cools our planet.

    Notice how the transmittance from any and all frequencies are not 100% transparant but at most 80-85%. Our atmosphere as a whole due to this collision induced temporary dipole, the weaker gray body radiation, that causes all matter to Planck radiate when above absolute zero, even non-vibrational molecule gases. To this lower degree our entire atmosphere is a bit as a “greenhouse” gas and this effect grows as the direction approaches the horizon instead of zenith, its why you can look unprotected at the sun as it rises or sets, all frequencies are affected by about 34 times weaker horizontally.

  171. @ Konrad “Still having a good day Gareth?”

    I am in indeed Konrad and thank you for asking. By the way there appears to be some confusion between a poster called Garret Phillips and myself Gareth Phillips. It may be easy to quote the wrong person when answering posts due to our similar names, but we may be on quite different sides of the debate.

  172. Blair M says:
    January 13, 2014 at 9:30 am
    What if we all have it wrong? What if the GHG’s are the result of a misinterpretation of the (long ago) fundamental experiment, the 1859 Tyndall experiment? To me, the real elephant in the room are the non- GHG’s (N2 and O2):as they ‘apparently’ do not absorb IR, we right them out of the argument, but they are 98% of the atmosphere. If it were the universe we were arguing, we’d call them something like the dark gases. But they have a Specific heat capacity similar to the GHG’s – they absorb (IR) energy : it’s just that they are transparent to IR detectors(!) at the frequencies of interest – but so is salt, and is thin plastic.

    You have this completely wrong! N2 and O2 are transparent to IR in the range emitted by the earth, CO2 is a strong absorber in the 15micron band. It has nothing to do with the detectors!

    Note the log scale, black is CO2 as you’ll see its absorption is multiple orders of magnitude stronger than N2 and O2. Specific heat has nothing to do with it.

  173. I have measured the temperature of the clear sky around dawn and found that on some days it warms a few degrees before the sun is above the horizon. I’m am guessing this is the greenhouse gasses, including moisture, heating up

    I have seen a graph showing air temperatures during an eclipse in the desert where the air temperature, which is above the ground temperature before hand, looses its heat rapidly.
    The ground on the other hand retains its heat very well. If the ground heated the air, then why does the air temperature fall to well below the ground temperature at the height of the eclipse?

    On a day with nimbus clouds flying rapidly across a blue sky, you can see the temperature of the ground, shaded from the sun, changing rapidly up and down. I assume this is reflection and not the ground temperature changing.

    On a rainy day the cloud temperature is at almost at the same temperature as the ground and air temperatures. Almost100% of the radiation is being reflected back. This would mean that any heat we generate is also reflected back.

    In a temperature inversion highest temperatures are at ground level, again any heat we generate is trapped at ground level.

    I can no way believe that the near non existent CO2 can heat up the rest of the atmosphere which out numbers it 2500 to 1.

  174. “You have this completely wrong! N2 and O2 are transparent to IR in the range emitted by the earth, …”

    This is BS…. if so, 100% transparent, we would not need IR telescopes in space for we could then just pick some freqencies that are devoid of the GHGs lines and view away, perfectly clear, from right here on the surface but that does not happen, all frequencies are affected from attenuation by passing through our atmosphere. This is one of the half-truths that so irks me as if no one ever seems to read what asronomers think of such blanket statements about ir radiation outside the vibrational lines and bands (that is in o2 and n2’s realm). Nice try though Phil.

  175. Scanning through this thread – I find there are some who do not accept a GHE.
    Even a reasonable post from one who was observant enough to note the effect of clouds in “warming” the ground is dismissed without respect.
    No, believe this or believe it not….
    However – I have spent many professional hours observing closely both air (2m), ground (road surface) and in some respects sub-surface temps.
    This whilst on duty for the UKMO in winter as part of a service for local councils in the Midlands of England that involved both forecasting overnight RST’s (road surface temps) and passing on updates of any serious deviations from that forecast temp graph. (This whilst doing many other things eg forecasting for rail/energy/local media/radio and for the local airfields (Birmingham/Coventry/Nottingham).

    No, it’s not mysterious, magic, strange or controversial, it just happens – that cloud/humidity DOES “warm” the ground (via slowing cooling and allowing the sub-surface heat-flux to warm the surface). The algorithm for the forecasts we did incorporated it as a major variable. Countless times (annoyingly as it involved a lot of work in the small hours of the morning), unexpected cloud spreading over a road sensor would lift the temperature away from the forecast graph … or worse the opposite and unexpectedly clearing cloud would allow the RST to plunge – with a consequent risk of ice.
    On top of that, the cloud did not have to be obviously thick – just thin high Ci cloud 6 miles up at a temp of –30Cish could do the same. ( to a smaller degree but given cold enough RST’s it’s presence lifts/lowers the temp of a road surface ).
    How many here have not seen a frost forming, say in an early winter evening and then noticed cloud spread over – resulting in the frost melting – or worse, the opposite late in the night say where condensation/rain on your car would freeze in the last hour of the night (often after dawn) making the car lock freeze up? or black ice on roads.
    Look, there just is a GHE. Full stop. The only question is what effect CO2 has in this.
    BTW: Those that say that 0.04% CO2 content would have no effect – please consider that ~99% of the atmosphere is non-LWIR radiating, leaving only ~1% that is.
    Oh, and there’s even less CFC’s (ppt or a factor of 10^6 less) up there – but it managed to create the O3 hole.

  176. Taking ENSO and low global cloud levels into account only see 0.1c per 30-40 years for AGW. Considering this approach we will only see a rise by 2100 of about 0.25c due to AGW. This small rise can be easily hidden by larger natural factors and will not be quite big enough to cause global temperatures beating records without a strong El Nino in future.

  177. Phil says:
    “You have this completely wrong! N2 and O2 are transparent to IR in the range emitted by the earth, CO2 is a strong absorber in the 15micron band. It has nothing to do with the detectors!..CO2 as you’ll see its absorption is multiple orders of magnitude stronger than N2 and O2. Specific heat has nothing to do with it.”
    If SHC has nothing to do with it, it still begs the question: how is it that the atmosphere is warm – at all? And, what exactly is IR? IR is energy radiation felt to us as heat last time I looked, and the affect that heat energy has on a substance is the SHC – of which O2 and N2 have an average of around 1 (no units) and Co2 of 0.8, H2o vapour 2. If o2 and N2 have nothing to do with it, do not count, wouldn’t we either fry or freeze like in the vacuum? They’re there alright. Raman spectroscopy picks them up. Raman sees what IR doesn’t. Watch this and see.

    Wayne: the way I make it is that they (n2 and o2) are transparent to the (thermopile) detectors the astronomers use. Buy a detector ( a non contact IR thermometer) and have a play; you cannot measure the temp of the atmosphere with them as they don’t see it. They do see water, glass, Co2 and the like though. It’s mainly the H2o that’s the problem to ground based IR telescopes -so they go out of the atmosphere.

  178. wayne says:
    January 13, 2014 at 10:58 am
    “You have this completely wrong! N2 and O2 are transparent to IR in the range emitted by the earth, …”

    This is BS…. if so, 100% transparent, we would not need IR telescopes in space for we could then just pick some freqencies that are devoid of the GHGs lines and view away, perfectly clear, from right here on the surface but that does not happen, all frequencies are affected from attenuation by passing through our atmosphere. This is one of the half-truths that so irks me as if no one ever seems to read what asronomers think of such blanket statements about ir radiation outside the vibrational lines and bands (that is in o2 and n2′s realm). Nice try though Phil.

    Sorry you’re so biased that you can’t accept the truth!

    Picking frequency ranges that CO2 and H2O can’t absorb is exactly the strategy that has been employed prior to satellite observation, see for example:

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

    As shown in the spectra that I cited previously, N2 and O2 only have some exceptionally weak bands which are ~10 orders of magnitude weaker than CO2. Try reading some basic physical chemistry texts which cover spectroscopy and you’ll see the reasons for the transparency of homonuclear diatomics.

  179. Elizabeth says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    You are assuming that some of the “warming” is due to humans/ Well as a scientist with 4 higher degrees in statistics I am assuming that you are 100% wrong you do not have the faintest clue whether it is or not/ Sorry I am now a 100% denialist and proud of it. I think time will vindicate me.

    Haha! If you want to pass yourself off as someone capable of attaining “4 higher degrees” at least learn to write like one with the required intelligence.

  180. With a nod to Richard S. Courtney, could one also say,
    “What can be said is that the last seventeen years shows no evidence for discernible global warming from increased atmosperic levels of carbon dioxide, so any contribution from it to future global warming is trivial if it exists.”

    Then we should push the debate to what an optimal atmosphere and temperature for life on Earth is. I agree with an earlier poster who recommended 1000 ppm atmospheric CO2. That seems to be the optimal level for plants, and thus, animals. As far as temps, I wouldn’t object to it being a couple of degrees warmer, but that’s clearly debatable. Seems to me there are many places too cold to support advanced life, but none too hot (just too dry).

    A reasonable scientific endeavor in this direction could shut the door on the EPA’s efforts (in the States) to control CO2 emissions, and maybe I wouldn’t have to convince so many liberal planetary saviors that 0 ppm of CO2 is NOT a good thing!

  181. Kelvin Vaughan says:
    January 13, 2014 at 10:57 am
    I have measured the temperature of the clear sky around dawn and found that on some days it warms a few degrees before the sun is above the horizon. I’m am guessing this is the greenhouse gasses, including moisture, heating up
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The most likely explanation of this is a slight stirring of wind mixing warmer air above the surface inversion down to your thermometer. I have never noted an effect caused by radiation at that time.

    “I have seen a graph showing air temperatures during an eclipse in the desert where the air temperature, which is above the ground temperature before hand, looses its heat rapidly.
    The ground on the other hand retains its heat very well. If the ground heated the air, then why does the air temperature fall to well below the ground temperature at the height of the eclipse?”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Doesn’t happen like that ..
    See here http://www.climate4you.com/Longyearbyen%20SolarEclipse%2020080801.htm

    “Diagram showing both ground surface and air temperatures before, during, and after the solar eclipse. The wind speed and -direction is given in the grey bottom panel. The temperature variations measured at the ground surface (red graph) is considerably larger than the air temperature variations (blue graph). The ground surface temperature decrease during the eclipse is about 14oC, compared to the 1.4oC decreases in air temperature.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “On a day with nimbus clouds flying rapidly across a blue sky, you can see the temperature of the ground, shaded from the sun, changing rapidly up and down. I assume this is reflection and not the ground temperature changing.”

    It is simply the shadowing of solar SW from the ground. And if your thermometer was subject to incident sunshine, then yes you were just measuring the temp of the thermometer in/out of sunshine. If shaded from the sun it was indeed recording accurately a change in the surface temp.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “On a rainy day the cloud temperature is at almost at the same temperature as the ground and air temperatures. Almost100% of the radiation is being reflected back. This would mean that any heat we generate is also reflected back.”

    ? What height is the cloud at?
    There exists sensible heat in the atmosphere – a typical Nimbus (raining) cloud level, say at 2000ft in summer, could typically be, say 10C, whilst the ground/air could indeed be similar due cooling via evaporative cooling. This has little to do with radiation it is mostly sensible and LH transport effects.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “In a temperature inversion highest temperatures are at ground level, again any heat we generate is trapped at ground level.”

    A temperature inversion traps colder air at the surface, with a layer of warmer air above it. And “any heat we generate” is irrelevant as we are talking of a global effect, and not a very minor local effect.
    BTW: It’s NOT prevented from cooling further, as cooling occurs from the top of the inversion to space (given clear enough skies). Hence fog can continue to thicken vertically as a night progresses without the surface temperature cooling much further. The wedge of cold air at the surface gets thicker (height wise) via radiative cooling to space.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I can no way believe that the near non existent CO2 can heat up the rest of the atmosphere which out numbers it 2500 to 1.

    My previous post highlights that indeed small quantities of some things can have major effects, given the process involved and especially so, because the more we find out about the Earth’s functions, the more it is obvious that everything is minutely balanced.

  182. Tom says:
    January 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    Any heat source, transferring heat to any sink, can never be warmed beyond its starting temperature by any intermediate exchange on the way to the sink, in the absence of a new energy source in the system. If you disagree with that then I’d really like to see your experimental evidence.

    I can’t find the link at the moment, but last year Mr. Watts put a demonstration of warming the heat source by placing a barrier between it and the heat sink on YouTube.com and posted it here. Some decades ago a higher efficiency incandescent light bulb was developed using an IR reflective coating (gold?) inside to raise the temperature of the filament, thus producing more light in the visible rang despite a lower percentage passing through the coating – unfortunately decreasing the lifespan as well.

  183. “If not for the warming effect of “Greenhouse” gases, the Surface of the Earth would average below 0°F (-18°C), which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60°F (33°C) of warming.”

    Some of that 33°C has to be accounted for by massive thermal reservoir of the oceans, as well as poleward heat transport.

  184. TB:

    Your post at January 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm concludes saying

    My previous post highlights that indeed small quantities of some things can have major effects, given the process involved and especially so, because the more we find out about the Earth’s functions, the more it is obvious that everything is minutely balanced.

    Huh!
    You say, “everything is minutely balanced”. That cannot be true or we would not be here.

    The Earth’s climate system is observed to be extremely stable within each of its observed states (e.g. glacial and interglacial states, probably determined by its chaotic strange attractors).

    For example, in the ~2.5 billion years since the Earth obtained an oxygen-rich atmosphere the Sun (a g-type star) has increased its radiative forcing of the Earth by ~20%. That has not had a direct effect on the Earth’s global temperature: if this increase in radiative forcing had provided such a direct effect then the oceans would have boiled to steam by now.

    So, please explain why ~0.4% increase from radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be catastrophic when ~20% increase in radiative forcing has had no discernible effect.

    Richard

  185. TB says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm
    “I can no way believe that the near non existent CO2 can heat up the rest of the atmosphere which out numbers it 2500 to 1.”

    Can insulation warm the rest of your house? What is the ratio of the weight of the insulation to the weight of your house?

    Cheers, :)

  186. The problem the alarmists have is they make many predictions of the water vapour feedback, but none of these predictions have bore the fruit of higher observed temperatures. So as of now I am skeptical of their models, as should anyone that respects the scientific method.

  187. Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
    January 13, 2014 at 9:10 am
    ——————————————
    “I agree it is a pity that the true “Disbelievers” have come out in force in responses to this thread. Many of them seem beyond reason. Even those who show the ability to reason in their postings seem to be determined not to believe.”

    Dr. Glickstein,
    Yes many of those opposing the radiative greenhouse effect are not doing so with much scientific basis. But not all.

    Some are saying that the net effect of the atmosphere on the surface is surface cooling and the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere is atmospheric cooling. They are right, and this can be shown by empirical experiment.

    First to what’s wrong with the radiative GHE hypothesis. You have been applying SB equations to moving fluids in a gravity field. You have been trying to solve equilibrium equations that use average solar energy and ignore time. It is not just our atmosphere that is a moving fluid in a gravity field, but our oceans as well. The can only cool at the surface, but are heated at depth by SW. Speed of conduction and convection become significant factors.

    The calculations of believers in a net radiative GHE show that if our oceans could exist without an atmosphere, they would freeze over due to lack of DWLWIR and planetary surface Tav would be -18C. This figure is provably incorrect.

    This simple(but expensive) experiment can simulate what would happen to ocean temperatures without an atmosphere (assuming they did not boil into space. It prevents conductive and evaporative cooling of a water sample heated by intermittent SW while eliminating DWLWIR.

    How hot will can the water get?
    Will it freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface?
    Or will it rise toward 80C?
    What effect will the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the final temperature?

    If the oceans can reach 80C in the absence of an atmosphere (assuming they didn’t boil into space) that would prove that the net effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling. There is only one effective means of cooling the atmosphere. Radiative gases. This would mean that not just AGW but the hypothesis of a net radiative greenhouse effect is disproved.

    But we don’t actually need to run the experiment. NASA has already done the work for us. There is a “Snow Line” in the solar system. It is at 3 AU. Inside this line ice exposed to the sun melts and sublimates. Even accounting for the intermittent diurnal cycle, planet earth is well inside this line. The claim that the oceans would freeze in the absence of DWLWIR is clearly false.

    Sir George Simpson warned Calledar in 1938 about the folly of applying SB equations to moving fluids in a gravity field. His warning is still valid.

    Dr. Glickstein,
    The figure you are looking for is not -18C, it is likely closer to 52C.

  188. rogerknights says:
    January 12, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    R. de Haan says:
    January 12, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Don’t tell me Global Warming is real and don’t tell me it’s marginal. Global Warming is one big pile of BS, especially because the highest temps were measured in the thirties of the past century.

    Wasn’t that true only for the US?

    Steven Mosher says:
    January 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm

    If you really want to see the fingerprint of global warming due to GHGs you need to look for stratospheric cooling. Which you will find.

    But isn’t its rate of cooling over the past 15 or 20 years pretty low–lower than predicted?”

    Wasn’t that true only for the US? No it wasn’t, look at this old secured NH temp Graph:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/another-thanks-to-dave-burton/

    “But isn’t its rate of cooling over the past 15 or 20 years pretty low–lower than predicted?”

    Who cares, the fact that temps decrease despite CO2 levels rising tells me the alarmists are wrong.
    ANTROPOGENIC CO2 emissions are NOT CAUSING A DANGEROUS, RUN AWAY IRREVERSIBLE HEATING OF THE EART’S ATMOPHERE which was what they claimed.

    End of story, case closed. Period.

  189. Currently all available un-corrupted empirical evidence is on the side of those that claim the net effect of radiative gasses is atmospheric cooling. Those Dr. Glickstein refers to as “Disbelievers”.

    – Every climate model based on the radiative GHE assumption has failed.

    -There is no correlation between CO2 concentration and atmospheric temperature in the modern satellite record.

    – Atmospheric temperature change leads CO2 change in ice core records.

    – Empirical experiment shows that LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

    – There is no predicted tropospheric hot spot.

    – Empirical experiment shows cooling at altitude causes lower average temperatures in a tall gas columns.

    – The “Snow Line” in the solar system is 3 AU.

    – The ice exposed by the Pheonix lander on Mars heated and sublimated despite weak solar SW and diurnal cycle.

    – There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases.

    – 90% of the energy absorbed by the land, oceans and atmosphere is emitted to space by radiative gases in the atmosphere.

    – Clear evidence that Believers had to resort to falsifying proxy and surface station records.

    And on the global warming believer side? SB equations mis-applied to moving fluids in a gravity field. Oh, and shrieking. Lots of shrieking.

    I’d say the “disbelievers” are wining hands down.

  190. Ulric Lyons says:
    January 13, 2014 at 1:57 pm
    “If not for the warming effect of “Greenhouse” gases, the Surface of the Earth would average below 0°F (-18°C), which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60°F (33°C) of warming.”

    Some of that 33°C has to be accounted for by massive thermal reservoir of the oceans, as well as poleward heat transport.

    —————————————————————————————————————-

    I believe in future we will found out that the energy in the oceans represents most of the 33c greenhouse effect and current thinking is wrong.The massive thermal conveyor from the tropics to the poles is not even included in the greenhouse effect, only water vapor in the atmosphere plus the other known greenhouse gases. Without the oceans absolutely massive amounts of energy would be lost to space with little energy movement from the tropics to the poles. The planet would be far colder than now even if the atmosphere could maintain its current composition with this scenario.

  191. Excellent post Dr. Glickstein. For an Atmospheric Greenhouse analogy to help explain the matter to those interested in the subject, talking about the temperature difference between a very humid day and a very dry day, and the temperature difference between a cloudy day and cloudless day as felt by the person has been found to be an enlightening approach.

  192. Chad Jessup says:
    January 13, 2014 at 5:41 pm
    Excellent post Dr. Glickstein. For an Atmospheric Greenhouse analogy to help explain the matter to those interested in the subject, talking about the temperature difference between a very humid day and a very dry day, and the temperature difference between a cloudy day and cloudless day as felt by the person has been found to be an enlightening approach.
    ++++++++
    Hi Chad: I’m only nit picking. It’s not the temperature difference that I think you’re talking about, but that humid air at the “same” temperature as dry air has more latent energy. Dry air will gladly take the energy from moist skin so that it evaporates and cools skin through latent heat of evaporation.

  193. Matt G says:
    “Without the oceans absolutely massive amounts of energy would be lost to space with little energy movement from the tropics to the poles.”

    Clouds move a lot of heat around too. In December in the UK we get an average of around 1.5 hours sunshine a day, and it is typically is warmer when it is more cloudy:

  194. Yea, yeah, yeah, Global Warming is Real……
    If you’re plain stupid or brain dead and neglect the incredible works some people have done to dig into this fraud like E. M. Smith did: The story of the walking and disappearing thermometers.
    Watch this great Kusi Coleman Interview with E. M. Smith again, refresh your memories and stop inventing the bloody wheel over and over again.

    http://www.kusi.com/story/13257664/full-unedited-interview-with-e-michael-smith#

  195. Dr. Ira Glickstein

    THANK GOODNESS FOR THE ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE” EFFECT

    If not for the warming effect of “Greenhouse” gases, the Surface of the Earth would average below 0°F (-18°C), which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60°F (33°C) of warming.

    Nonsense. The -18°C figure is from traditional science and is the temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all – and the direct comparison is with the Moon with no atmosphere which temperaure is -23°C.

    Our fluid gas atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen is the real thermal blanket around the Earth preventing the Earth from the extreme cold reached on the Moon, and, it is the oxygen and nitrogen which is the Earth’s first line in defence from the extreme heat reached on the Moon. As every meteorologist knows, hot air rises and cold air sinks which is how we get our winds.. Water in the water cycle is the second line of defence as with its high heat capacity it takes away heat from the surface by evaporation and returns cold by precipitation. Gases and liquids are fluids, heat transfer in fluids is by convection.

    Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C
    Temperature without any atmosphere at all, : -18°C
    Temperature of the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C

    Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere but without water, think deserts: 67°C

    There is no such mechanism for ‘AGW greenhouse gases raise the Earth’s temperature 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them’, because it would not be that without them.

    There are two main “windows” in the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The first, the Visible Light Window, on the left side of the graphic, allows visible and near-visible light from the Sun to pass through with small losses, and the second, the Longwave Window, on the right, allows the central portion of the longwave radiation band from the Earth to pass through with small losses, while absorbing and re-emitting the left and right portions.

    Nonsense. Visible light from the Sun cannot heat matter – it works on the tiny electronic transition level of photosynthesis and nerve impulses in sight.

    AGW has excised the real longwave invisible heat we feel from the Sun and replaced it with this physical impossibility so that it can pretend that all downwelling longwave infrared heat energy comes from their ‘backradiation’.

    We have known since Herschel that the great heat energy we feel from the Sun is the invisible infrared, since Herchel we now know with more refined measurements that shortwave infrared is not heat energy and it is the longer wavelengths of infrared that are direct beam heat from the Sun. That is why radiant heat energy is called thermal infrared, to differentiate it from the non-thermal shortwave infrared.

    Here is traditional teaching from direct NASA pages: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

    “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

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

    Heat energy is bigger and works on the bigger molecular vibrational level, not the tiny electron level of sortwaves, it is this real heat energy which vibrates matter and so raises its temperature. Visible light from the Sun cannot do this.

    Put back the direct beam longwave infrared heat energy from the Sun, and then calculate how much ‘backradiation’ there is..

    • @Myrrh
      “Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C
      Temperature without any atmosphere at all, : -18°C
      Temperature of the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C”

      actually the average surface temperature of the moon is ~197K (-76C)
      see http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
      So we have to explain a temperature difference of > 90K between our moon and the Earth. (and the moon reflects less solar than earth)
      The infamous 255K (-18C) is just one of the many mistakes in the whole green house debacle.

  196. A) Answer #2 to Objection #2 does not really answer the question. The answer is: yes, a cooler object cannot heat a warmer one. However, the “greenhouse” theory is not inconsistent on this score, because ultimately, the heat is all coming from the Sun, which I think everyone can agree is much hotter than the surface of the Earth.

    B) All things being equal,additional CO2 in the atmosphere should result in greater heat retention, raising the temperature of the surface and near-surface. But, all things are not equal. There are feedbacks which tend to oppose the heating. Distribution of any additional CO2 in the atmosphere is as important as its quantity, and the reaction of dominant water vapor is integral to the overall effect. We do not really know the overall impact of additional CO2 in the atmosphere on surface temperatures in the current climate state of the Earth, but the latest indications are that it is negligible.

    C) Human CO2 production is a tiny fraction of the natural flows, and is easily brushed aside by the Earth’s regulatory systems. CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily driven by temperature dependent processes. See Salby, Murry.

    D) The readily observable temperature dependence of CO2 in the atmosphere establishes on its own that sensitivity of surface temperatures to CO2 concentration must be negligible. Otherwise, there would be a positive feedback loop: temperatures go up, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures, increasing CO2, and on and on in infinite recursion. Since the Earth has not experienced a runaway temperature/CO2 cycle, it follows that surface temperatures cannot be sensitive to CO2 concentration.

  197. Blair M says:
    January 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    Phil says:
    “You have this completely wrong! N2 and O2 are transparent to IR in the range emitted by the earth, CO2 is a strong absorber in the 15micron band. It has nothing to do with the detectors!..CO2 as you’ll see its absorption is multiple orders of magnitude stronger than N2 and O2. Specific heat has nothing to do with it.”
    If SHC has nothing to do with it, it still begs the question: how is it that the atmosphere is warm – at all? And, what exactly is IR? IR is energy radiation felt to us as heat last time I looked, and the affect that heat energy has on a substance is the SHC – of which O2 and N2 have an average of around 1 (no units) and Co2 of 0.8, H2o vapour 2.

    The heat capacity of CO2 and H2O is ~28 and that of N2 and O2 is ~21. IR is absorbed by CO2 and H2O, in the case of CO2 in the lower atmosphere that heat is predominantly transferred by collisions to the rest of the atmosphere. The N2 and O2 is not capable of emitting that energy.

    If o2 and N2 have nothing to do with it, do not count, wouldn’t we either fry or freeze like in the vacuum? They’re there alright.

    No one said they’re not there, or that they don’t count, they’re just not able to absorb and emit IR. The argument about heat capacity not only gets the magnitudes reversed but is completely wrong. Most of the heat is stored in the N2/O2 and the only way IR gets there is via GHGs.

    Raman spectroscopy picks them up. Raman sees what IR doesn’t. Watch this and see.

    Yes N2 and O2 bonds are Raman active but Raman is a very weak effect particularly when you’re illuminating with IR (the Raman cross section is inversely proportional to wavelength^4).

  198. Ira, you need to correct your second graphic for it is very misleading. Your cascade splitters have a label saying if one unit comes in the graphics says in a box [Temperature Reads '≈2'] which is totally incorrect for such an example. The radiation power felt is doubled, not the temperature. It should read [Temperature Reads '≈1.19'], 1.19 being the fourth root of two, or [Flux Power Reads '≈2'], take your pick but the graphic further says the scale is measuring ‘Temperature’ so maybe you should stick to the first option.

    It the same reason that of 396 power at the surface and 238 OLR leaving has a ratio of 238/396 to the fourth root giving 0.88 times an assumed 289 K surface will have an effective radiation temperature of 289 × 0.886 or ≈254 K, the difference what you keep calling the “Greenhouse” effect.

    So looking at this from a different direction our atmosphere impedes 396-238 (src:TFK) or 156 W/m² when passing through ≈10330 kg of a unit column, 156/10330 being 0.0151 W/m²/kg. But an identical situation on Venus with 16600 instead of 390 at the surface and an OLR of 65.5 instead of 240 due to the high 0.90 bond albedo means its atmosphere impedes the upward surface IR at (16540-65) / 1051000 kg for the unit column mass also gives 0.0157 W/m²/kg.

    Even though the 0.0151 W/m²/kg is not identical to the 0.0157 W/m²/kg of Venus you do only have a 4% difference in the LW impedance even though one is primarily a 78% N2 & 21% O2 mixture with trace gases and the other some 96% CO2 & 4% N2 mix. Maybe you could help answer why if all your are saying is accurate why is this so simple relation also true. Carrying that same analysis to the Galileo probe dropped into Jupiter’s atmosphere (90% H2 & 10% He) the temp lands smack in the middle of the raw data temperature at 22½ eq. Earth atmospheres and the NASA re-analysis of that temperature profile at the same depth/pressure, them deeming the raw data flawed due to a leaky tank near the end of the drop, this is using the same 0.0157 W/m²/kg mass impedance value. All three of these example atmospheres are both thick and warm enough to have most normal degrees of freedom free and unfrozen in all cases. Myself, I can’t explain why this relation exists yet but if you like science you have to wonder what’s up.

  199. All the arguments are about TEMPERATURE not what actually drives the climate which is HEAT. I do not care what temperature anomaly may occur it has no relevance only heat flow and change does the work so are the metrics to follow.
    Unfortunately heat is a difficult metric to work out in an atmosphere that is never at thermodynamic equilibrium and is captive on a revolving planet with chaotic physics governing weather.

  200. Dr Glickstein
    Your up and down spectra and the discussion on IR absorption, re-radiation and heating including wavelength are extremely helpful. I’ve been looking for a while for a clear explanation of this.

    It appears to contain feedback loops, more at some frequencies and less at others. For instance at frequencies like 7 and 15 um absorbed heat re-radiates at a range of wavelengths and can indirectly be ultimately reabsorbed back at the same wavelength – i.e. feedback. However this is not possible at 10 um, this wavelength is the exit door, photons at this wavelength go to space or the surface.

    Add to these feedbacks the dissipative nature of atmospheric IR radiation exchange and it opens the possibility that the whole IR turnover and exchange system might behave in a nonlinear-chaotic manner. It would be interesting conceptually to map the Lyapunov exponent (sort of attractiveness/repulsiveness) of the phase space consisting at the simplest level of just the wavelength spectrum. At 15 um the Lyapunov exponent would be positive (repulsive) due to the export of energy away from this wavelength by absorption and reabsorption; by contrast the 10 um wavelength would have a negative Lyapunov exponent (attractive), it would act as an attractor or a “mini black hole” wavelength since no re-radiation would occur of energy emitted at this wavelength. It has been shown that when the phase space of a nonlinear system has regions with both positive and negative Lyapunov exponents then the attractor can be chaotic.

    Speculating further, if the Lyapunov exponent of a chaotic-nonlinear IR exchange system as a whole was negative, this would mean that the system would exhibit robust Lyapunov stability and would be adaptively stable against perturbations of parameters, such as the amount of CO2 in the air. In other words, increasing CO2 might fail to budge the attractor and have no effect on the overall radiation balance.

    In politics you follow the money, in systems like this one should follow the energy.

  201. I have a little problem accepting that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are due mainly, or indeed to any great extent, to human activity. It’s because of a little thing called Henry’s Law, first propounded in 1803. Henry’s Law says that if you have a gas dissolved in water at a concentration x, and the same gas present in the air immediately above the water at concentration y in equilibrium with the dissolved component, then if you add a little more of that gas to the air above the air/water interface, x parts will end up in solution and only y parts will remain in the air.

    The concentration of CO2 in the surface layers of the oceans is about 120 times that of the atmosphere immediately above the ocean.(oceanic concentration is approx 2000 micromoles per kg). Consequently, 99.2% of any added CO2 will end up in solution in the oceans, and only 0.8% will remain in the atmosphere. The time for this to occur will depend on horizontal and vertical mixing rates, but is unlikely to be more than a year or so for CO2 released anywhere on the planet.

    The total amount of man-made CO2 released since the start of the industrial revolution is a few thousand gigatons. Since over 99% of this will have been speedily absorbed by the oceans, there simply isn’t enough to account for the rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2 from about 315 ppm in 1960 to 400 ppm today – not by a long shot.

    I am therefore led to the conclusion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is largely due to degassing of the oceans as the planet warms up after the Little Ice Age end sometime around 1850. Comments, anyone?

  202. “However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.”

    As well as the matter of heat capacity, another thing that will make a big difference to the 33ºC figure is the distribution of the dominant greenhouse agent:

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth/action?opt=-p&img=vapour.bmp

    (check “No night” and click “update”)

  203. Ben Wouters says:
    January 14, 2014 at 4:45 am
    @Myrrh
    “Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C
    Temperature without any atmosphere at all, : -18°C
    Temperature of the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C”

    actually the average surface temperature of the moon is ~197K (-76C)
    see http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

    So we have to explain a temperature difference of > 90K between our moon and the Earth. (and the moon reflects less solar than earth)

    .
    The -23°C for the Moon’s average is one I see most often as standard – here someone who did his own search:

    “Temperature Data
    If you survey the web for temperature data, you’ll find dramatic variations in the numbers quoted, even among web sites that are copying each other. There’s also little consistency, even within a given web site, in which temperature scale is quoted. One of the most frequent errors is to specify the wrong temperature scale, substituting Centigrade for degrees Fahrenheit; and even more often substituting Kelvin for Centigrade.

    So, after digging through that mess, I went back to half a dozen books in my study to check references found on the web, and came up with what I think are the most consistent and believable numbers for the mean, maximum, and minimum surface temperatures. The table below quotes these temperatures in Fahrenheit, Rankine, Centigrade, and Kelvin. (Rankine and Kelvin are absolute scales. At 0°R or 0°K, nothing moves.)

    Mean Surface Temperature

    F R C K
    Earth 59 519 15 288
    Moon -9 451 -23 250
    Mars -76 384 -60 213″

    From: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surface-temperature.html

    The infamous 255K (-18C) is just one of the many mistakes in the whole green house debacle

    ‘Cept it isn’t a mistake.. It was a deliberate act to write out our atmosphere of fluid gas with convection as heat transfer in order to promote the ‘radiative greenhouse gas’ scenario. If trace ‘greenhouse gases and a bit of water’ which are not direct heat sources could raise the temperature of my house 33°C ..

  204. richardscourtney says:
    January 13, 2014 at 9:52 am
    David A:
    Your post to me at January 13, 2014 at 8:29 am concludes saying
    “However my question relates to the ration of energy leaving the surface via changes in conduction due to changes of GHG molecules. A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via back conduction, instead of back radiation?? A question masquerading as an assertion.”
    OK. My suggested links did not meet your need. Sorry.
    I provided those because – as I said – the subject is large and as introduction I thought links to writings by Ira Glickstein were the most appropriate in a thread discussing a new article by him.
    You ask;
    “A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via back conduction, instead of back radiation??”
    Well. Yes, but so what? The Earth’s atmosphere does include GHGs.
    =========================================================================
    Dear Richard, thank you, and apologies for the delayed response. The clue to your so what? question is in this sentence of mine, which you quoted…”my question relates to the ration of energy leaving the surface via changes in conduction due to changes of GHG molecules.” So I am asserting, (with an open mind) that this quote “A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via BACK CONDUCTION, instead of back radiation”” being affirmed as correct, would mean that some of the projected 33 degrees of warming due to GHG back radiation, would be made up by increased conduction from a reduction in GHGs.

    In fact, I am asserting as logical that the energy conducting to the atmosphere, would have a longer residence time, due to the fact that it could not radiate away, and continue to mainly conduct up to the cooler atmosphere. Conduction, and Convection would continue, via Coriolis
    affect, night and day flux, and latitude heat differentials The thinner more elevated atmosphere would continuously absorb warmer, faster vibrating molecular energy, until they equalized. A thermometer would measure the thinner atmosphere as cooler, due to the fact that fewer would hit the same surface area, but they would have a thermodynamic equilibrium of the same energy per molecule. So the “so what?” is an affirmation that less GHG equals more conduction from the surface, and an increase in atmospheric residence time of said energy, partially making up for the 33 degree warming affect of GHGs. Stated more simply, a decrease in back radiation is, to some degree offset by an increase in back conduction.

    What I can not figure out is how to quantify such a change. Not all the energy leaving the surface is radiant. Clearly Trenbeth shows this, however, even now some of the energy hitting the surface is also conducted, via warmer air contacting a cooler surface.

    BTW, I use “David’s law, regarding residence time, to explain the warming affect of GHGs. Anything that increases the residence time of energy in a system is warming. The devil is in the details.
    One watt of energy hits the ocean surface, accelerates evaporation and that one watt leaves the ocean, and begins to exit the system (system equals earth, ocean, atmosphere) Another watt of SW energy strikes the ocean surface and penetrates up to 200 meters.

    So I see the earth’s system as a highway with one on-ramp, TSI, and one off-ramp, space, The inflow on the onramp is relatively constant over the annual cycle. The number of cars, (units of
    energy) in the SYSTEM (earth, ocean, atmosphere) depends on the average speed of the cars between the on and off ramps. More cars slowing means more cars on the highway. (earth, ocean atmosphere) More cars driving faster means fewer cars on the highway.
    SW cars that reflect from white clouds go very fast. Different SW clouds that dive deep in the ocean, drive very slow.

    This is why I ask, and have never received an estimated answer, if the earth, ocean atmospheric system gains or loses energy during the SH summer. About 7 percent more TSI striking greater percentage of ocean, with increased NH albedo, clearly cools the atmosphere, but does the increased heat entering the oceans, more then counteract this? This energy entering the ocean’s are certainly slow drivers on our fascinating highway.

    Well, as I said, it is an academic question by an interested layman. Somehow I think I could make humor out of it, lets see, “Two photons walk into a bar….?
    certainly slow drivers these SW cars entering the ocean.

  205. NASA’s view of our planet and it’s people in 2001 and how the population problem will be solved by 2025 in a presentation titled Future Strategic Issues And War War Fare.
    This is the text of just one of the slides in the presentation, see link below.

    Space Ship Earth

    The crew are:
    – plundering the ship’s supplies
    – Tinkering with the temperature and life support controls
    – Still looking for instruction manual
    – Engaging in bloody skirmishes in every corner of the vessel
    – Increasing the size of the crew by 2 million PER WEEK

    P. Creola

    http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/future-strategicissuesandwarfare

    Watching this NASA slide show and already having read UN Agenda 21, all the Club of Rome BS available and following this blog from the early days, I think we have entirely different priorities right now and really have to address our establishment about the total lunatic trajectory they have engaged upon. The text in the slide provides a more than chilling insight in the way top NASA management regards our civilization and our relationship with the planet.
    I think their world view is even worse than the view of the Nazi’s.

    People who exhibit views like this belong in a mental institution.

    Instead we find them in the highest offices of our governments and institutions.

    Now that is a problem we have to solve.

  206. Thanks Dr Glickstein,

    Your article explains the Greenhouse Gas effect argument well. I understand it and it is very plausible. It makes sense. I suppose that is why it is accepted by warmists and skeptics alike.

    However I don’t think it is a scientific fact, because it has not been demonstrated empirically. If greenhouse gases did in fact warm the earth by 33C it would be a very big deal and it should be easily demonstrated by simple experiments.

    Why do I not accept the argument?
    Firstly there is a greenhouse effect on the moon. It is called Heat Capacity. The lunar surface does not get as hot as expected if it was a simple black body. The maximum day time temperature is a little less than it should be and the minimum night time temperature about 80-90K more than expected because during the lunar day, heat soaks into the lunar soil instead of being radiated away immediately. It then comes back out at night keeping the surfaced well above 0 degrees K.

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

    How much greater is this effect on the earth, which has massively more heat capacity in the oceans and atmosphere? Hard to say exactly but it may be enough to explain the earth’s temperature entirely and completely. No other Greenhouse effect required.

    Secondly water, whether clouds or vapour cools the earth. This is clearly seen by comparing sites at the same latitude and altitude and hence with same solar irradiance. The site which has more water, humidity and rainfall is always cooler. Since water is by far away the most powerful greenhouse gas it seems to be a cooling gas. CO2 is likely the same. Sorry I can’t give more than one reference without loosing the post but I got that from Carl Brehmer.

    Thirdly the proposal that low temperature radiation is absorbed by a warmer body and help keeps it warm is not supported by my own experiments. I know that seems to contradict well accepted radiative physics. Metal foils or mirrors placed near warm or hot black objects do not make them warmer, even when the object is being continuously heated.

    If anyone has a good experiment that shows reflected radiation does make an object warmer and it can be replicated I might change my mind.

  207. David A:

    I am replying to your post addressed to me at January 14, 2014 at 10:58 pm.

    Taking your concluding point first, you say

    Well, as I said, it is an academic question by an interested layman. Somehow I think I could make humor out of it, lets see, “Two photons walk into a bar….?
    certainly slow drivers these SW cars entering the ocean.

    Academic questions which interest laymen are important.
    The real world has importance to laymen and academic issues are often merely hypothetical.

    You say

    What I can not figure out is how to quantify such a change. Not all the energy leaving the surface is radiant. Clearly Trenbeth shows this, however, even now some of the energy hitting the surface is also conducted, via warmer air contacting a cooler surface.

    Please note that the energy is also distributed. Most of the surface is ocean and most of the “energy hitting the surface” is in the tropics. The oceans transport energy from the tropics to polar regions: the tropics absorb net radiation and polar regions emit net radiation.

    However, on average the surface is warmer than the air (because most solar heating is of the surface) so net conduction is from the surface to the air.

    Also evapouration and convection move much energy from the surface to altitude. The evapourated water falls as rain so you may want to think how much energy you would expend trying to carry that water in a bucket up a ladder to the clouds.

    Quantifying all these changes requires assumptions because adequate measured data do not exist. Different people use different assumptions (hypotheses) so obtain estimates. I gave you Trenberth’s cartoon and said I did not agree with its numbers. Here it is again

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Topics/energybudgets.html

    For comparison here is the similar cartoon with numbers estimated by Willis Eschenbach

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/co2-and-ceres/#comment-1535782

    Others, including me, have made different estimates. Each estimate represents the effects of the assumptions used by the estimator.

    And you say

    This is why I ask, and have never received an estimated answer, if the earth, ocean atmospheric system gains or loses energy during the SH summer. About 7 percent more TSI striking greater percentage of ocean, with increased NH albedo, clearly cools the atmosphere, but does the increased heat entering the oceans, more then counteract this? This energy entering the ocean’s are certainly slow drivers on our fascinating highway.

    Global temperature rises 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year. As you say, this results from the SH having less land and oceans being better heat sink than land. So, more energy enters the oceans during SH summer than NH summer.

    However, the total energy in the system is the net of energy entering and leaving the system. The rate at which energy leaves is proportional the fourth power of the temperature (T^4). And global temperature is highest in NH summer, so energy loss rate is greatest in NH summer. The effect of this higher loss rate is reduced by the Earth being nearer to the Sun in SH summer than NH summer, but this additional solar heating is relatively small (never underestimate the power of a fourth power law).

    So, it seems that
    (a) the energy in the system rises and falls through the year
    and
    (b) the energy in the system increases as the global temperature falls and vice versa through the year.

    This is the opposite of ‘common sense’ (reality often is) but it results from how the energy is stored and distributed through the system throughout the year.

    I hope I have understood what you are asking this time and that my attempt to answer it in ‘layman’s language’ is adequate.

    Richard

  208. Thank you Richard, and yes, it helps, but let me question a bit further…

    Richard quotes me…
    “This is why I ask, and have never received an estimated answer, if the earth, ocean atmospheric system gains or loses energy during the SH summer. About 7 percent more TSI striking greater percentage of ocean, with increased NH albedo, clearly cools the atmosphere, but does the increased heat entering the oceans, more then counteract this? This energy entering the ocean’s are certainly slow drivers on our fascinating highway.”

    Global temperature rises 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year. As you say, this results from the SH having less land and oceans being better heat sink than land. So, more energy enters the oceans during SH summer than NH summer.

    However, the total energy in the system is the net of energy entering and leaving the system. The rate at which energy leaves is proportional the fourth power of the temperature (T^4). And global temperature is highest in NH summer, so energy loss rate is greatest in NH summer. The effect of this higher loss rate is reduced by the Earth being nearer to the Sun in SH summer than NH summer, but this additional solar heating is relatively small (never underestimate the power of a fourth power law).

    So, it seems that
    (a) the energy in the system rises and falls through the year
    and
    (b) the energy in the system increases as the global temperature falls and vice versa through the year
    ——————————————————————–
    I would agree with minor changes. My changes in bold to differentiate them…
    “Global temperature (Change Global to ATMOSPHERIC) rises 3.8°C from January to June and falls by 3.8°C from June to January each year. As you say, this results from the SH having less land, and oceans being a better heat sink than land. So, more energy enters the oceans during SH summer than NH summer.

    However, the total energy in the system is the net of energy entering and leaving the system. The rate at which energy leaves is proportional the fourth power of the temperature (T^4). And global ATMOSPHERIC temperature is highest in NH summer, so energy loss rate is greatest in NH summer. The effect of this higher loss rate is reduced by the Earth being nearer to the Sun in SH summer than NH summer, but this additional solar heating is relatively small TO THE ATMOSPHERE, AS IT ENTERS AN 80 PERENT PLUS OCEAN SURFACE. (never underestimate the power of a fourth power law).

    So, it seems that
    (a) the energy in the system rises and falls through the year
    and
    (b) the energy in the system increases as the global ATMOSPHERIC temperature falls and vice versa through the year.
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    That would be my guess as well, but it is not quantified. This well illustrates why I always think in energy residence time of our planets earth, ocean, atmosphere, as critical. Willis, who you linked to, did not understand my point to him that even if, when comparing the watts per sq’ M of LWIR due to back radiation of clouds, as being the same, or equal to the watts per sq’ M of SW radiation minus clouds, the feed back of clouds would be strongly net negative, due to the residence time of energy entering the system. In short, the SW photon drives slower, (speed is a metaphor for time) and while still in the system, perhaps for years, yet more cars,(photons) continue entering the system, so clouds are net negative, as they reduce residence time of energy in the system compared to SW energy entering the ocean without clouds. Willis could not follow my unique (read layman) thought process.

    BTW, such an annual quantification of overall annual energy increase or decrease is important on astronomical scales. In current Lunisolor Precession theory, every 12,000 or so years, during January, the NH would be closest to the Sun. (If I understand precession theory correctly) I would think this would have profound affects on global climate, but am not certain this is seen in the record.

    One more thought. In an atmosphere with GHGs, would not some molecules of non GHG, conduct their energy via collision to a GHG molecule, therefore potentially releasing that conducted non GHG molecules energy to space, thus cooling?

    PS, I am grateful for a real conversation, and by academic, I mean a conversation not corrupted by political view or human ego, but guided by logic and the scientific method.

  209. David A:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 15, 2014 at 1:15 am. I am pleased that I have – at last – managed to understand what you were really asking me.

    This leads to my responding to your saying that Willis did not understand a point you put to him. And I offer some sincere advice in hope of being helpful to you (n.b. this is NOT negative criticism).

    When you have a point or a question to put then please try to make it as clear and succinct as possible. Try to present it as a single statement then add any explanation and/or exposition after that. In this thread I repeatedly failed to understand the point you were really addressing. Many people don’t have time to try to find out what you really mean, and Willis is certainly such a person because he needs to reply to many points put to him in threads discussing his articles.

    I assure you that time you take to formulate your statement will provide you with great rewards. And I repeat for emphasis that I offer this advice with complete sincerity.

    Having said that, I address your final three paragraphs.

    You say

    BTW, such an annual quantification of overall annual energy increase or decrease is important on astronomical scales. In current Lunisolor Precession theory, every 12,000 or so years, during January, the NH would be closest to the Sun. (If I understand precession theory correctly) I would think this would have profound affects on global climate, but am not certain this is seen in the record.

    Please research Milankovitch Cycles.
    (Milankovitch was a Serbian cement engineer who did seminal work on this subject.)

    One more thought. In an atmosphere with GHGs, would not some molecules of non GHG, conduct their energy via collision to a GHG molecule, therefore potentially releasing that conducted non GHG molecules energy to space, thus cooling?

    Yes, but the opposite is also true. The net effect is warming of the atmosphere by collisional de-excitation of GHG molecules because most molecules are N2 and O2 which are not excited by absorbing photons as GHG molecules are.

    PS, I am grateful for a real conversation, and by academic, I mean a conversation not corrupted by political view or human ego, but guided by logic and the scientific method.

    It happens all the time on WUWT. It is why I come here: I learn from exchange of ideas especially when I am shown to be wrong. And it is why I revile trolls: they attempt to prevent discussion of ideas with a view to learning.

    Richard

  210. @Myrrh says: January 14, 2014 at 7:28 pm
    The sources you show are pretty old. The Diviner project is now over 4 years in operation and is actually mapping and measuring moons surface with moon orbiting satellites.
    see eg http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2012/presentations/Greenhagen.pdf
    I’ve been tracing the so called Effective temperature (Te) back to planetary astronomy calculations that try to get a ballpark estimate for surface temperatures of planets.
    see eg http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Albedos.html
    It seems the greenhouse believers just copied/pasted this calculation for earth.
    The Te for the moon is ~270K, actual is ~197K.
    So obviously there is something seriously wrong with this calculation.
    Problem is the spreading around the WHOLE surface of incoming solar, and then calculating an average surface temperature. They might have noticed that in solar systems with only one sun there is a distinct day and night side on every planet, and that the SB formula has a fourth power.
    Doing the same simple calculation for day side only gives for the moon ~322K, night side 0K (neglecting cosmic background radiation). So average surface temperature for the moon in radiative balance is 161K. Actual is ~36K higher due to some heat storage during the day resulting in higher night temperatures.

  211. Thanks Richard; I said,
    “One more thought. In an atmosphere with GHGs, would not some molecules of non GHG, conduct their energy via collision to a GHG molecule, therefore potentially releasing that conducted non GHG molecules energy to space, thus cooling? ”

    Yes, but the opposite is also true. The net effect is warming of the atmosphere by collisional de-excitation of GHG molecules because most molecules are N2 and O2 which are not excited by absorbing photons as GHG molecules are.
    ================================================================
    Yes, it is clear that if a GHG molecule, redirects received LWIR back towards the surface, it is increasing residence time of said energy, thus net warm. But it is such a short answer to a complicated question. How often does the former occur, IE, the GHG molecule receives energy via conduction- collision with a non GHG molecule? How much of the energy in the NON GHG molecules in our atmosphere is there via conduction? After a GHG molecule releases its LWIR induced excitation, is it then cooler then the local thermal dynamic equilibrium, and now more likely to receive and liberate to space conducted energy from a non GHG molecule? What would determine a GHG net warming to the atmosphere is truly the net difference, but how do we know what the net differences is. The solar energy deposited into the warm tropics, eventually releases itself from the ocean in more pole ward locations, where the water is far warmer then the surface air. This is a great amount of conducted and convection energy warming, via conduction eventually to GHG molecules. One less GHG molecule, is one less chance for energy received by non GHG collision, to escape our system.

    Where is the above actions and reactions quantified. You have admitted that a non GHG atmosphere would continue to receive conducted energy until the atmospheric flow of conducted energy equalized with the surface, via Back conduction to the surface. Would this chew up some, or all of the 33 degrees estimated GHG warming of earths surface, lowering the GHE?

    Steven McIntyre has asked for an engineering type explanation of the GH effect, but I have never seen such a paper,

    What do you think of my question to Willis. Is a watt a watt, or, as I reason, if the cloudless SW insolation is equal to the cloudy LWIR back radiation, it still produces far more warming, over time, due to the long residence time of SW radiation penetrating the surface? My traffic analogy,

    BTW, I have read on the Milankovitch Cycles, and will do more so at your suggestion. However the majority of these cycles, refers to far longer cycles, then the 360 degree precession cycle of the axis rotation, which, if I understand it, reverses the earths seasonal tilt every 12000 or so years, putting the earth alternatively closest to the sun in January or in June every 1/2 cycle. Perhaps I have missed something in this, but if current Lunisolor Precession theory is correct, I do not see how this would be avoided.

  212. David A:

    I am giving a brief reply to your post addressed to me at January 15, 2014 at 7:17 am because – as I said at the outset – your interest is so wide that you would benefit from undertaking a course on it. And, importantly, me answering your questions here would not provide such a course.

    A few points as reply.

    Not all energy is in the form of heat.

    The heat of a gas is expressed by its temperature which is an indication of the average speed (actually RMS speed) of the gas molecules. Increase the average speed of the molecules and the gas gets hotter. Decrease the average speed of the molecules and the gas gets cooler.

    A GHG molecule gains energy but does not get hotter when it gets excited by absorbing a photon: it is raised to a higher quantum level (by increasing the vibrational or rotational energy of the molecule). Simply, the energy from the photon is stored in the GHG molecule and the GHG molecule does not change its speed. If that stored energy is supplied by a collision to e.g. a nitrogen molecule then the nitrogen molecule is accelerated: the energy that was stored in the GHG molecule becomes kinetic energy in the nitrogen molecule so the gas gets hotter.

    Similarly, if a collision causes kinetic energy of a nitrogen molecule to be transferred to be stored in a GHG molecule then the gas is cooled because the nitrogen molecule is decelerated but the GHG molecule is not accelerated.

    There are too many complexities for an “engineering type explanation” of all that happens in the climate system. That is why GCMs exist: they are models which attempt to emulate the bulk behaviours of the atmosphere (but they don’t work which is not surprising). The best we can do is make estimates based on assumptions and I linked you to two such estimates; i.e. those of Trenberth and Eschenbach.

    A Watt is a Watt. What else could it be?
    I think you are asking how an amount of energy is expressed as temperature. If so, then that depends where the energy is and where it is going. For example, energy going into ice may melt the ice with no resulting temperature change. An amount of energy going into land will obtain more temperature rise than the same amount of energy going into water. Energy going into air may provide winds (i.e. bulk kinetic energy) with no temperature change or may be thermal energy which increases the air temperature and so increases convection. etc..

    I suppose these energy exchanges could be considered to be analogous to traffic flows, but I don’t see the benefit of the analogy. One can track where the energy is going (as the Trenberth and Eschenbach diagrams do).

    I hope this helps.

    Richard

  213. richardscourtney says:

    January 15, 2014 at 7:52 am A GHG molecule gains energy but does not get hotter when it gets excited by absorbing a photon: it is raised to a higher quantum level (by increasing the vibrational or rotational energy of the molecule). Simply, the energy from the photon is stored in the GHG molecule and the GHG molecule does not change its speed. If that stored energy is supplied by a collision to e.g. a nitrogen molecule…….
    Q) Does absorption of a photon by a GHG mol excite orbital electrons as well ? If so which waveband supplies the photons.

  214. chemengrls:

    re your post at January 15, 2014 at 11:08 am.

    Sorry, but I do not understand your question; viz.

    Does absorption of a photon by a GHG mol excite orbital electrons as well ? If so which waveband supplies the photons.

    I do not understand which waveband of what supplies which photons in your question?

    A photon is a quantum of EM radiation which has a wavelength related to the energy it carries. When it is absorbed by a GHG molecule then – as I said – it either increases the vibrational or the rotational energy of the molecule.

    Richard

    • Werner Brozek says:

      January 15, 2014 at 5:49 pm

      richardscourtney says:
      January 15, 2014 at 1:39 pm
      Does absorption of a photon by a GHG mol excite orbital electrons as well ?

      This person meant something along the lines of a photon of certain energy raising the electron from the first level to a higher level such as level 5 for example.

      This person meant photons in the principal emission bands of CO2 for example are at about 2.64 to 2.84, 4.13 to 4.5 and 13 to 17 microns. The photon energies depend on the frequencies; my question is which photons cause vibrational and rotational changes in the molecule and which if any raise the electron excitation levels.

  215. richardscourtney says:
    January 15, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    Does absorption of a photon by a GHG mol excite orbital electrons as well ?

    This person meant something along the lines of a photon of certain energy raising the electron from the first level to a higher level such as level 5 for example. In the case of hydrogen, 13.6 eV would cause ionization, but a lower energy could raise the electron to a higher level. I see no reason why this could not happen to an H in CH4 for example. Of course the same energy would be re-emitted when the electron dropped down from its higher energy level.

  216. richardscourtney (Jan. 13, 2014 at 7:58):

    While you claim to prove my assertions false, and provide quotes that (you claim) support this proof you do not provide the proof. A “proof” is an argument whose conclusion is true under the principles of the classical logic. If you have composed such a proof, what is it?

  217. The “climate sensitivity” whose value, accordng to the IPCC, is in the interval between 1.5 and 4.5 Celsius is the equilibrium climate sensitiviy. The effective climate sensitivity does not have a value but rather has a range of values.
    ++++++++++

    What is the time range for the temperature range you speak of?

    Wait -Isn’t the overall range of climate sensitivity being lowered as the models continue to prove themselves wrong Terry?

  218. Mario Lento:

    Thank you for taking the time to respond.

    As it has multiple meanings, the term “climate sensitivity” is logically troublesome because the ambiguity of definition of this term supports applications of the equivocation fallacy. What do you mean by “climate sensitivity” in your pair of questions for me?

  219. Hi Terry: You mentioned a climate sens’ range.
    When was the claim made? AR3, AR4 or AR5? Or more recent.
    For what period of time is that range projected to exist? Is between now and 2100?
    .

  220. Mario Lento:

    I notice that you’ve not responded to my request for disambiguation of the term “climate sensitivity” as you use this term. Is disambiguation a problem for you?

  221. Terry Oldberg says:
    January 15, 2014 at 9:15 pm
    Mario Lento:

    I notice that you’ve not responded to my request for disambiguation of the term “climate sensitivity” as you use this term. Is disambiguation a problem for you?
    +++++++
    Terry: Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. You wrote climate sensitivity and I questioned you about it. So why are you asking me what it means?

    You wrote, “The “climate sensitivity” whose value, accordng to the IPCC, is in the interval between 1.5 and 4.5 Celsius is the equilibrium climate sensitiviy. The effective climate sensitivity does not have a value but rather has a range of values”

  222. Mario Lento:

    In this conversation, the term “climate sensitivity” has at least the three meanings referenced by the quote provided by Richard Courtney. What specifically do you mean by “climate sensitivity” in your post of January 15, 2014 at 7:51 pm?

  223. I was asking you the same thing Terry.

    This is getting really old. You’re telling me I am not allowed to ask you a question fine. But your questions was answer. AGAIN – I was asking you what you meant on your post. You put it there, and I asked about it.

    Get it? Got it? Good.

  224. Richard, I appreciate your patience, and yes it is required with unconventional layman. However hang in a bit longer with me, and I think clarity at least, if not agreement, will result. I will insert my comments in capital letters into the cogent parts of your comment below, to aid in clarification.

    A Watt is a Watt. What else could it be? BEAR WITH ME. THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY STATES THAT ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. HOWEVER IT CAN CHANGE FORMS. THUS A SW PHOTON, CAN BE CONVERTED TO A LWIR. IT IS VERY COGENT TO UNDERSTAND THAT “THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS TO CHANGE THE ENERGY CONTENT OF A SYSTEM IN A RADIATIVE BALANCE. EITHER A CHANGE IN INPUT, OR A CHANGE IN THE RESIDENCE TIME OF SOME ASPECT OF THAT ENERGY WITHIN THE SYSTEM.”

    NOW WE MUST DEFINE THE SYSTEM. IN THIS CASE WE ARE REFERING TO TE EARTH, INCLUSIVE OF THE LAND, OCEANS, AND ATMOSPHERE. ENTROPY WITHIN THE SYSTEM IS NOT A LOSS OF ENERGY FROM THE SYSTEM, DUE TO THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. THUS RESIDENCE TIME OF ENERGY ENTERING THE SYSTEM, IS RELVANT TO THE HEAT CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM. THE GREATER THE RESIDENCE TIME, THE GREATER THE HEAT CAPACITY, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT THEN MANIFEST AS HEAT.

    A SW PHOTON OF VISIBLE LIGHT STRIKES A CLOUD, AND REFLECTS BACK TO SPACE= SHORT RESIDENCE TIME. A SW PHOTON STRIKES THE MIDDDLE OF THE TROPICAL OCEAN, PENETRATES UP TO 800 FEET. IT HAS A VERY LONG RESDIDENCE TIME OF YEARS IN THE SYSTEM.

    SO YES, THE TRAFFIC ANALOGY IS SPOT ON. ALL THE VARIOUS WAYS THE EARTH SYSTEM CAN WARM WHICH YOU CAN THINK OF DEPEND ON EITHER A CHANGE IN INPUT, OR A CHANGE IN THE RESIDENCE TIME OF THAT ENERGY WITHIN THE SYSTEM.

    IF 100 WATTS PER SQUARE METER OF DEEPLY PENETRATING SW ENERGY FLOWS INTO THE TROPICAL OCEAN TODAY, THEY WILL STILL BE THERE TOMORROW WHEN ANTHER 100 WATTS PER SQ METER of SW ENERGY ALSO CONTINUES TO FLOW INTO THE OCEAN.
    IF THAT SAME 100 WATTS PER SQUARE METER STRIKES A WHITE CLOUD, IF MAY WELL BE GONE, AND SO THE NEXT DAY, AGAIN STRIKEING WHITE CLOUDS, IT WILL NOT ACCUMALATE WITHIN THE EARTHS SYSTEM, AS YESTERDAYS WATTS ALREADY LEFT YESTERDAY. IF THE RESIDENCE TIME IS YEARS, NOT MINUTES HOURS OR DAYS, THE ENERGY IN THE SYSTEM BUILDS, SO YES, IT IS CRITICAL WHAT ROADS WITHIN THE SYSTEM THE ENERGY, HERE DEFINED AS WATTS,TAKE.

    NOW IF 100 WATTS PER SQUARE METER OF LWIR, “BACK RADIATION” STRIKES THE OCEAN SURFACE, AND THAT ENERGY IS ABSORBED INTO LATENT HEAT OF EVAPORATION AND RELEASED AT ALTITUDE, THEN THOSE WATTS HAVE A SHORTER RESIDENCE TIME THEN THE SAME 100 WATTS OF SW RADIATION DEEPLY PENETRATING THE OCEAN SURFACE.

    SO NO, NOT ALL WATTS ARE EQUAL, AND NOT ALL WATTS OF THE SAME VIBRATION WAVE LENGTH ARE EQUAL EITHER, DEPENDING ON THE MATERIALS THEY ENCOUNTER. THE MAY CONTAIN EQUALL ENERGY, BUT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT RESIDENCE TIME WITHIN THE SYSTEM, AND SO THE TRAFFIC ANALOGY IS PERTINENT.

    RICHARD, YOU YOURSELF CONFIRMED ALL THAT I STATED ABOVE, IN AFFIRMING THAT THE EARTH GAINS ENERGY DURING THE S.H. SUMMER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ATMOSPHERE COOLS. EVENTUALLY THAT ENERGY ENTERING THE TROPICS AND S.H. OCEANS, MAKES IT WAY TO THE POLES, AND RELEASES TO THE ATMOSPHERE. JOHN DALY PLACED A SEVEN YEAR RESIDENCE TIME ON MUCH OF THIS ENERGY.

    I think you are asking how an amount of energy is expressed as temperature. If so, then that depends where the energy is and where it is going. For example, energy going into ice may melt the ice with no resulting temperature change. SORRY RICHARD, BUT YOUR EXAMPLE CONFUSES ME. LIQUID WATER IS WARMER THEN FROZEN WATER? YET I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENTHALPY OF VAPORIZATION IS RELEASED IN THE ENTHALPY OF CONDENSATION AT ALTITUDE.
    An amount of energy going into land will obtain more temperature rise than the same amount of energy going into water. YES, BUT THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY STILL APPLIES, AND THAT ENERGY IS NOT LOST.
    Energy going into air may provide winds (i.e. bulk kinetic energy) with no temperature change or may be thermal energy which increases the air temperature and so increases convection. etc. YES INDEED, AND CONVECTION IS YET ANOTHER MEANS OF REDUCING THE EARTH’S ENERGY RESIDENCE TIME. SOME SPECULATE THAT AN INCREASE OF GHG , CREATES AN INCREASE OF CONVECTION TO ALTITUDE, THUS A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.

    I suppose these energy exchanges could be considered to be analogous to traffic flows, but I don’t see the benefit of the analogy. One can track where the energy is going (as the Trenberth and Eschenbach diagrams do). THESE DIAGRAMS IGNORE TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN YEARS OR DECADES MAY BE INVOLVED. THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY HAS NO TIME LIMIT, ENERGY IN THE SYSTEM, NO MATETER THE RELATIVE ENTROPY WITHIN THE SYSTEM, SAID ENERGY IS NOT LOST, AND CAN IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE BE THERMALISED IN PERTUITY,UNTIL IT ENTERS THE ONLY OFF RAMP, SPACE.

    FIFTY OR SO YEARS OF SOLAR CHANGE, WHERE DISPARATE WAVE LENGTHS CHANGE FAR MORE THEN TSI, CAN CAUSE UNKNOWN ENERGY FLUX IN THE OCEANS,
    ACUMALATING OR REDUCING FOR THE ENTIRE CHANGE IN TSI, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, WHICH ONLY MANIFEST SLOWLY TO THE ATMOSPHERE.

    A WATT OF LWIR IS NOT THE SAME AS A WATT OF SW ENTERING THE OCEANS. OUR ANNUAL SEASONAL CYCLES DEMONSTRATE THIS.

    Richard, I agree whole heartedly, after literally hundreds of hours of study, there is much we do not know or yet understand. There are many Newtonian principle of action reaction, within our fascinating and complicated earth. However I go as a cool luke warmer; by this I mean there may be an initial small increase in atmospheric heat due to GHG, but the negative feedbacks may negate almost all of this, and an annual analysis of the inflow and outflow at the top of the atmosphere, may not be accurate to the degree necessary, and it may not incorporate the necessary time needed, as energy entering the oceans can take years to manifest, and GHG may create a slow net negative to earth’s largest heat sink, the oceans.
    I think we can both agree that the C is missing in CAGW. Hell Richard, lately the G and W are missing as well.

    Cheers, at your service
    David

  225. Friends:

    I am answering Terry Oldberg, David A and chemengrls in the same post. This is for convenience and is not intended as a slight to anybody. And I include sincere thanks to Werner Brozek.

    I repeat that people who want to know this stuff should take some courses. It is not possible for me – or anybody else – to explain all of this in a blog thread.

    However, my replies are genuinely intended to help although I am dismayed by the behaviour of Terry Oldberg.

    Terry Oldberg:

    Your post at January 15, 2014 at 7:11 pm is either egregious or an example of your lack of reading comprehension.

    I DID “prove” you were talking twaddle in my post at January 13, 2014 at 3:58 am. This link jumps to it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1534315

    and – using your terminology – I did “disambiguate” when I wrote in that post saying

    Clearly, Glickstein is discussing effective climate sensitivity (n.b. NOT equilibrium climate sensitivity) because that is obtainable from observations and he says …

    Your subsequent discussion with Mario Lento provides further evidence that you “don’t have a clue what you are talking about”. All he has done is to ask you for clarification and your responses consist solely of evasions and obfuscations.

    I strongly suggest that you drop the matter because you are not helping yourself.
    You were wrong.
    I explained how and why you were wrong.
    I need do no more except to acknowledge your thanks when you provide them for my having shown you were wrong.

    David A:

    I am answering the latest in your series of post addressed to me. For the convenience of others, I provide this link to it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1537606

    OK. You say you find your “traffic analogy” useful to you. In that case, then use it. I don’t find it useful so I will continue to consider energy fluxes as they are known or estimated to exist.

    I do understand that your analogy gives you a better feel for flow rates. I am content to consider the flux rates.

    Secondly, all Watts ARE equal.
    By definition a Watt is a unit of power which is one joule per second. (A joule is a unit of energy which is equal to the work done by a force of one newton acting through one metre.)

    Energy can be stored. The joules may move or not. Their movement is their flux.

    Ice does melt to water without change of temperature. The absorbed energy breaks the bonds which makes the ice a solid and becomes stored in the water. You can check this using a drinking glass containing some water, several ice cubes and a thermometer.

    I think your conceptual problem may be confusion between temperature and heat. Temperature is not an indication of energy, and heat is energy. A Watt of SW IR entering the ocean IS the same as a Watt of LW IR whether or not it enters the ocean. However, the SW and LW can interact with matter in different ways although they are both electromagnetic (EM) radiation. Consider visible light which is also EM. Visible light interacts with your eyes so you can see it but IR does not.

    The energy balance models do not “ignore” time. They indicate the rates of energy flows in, out and within the system. These rates are provided as Watts which are flows of energy as joules PER SECOND.

    I hope I have clarified the issues.

    chemengrls:

    I found the contribution from Werner Brozek at January 15, 2014 at 5:49 pm very helpful to me because prior to that I really did not understand what you were asking me, and I take this opportunity to thank him.

    We are discussing the difference between GHG molecules and other molecules. As I said, to you

    A photon is a quantum of EM radiation which has a wavelength related to the energy it carries. When it is absorbed by a GHG molecule then – as I said – it either increases the vibrational or the rotational energy of the molecule.

    The effects are quantised by the shape of the molecule and its bonds. Hence, vibrational absorbtion is possible for a CO2 molecule
    C – O – C
    Because the ‘angle’ between the C atoms attached to the O atom can change to provide the vibration.
    But such vibrational excitation cannot occur to an O2 molecule (or an N2 molecule)
    O – O
    Because the molecule has no ‘angle’ to change.

    However, individual atoms can also absorb or emit photons. They do this by moving an electron from one shell to a higher shell. This effect is used e.g. for analysing materials by energy dispersive analysis of X-rays (EDX).

    The EM absorbtion by individual atoms is NOT the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The molecules of GHGs in the atmosphere absorb and emit much, much more EM than individual atoms can. Indeed, in the atmosphere the atomic absorbtion and emission is so small relative to the molecular effect that it is usually ignored.

    I still may have misunderstood but – following Werner’s comment – it seems to me that you are confusing EM absorbtion by atoms as being the EM absorbtion by GHG molecules. It is not.

    I hope all this is clear and what was wanted.

    Richard

  226. Thank you, we will agree to disagree on some things. I clearly stated SO NO, NOT ALL WATTS ARE EQUAL, AND NOT ALL WATTS OF THE SAME VIBRATION WAVE LENGTH ARE EQUAL EITHER, DEPENDING ON THE MATERIALS THEY ENCOUNTER. THE MAY CONTAIN EQUALL ENERGY, BUT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT RESIDENCE TIME WITHIN THE SYSTEM, AND SO THE TRAFFIC ANALOGY IS PERTINENT.”
    So both the vibrational WL of the watt, and the materials it encounters, affect residence time of said energy within the system. Increase the residence time, and you add energy: decrease it, and you remove energy. You apparently do not wish to admit to the law I stated which expresses this succinctly. That law is useful for the affect of GHG, and for comprehending ANY proposed change in the energy of our system. land, oceans, and atmosphere. All energy gains or losses, independent of a change in input, are dependent of the residence time of indestructible energy.

    You refuse to address if a watt of LWIR energy striking the ocean surface,has the same residence time, as a watt of SW penetrating the ocean surface. If the SW energy is still within the system tomorrow, and receives more tomorrow, and the LWIR undergoes evaporation and condensation at altitude, then exits to space, then the one watt is net increased energy to the system compared to the other. Neither you or Willis appear to accept this, and simply say all watts are equal. Equal energy, yes, equal residence time and warming, or potential warming, no.
    So Willis, ignores residence time of the energies involved in stating that the increase in SW to the surface under clear sky conditions, is watt to watt, equal to the increase in LWIR of a cloud. The LWIR has a shorter residence time within the system. In affect, via the traffic analogy, it drives faster on the highway, and so there is less traffic accumulation on the highway then with the same wattage flow of SW penetrating the oceans, and accumulating daily. So again, the traffic analogy is useful.

    Clearly a GHG increases residence time when they redirect an exiting LWIR photon back into the system. Clearly they reduce residence time if they encounter a non GHG molecule and receive energy via conduction, which they then may zip off to space, which would otherwise just conduct about the atmosphere indefinitely, thus the GHG in this case is reducing residence time, net reduction of energy in the system.

    Clearly a non GHG atmosphere would continue to receive conduction from the surface, until it warmed to net, net equal the surface, expanding a local thermodynamic equilibrium to the entire atmosphere. something it does not do now, as the surface is warmer then the atmosphere. Clearly the lapse rate would be reduced in a non GHG planet, as it would be dependent on a reduction in the number of molecules per square meter with altitude, but not dependent on increased convection resulting from GHG molecules cooling an aspect of the atmosphere, resulting in different flow rates within the atmosphere. I explained that convection would likely be reduced, and a reduction of convection, is an increase in residence time of energy, thus a positive feedback.

    I have postulated that some of the 33 degrees of warming of GHG molecules, would be made up for by an atmosphere which may now convect less, and remove from the atmosphere less conducted energy, as that energy has no easy escape route to space. I have proposed that the cooling affect of reduced GHG molecules, is partially made up for by more conduction from the surface, and that a reduced or non GHG atmosphere, would lose this conducted heat more slowly and have to warm in mass, until back-conduction to the surface was equal to flow from the surface, and that to some degree this would make up for the GH affect. It is true that I do not have the means to quantify this, but I think those factors are logical to the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation.

    You have agreed that the energy flow models are all uncertain, and have flaws. I have pointed out that they do not factor in time, equal to the law of the conservation of energy, or equal to the residence time of some of the energy which enters our system. They work mostly on a daily basis, and somewhat on an annual basis. However we could be gaining or losing very small amounts daily, entering , or no longer entering, the deep oceans, which if this small flow continued, positive or negative for decades, we would not detect on a daily or annual basis but over decades, due to the very long residence time of the energies involved, would matter if
    a TSI change, or a cloud flow latitude change persists for several consecutive solar cycles. A small watt per meter change, in a very long residence time of energy, matters over decades and eventually can result in a large change in net energy.

  227. chemengrls says:
    January 16, 2014 at 3:34 am
    This person meant photons in the principal emission bands of CO2 for example are at about 2.64 to 2.84, 4.13 to 4.5 and 13 to 17 microns.

    Infrared radiation can do many different things, and that includes raising the electron in a hydrogen atom from level 3 to a higher level. To raise an electron from level 2 requires a visible photon and to raise an electron from level 1 requires an ultraviolet photon. For more information, see:

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=hydrogen+series+balmer&rlz=1C1TSCD_enCA503CA503&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GRzYUoC2ItPloATB3YLoBA&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=987&bih=498

    Of course this has nothing to do with greenhouse gases as such. For other effects of infrared radiation, see what Richard said.

    richardscourtney says:
    January 16, 2014 at 5:04 am
    You are welcome!

  228. Mario Lento:

    I gather that by “climate sensitivity” you mean the “effective climate sensitivity.” Regarding the period of time over which this range is projected to exist, I’m not aware of a specification for this period. If there is such a specification I’d appreciate hearing of it.

    By the way, I trust you agree with me that in proving the conclusion of an argument, disambiguation of the terms of this argument is a requirement.

  229. David A:

    I am replying to your post at January 16, 2014 at 6:31 am which is addressed to me.

    You say

    So both the vibrational WL of the watt, and the materials it encounters, affect residence time of said energy within the system. Increase the residence time, and you add energy: decrease it, and you remove energy. You apparently do not wish to admit to the law I stated which expresses this succinctly. That law is useful for the affect of GHG, and for comprehending ANY proposed change in the energy of our system. land, oceans, and atmosphere. All energy gains or losses, independent of a change in input, are dependent of the residence time of indestructible energy.

    What law would that be?
    I accept the laws of physics and – in so far as I am able – I obey the law of the land wherever I am.

    Energy gains and losses do not depend on the residence time. They depend on inputs and outputs. This is like the flow of fluid through a pipe. The gains and losses of the fluid in the pipe depend on what goes in and what comes out. The residence time in the pipe depends on the volume of the pipe and the flow rate: nothing else.

    And you say to me

    You have agreed that the energy flow models are all uncertain, and have flaws. I have pointed out that they do not factor in time,

    And I have explained to you that what you pointed out is plain wrong. They do “factor in time”. They indicate flows in Watts, and a Watt is a joule per second. That second is time.

    Everything else your post says results from your two misunderstandings. And I hope I have provided correct understanding this time.

    Richard

  230. Terry Oldberg says:
    January 16, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Mario Lento:

    I gather that by “climate sensitivity” you mean the “effective climate sensitivity.” Regarding the period of time over which this range is projected to exist, I’m not aware of a specification for this period. If there is such a specification I’d appreciate hearing of it.

    By the way, I trust you agree with me that in proving the conclusion of an argument, disambiguation of the terms of this argument is a requirement.
    ++++++++++
    Honestly Terry, I have no idea of what we’re even talking about anymore. There are three or four words that you use in most every conversation. The substance is so diluted after several iterations of conversation with you that there is only pulp. I’m just saying I don’t have the energy nor desire to try to decipher this communication any longer.

  231. Terry Oldberg:

    Your post at January 16, 2014 at 11:44 am

    richardscourtney:
    Contrary to your assertion, your post of Jan. 13, 2014 at 3:58 am contains no proof.

    That post provides a complete explanation that you were plain wrong.
    Anybody can check that, and to help them I provide this link to it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1534315

    You always refuse to see when you are shown to be wrong. I suspect that if you had said a crane cannot drop a piano then you would refuse to look if somebody told you a piano was falling on you.

    So, I have no intention of entering another of your interminable debates where you demonstrate almost every logical error in attempt to claim you were not wrong.

    But I am saddened that you could not bring yourself to thank me for informing you of your error.

    Richard

  232. Terry Oldberg:

    re your post at January 16, 2014 at 3:54 pm.

    I WASTE YOUR TIME!?

    Noted, laughed at and ignored. Oh, and stop wasting everybody’s time.

    Richard

  233. If anyone other than richardscourtney wishes to debate the existence of the climate sensitivity, equilibrium climate sensitivity, effective climate sensitivity or transient climate response I’d be happy to oblige. Courtney is disqualified from participation for steadfastly refusing to play by the rules of logical conduct.

    My position is that none of these concepts exist. Rather than existing, these concepts are global warming climatology’s illicit substitute for the sampling units of legitimate scientific research. For the lack of sampling units, global warming climatology is a pseudo-science..

  234. Richard, this is further response to your post. Let us take one thing at a time.

    You quote me
    “So both the vibrational WL of the watt, and the materials it encounters, affect residence time of said energy within the system. Increase the residence time, and you add energy: decrease it, and you remove energy. You apparently do not wish to admit to the law I stated which expresses this succinctly. That law is useful for the affect of GHG, and for comprehending ANY proposed change in the energy of our system. land, oceans, and atmosphere. All energy gains or losses, independent of a change in input, are dependent of the residence time of indestructible energy.”
    ========================================
    What law would that be?
    “Only two things can affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, a change in input, or a change of the residence time of some aspect of that energy within the system.”
    Why is this true. Because of the law of the conservation of energy, which cannot be destroyed. Entropy, as long as it is within the defined system (earth, oceans, atmosphere) is not a reduction of the systems energy, just a redistribution within the system. True or false? So if input is not changed, but some energy leaves sooner, IE, an increase of white clouds causing a reduction of atmospheric residence time of SW visible light, the system cools, due to reduced residence time, True or false?
    If white clouds reduce, and the same SW energy enters the tropical pacific, the energy in the system increases. (Yesterdays short wave ocean absorption of energy is still there, and so is todays. True or false? In each case this is a function of the residence time of the energies involved. True or false? In each case the energy gain, of the planetary system does depend on the residence time of the energy, True or false?

    First let us deal with this. Do we have an accord?

    ”. .

  235. Friends:

    Terry Oldberg says at January 16, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    If anyone other than richardscourtney wishes to debate the existence of the climate sensitivity, equilibrium climate sensitivity, effective climate sensitivity or transient climate response I’d be happy to oblige. Courtney is disqualified from participation for steadfastly refusing to play by the rules of logical conduct.

    If anybody wishes to try to debate anything with Terry Oldberg then I would be happy to observe and to enjoy the joke.

    Richard

  236. David A:

    I am answering your questions to me at January 16, 2014 at 11:42 pm

    Q1.
    “Only two things can affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, a change in input, or a change of the residence time of some aspect of that energy within the system.”
    Why is this true. Because of the law of the conservation of energy, which cannot be destroyed. Entropy, as long as it is within the defined system (earth, oceans, atmosphere) is not a reduction of the systems energy, just a redistribution within the system. True or false?
    A1.
    False.
    As I explained to you, the residence time is not relevant to the total energy in the system.

    Q2.
    So if input is not changed, but some energy leaves sooner, IE, an increase of white clouds causing a reduction of atmospheric residence time of SW visible light, the system cools, due to reduced residence time, True or false?
    A1.
    False.
    (a) The difference between the input and output has induced the change to energy in the system; n.b. NOT “reduced residence time”.
    and
    (b) In the case of reflective clouds you may have a point but not generally; e.g. if altered energy in the system results in a phase change of water then it may cause no change in temperature; i.e. no warming or cooling. It seems you are still confusing energy with temperature.

    Q3.
    If white clouds reduce, and the same SW energy enters the tropical pacific, the energy in the system increases. (Yesterdays short wave ocean absorption of energy is still there, and so is todays. True or false?
    A3.
    I don’t understand the question.
    A change in energy in the system results from a change to energy input and/or change to energy output.

    Q4.
    In each case this is a function of the residence time of the energies involved. True or false?
    A4.
    False.
    See above.

    Q5.
    In each case the energy gain, of the planetary system does depend on the residence time of the energy, True or false?
    A5.
    False.

    Q6.
    See above.
    First let us deal with this. Do we have an accord?
    A6.
    No.
    See above.

    Richard

  237. richardscourtney says:
    January 17, 2014 at 2:43 am
    ++++++++
    I agree with your answers the way that the questions were posed.

    I think the claim is that “if” residence times hold on to the energy such that the total amount of energy “leaving” the system decreases, then there is by that definition an energy gain under that particular condition. There can only be an energy gain is only if more energy enters than energy leaves at some point in time.

    This does not ensure that temperature will increase though since for example, the evaporation of water decreases temperature as the energy state of the water increases. Humid air at temperature x has more energy than dry air at temperature x.

    I know I am not saying much and these are merely hypothetical statements.

  238. Mario Lento:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 17, 2014 at 11:30 am.

    I almost entirely agree. My disagreement is with your last sentence because
    I think you are saying much and not making merely hypothetical statements. .

    Richard

  239. richardscourtney says:
    January 17, 2014 at 11:39 am
    Mario Lento:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 17, 2014 at 11:30 am.

    I almost entirely agree. My disagreement is with your last sentence because
    I think you are saying much and not making merely hypothetical statements. .

    Richard
    ++++++++
    Thank you Richard. I meant, to you I was not saying much, since you said it well — that energy and temperature are not the same thing. I added nothing new, just stated things in a different way. The “if” parts of my statement are hypotheticals, which I used to described the energy flows examples. I tried really hard to talk about the energy without conflating temperature, (which is a measurement indication of the result of energy’s affect on mass at a particular state and under specific conditions that can be described by PV/nR=T
    Thank you again.

  240. THANKS Richard (richardscourtney) for being so patient and courteous and knowledgeable in answering the questions and trying to understand the points being made by those who are either “disbelievers” or who have certain reservations about the basic science of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. I’ve held back from replying to comments because you were doing such a good job and you are clearly much better informed about the physics.

    As a System Scientist (my PhD) and System Engineer (my profession for a few decades) I am used to considering the “big picture” and depending upon trustworthy domain specialists to keep track of the details. However, I have enough physics and math to peer into the details when the specialists disagree or when the specialists seem (to me) to have made incorrect assumptions because they do not understand the “big picture”. In several cases during my long career, specialists have made wrong assumptions and have calculated precisely wrong results!

    In the case of the Official Climate Team and their Climate Models, it seems to me that they were (at least initially) sincere in their assumption that the rise in Atmospheric CO2 was THE MAJOR driver of the Global Warming that has undoubtedly occurred in the past century, and that CO2 increase was, in large part, caused by human burning of fossil fuels.

    HOWEVER, the basic physics supports a Climate Sensitivity of only about 1°C (1.8°F) for doubling of CO2 alone, which was NOT enough to explain the amount of Global Warming they ASSUMED was due to CO2.

    Thus, they could either drop their ASSUMPTION that CO2 was the MAJOR driver -or- make the further ASSUMPTION that Atmospheric water vapor (H2O) would be MULTIPLIED by CO2 increases AND that the effects of more H2O (clouds, etc.) would be POSTIVE feedback, etc. That is how they got their estimate of Climate Sensitivity up to 2°C to 4.5°C (3.6°F to 8.1°F) – they ASSUMED a MULTIPLIER of 2 to 4.5. (In AR5 the lower limit was dropped to 1.5°C (2.7°F).)

    They could not drop their initial ASSUMPTION that CO2 rise was THE MAJOR driver (without admitting their mistake), so they doubled-down (and triple- and quadruple-downed :^) on their CO2 ASUMPTION. That is how virtually ALL the IPCC Climate Models got HANDCUFFED to CO2.

    As the Climategate emails (particularly <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/do-we-care-if-2010-is-the-warmist-year-in-history/&quot; this one by Makiko Sato) show, between 1999 and 2001 through 2007, they “cooked the books” on the US thermometer record to increase the apparent US Warming by as much as 0.5°C (0.9°F). Yes, the US is only 2% of the surface area of the world, but, if the US thermometer record is that unreliable and has that much room for “adjustment”, imagine how much less reliable the world thermometer record may be!

    Given the availability of highly reliable satellite data since 1979, the IPCC can no longer ignore the leveling off of the rate of warming. Indeed, since 1996 through the present, the satellite record has forced even the Official Climate Team to admit there has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in Global Warming.

    HOWEVER, because their Climate Theory remains HANDCUFFED to CO2, and satellite data prevents them from “cooking the books” too much, they have had to come up with cockamamie explanations for where the Warming went, such as the idea it is hidden in the oceans. We shall see!

    Ira

  241. Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
    January 17, 2014 at 6:22 pm
    ++++++++++
    That’s the major summary for the life and death of the IPCC. What is really flat out bizarre, is that they try to keep the meme going. I had no idea so many people were that deeply dishonest.

  242. RESIDENCE TIME

    I read with interest the courteous discussion between David A and richardscourtney regarding the “residence time” of the energy conveyed to the Earth System (Atmosphere, Land, Ocean) by photons of different Wavelengths (from the Sun and as Backradiation from the Atmosphere) and whether they happen to be reflected by clouds or absorbed by land or ocean.

    Here is my somewhat informal attempt “to understand the meaning of “residence time”:.

    (1) Certainly, if we imagine an Earth completely enveloped by reflective clouds, most photons from the Sun would be reflected and lost to Space, along with the energy they carry. Considering the packet of energy carried by a single photon, it would reside in the Earth System only for the instant required for it to be reflected. That would be a very short time. AND, since most of the photons would never reach the Earth Surface, the temperature would be low.

    (2) On the other hand, if we imagine an Earth with no water and therefore no clouds at all, and a GHG-free Atmosphere (say pure Nitrogen), the photons from the Sun (Short Wave) would mostly be absorbed by the Surface. The Surface and (by conduction) the Nitrogen Atmosphere would warm until, by the SB Law, they reached an average temperature where they were emitting to Space the same amount of energy in the form of Far Infrared (Long Wave) as was coming in from the Sun (Short Wave).

    Clearly, once they stabilized, the average Surface temperature would be higher in case (2) than in case (1). But, what about the average “residence time” of the packets of energy arriving from the Sun? Clearly, some Short Wave packets would be absorbed and immediately emitted as Long Wave, but, since absorption and emission take time, they would have a longer “residence time” in the Earth System than the reflected Short Wave packets of energy in case (1). Furthermore, some packets of Short Wave energy would be absorbed and would warm the Surface and remain in the Earth System for longer times. Therefore, it seems that higher Surface temperatures and longer “residence times” have something in common.

    (3) Now to the actual Earth System, with water and GHGs, and weather, etc. Some packets of Short Wave photon energy are reflected and therefore have very short “residence times”. That constitutes about a third of the incoming Solar energy.

    The remaining two-thirds of Solar energy packets are absorbed by the Atmosphere or the land or ocean Surface and cause the Earth System to warm. The energy in some packets is immediately emitted as Long Wave radiation and some of that passes freely through the Atmosphere ten-micron window and is lost to Space, with a relatively short residence time.

    However, much of the incoming Solar energy packets that are absorbed by the land and ocean Surface remain there for some time. Furthermore, some of the energy packets that are emitted from the Surface happen to be at wavelengths where the GHGs make the Atmosphere opaque (namely the seven-micron band absorbed by H2O and the fifteen-micron band absorbed by both H2O and CO2. About half of those energy packets get re-emitted back towards the Surface and even some of those emitted towards Space are intercepted and absorbed by yet other GHGs and re-emitted, etc.

    Of course, given convection (thunderstorms, winds, etc.), evaporation, and conduction, much of the Solar absorbed by the Surface is transferred to the Atmosphere by non-radiative means. Nevertheless, even those energy packets must be transformed into radiative form to finally leave the Earth System as Long Wave radiation to Space.

    Thus, if you followed the energy in a given packet from the Sun, some and perhaps most of those packets would have very long “residence times” in the Earth System. The actual Earth System (3) is warmer than either system (1) or (2), and has longer average “residence times” than (1) or (2).

    CONCLUSION: THUS, LONGER AVERAGE “RESIDENCE TIMES” SEEM TO BE RELATED TO HIGHER SURFACE TEMPERATURES.

    Ira

  243. PHYSICAL ANALOGY FOR “RESIDENCE TIME”

    As you all know, I like physical analogies!

    Imagine a tall barrel with a constant stream of water flowing in at the top, and a hole at the bottom. The level of water in the barrel will rise until the pressure of the weight of water at the exit hole is sufficient to match the rate of water exiting to water entering.

    Let us analogize:
    a) the level of water in the barrel to the temperature of the Earth System,
    b) the rate of the stream of water coming in as Sunlight energy in, and
    c) the rate of the stream of water exiting as Infrared radiation energy out to Space.

    Once the system stabilizes such that (b) is equal to (c), we can see that “residence time” of the average drop of water is proportional to the level of water in the barrel.

    For example, given a large hole at the bottom (simulating an Earth with fewer GHGs) the level of water in the barrel will be low. If we imagine the drops of water coming in forming a line and taking their turns on the way to the exit, the “residence time” will be relatively short.

    If we make the hole smaller (simulating an Earth with more GHGs) the level of water in the barrel will be higher and that will increase the flow rate out of the smaller hole until it is equal to the input rate. If we imagine the drops of water coming in forming a line and taking their turns on the way to the exit, the “residence time” will be longer than the previous case.

    Ira

  244. Ira, thank you, and I will reply shortly reply further on residence time. I love analogy and I enjoy rational discourse.

  245. Ira Glickstein:

    Thankyou for your kind words to me.

    Now you have entered the discussion I will withdraw and observe unless points are specifically addressed to me.

    Richard

  246. IRA you have stated David’s Law. (-; “Only two things can change the energy content of a system in a radiative balance; either a change in input, or a change in residence time of some aspect of the energy within the system.”

    Now in our case we are defining the earth, including land, oceans and atmosphere as our “system”. Folk far more educated then I have accepted this “law” in principle.
    E.M.Smith said he basically accepted it, as did WUWT poster RGB.

    In this sense I maintain not all watts are equal. The residence time depends on both the materials encountered, and the WL of the watt under consideration. In a recent post Willis asserted that the LWIR re-striking the surface, via back radiation, was equal to the SW striking the surface,sans the clouds presence. I maintained that while the watts may be equal, the SW created a greater overall energy within the “system” due to it longer residence time striking and penetrating the tropical SH
    ocean, up to 800 feet deep. ( the epipelagic Zone ) and some even deeper to 3000′
    (Mesopelagic Zone)

    During my conversation with Richard I led him through a discussion of the seasons. We agreed that the earth in the SH summer, receives about 7 percent more insolation, (a massive increase in input) yet the atmosphere cooled, Is the earth gaining or losing energy in the SH summer? We have the same WL in both hemispheres, with reduced residence time in the NH, due to increased albedo, and increased residence time in the SH, due to ocean penetration. In either case it is a change in residence time of similar TSI, although stronger TSI due to being closer to the sun. In both cases the atmosphere cools, because more sunlight is penetrating the ocean, in the SH,and in the NH it is reflecting and leaving more quickly,due to higher snow and ice albedo. We both estimate that the earth is gaining energy, despite the cooler atmosphere.

    I have some GHG questions for you. I accept your above analogy. LWIR exiting the surface, strikes a GHG molecule and zips back towards the surface. That unit of energy is now in our system longer, while input remains continues, we have some increase in energy, and in this case temperature as well. (With the caveat that some of this increase in energy may simply accelerate convection, evaporation or the water cycle , without raising the temperature.)

    However some of the energy in the atmosphere is conducted from the surface. In a non GHG atmosphere of equal volume,most all then energy would be from conducted energy I think. On our earth some of it certainly is. If this conducted energy collides with a GHG molecule, does this potentially reduce the residence time of the conducted energy? Also, clear sky only, average water vapor removes about 30 percent of down welling TSI. This energy is now conducting about the atmosphere in a local thermodynamic equilibrium with non GHG molecules.
    (How much depends I suppose on how rapidly a WV molecule releases it energy via radiation, relative to releasing it via conduction with collision with a non GHG molecule) Adding more GHG will reduce the residence time of this conducting energy as well.

    In short, GHG decreases the size of the hole in your analogy of LWIR energy, and increases the size of the hole of conducted energy.

    In a non GHG atmosphere, of equal volume to our earth the atmosphere would initially be cooler then in our atmosphere. However more radiation would reach the surface. Also, more conduction would take place from the surface. The “hole” in the atmosphere would be greatly reduced, until the entire atmosphere equalized, and back conduction equalized upwelling conduction. Convection, due to latitude T differential, day and night T differential, and rotating earth, would still happen, but reduce due to a lowered lapse rate, with T difference due mainly to ever lowered density of molecules per sq. meter. Less convection and more conducted energy equates to a smaller “hole” or increased residence time.

  247. This thought of residence time makes me also consider volcanic heat within ocean depths. An ocean vent at 24000 feet may produce a great deal of heat, all though relative to TSI infinitesimal. However that heat may take a century to find the out “hole” And, according to the law of conservation of energy, that energy is never lost from our “system” until it finds that hole to space. And so, todays heat from the vent, adds to yesterdays, and the day before, for maybe a hundred years, each day an addition of energy to yesterdays. So how much volcanic heat is now in the ocean?

  248. richardscourtney says:
    January 15, 2014 at 7:52 am

    The heat of a gas is expressed by its temperature which is an indication of the average speed (actually RMS speed) of the gas molecules. Increase the average speed of the molecules and the gas gets hotter. Decrease the average speed of the molecules and the gas gets cooler.

    A GHG molecule gains energy but does not get hotter when it gets excited by absorbing a photon: it is raised to a higher quantum level (by increasing the vibrational or rotational energy of the molecule). Simply, the energy from the photon is stored in the GHG molecule and the GHG molecule does not change its speed. If that stored energy is supplied by a collision to e.g. a nitrogen molecule then the nitrogen molecule is accelerated: the energy that was stored in the GHG molecule becomes kinetic energy in the nitrogen molecule so the gas gets hotter.

    Yes, although the total energy of the photon will most likely be distributed over a large number of molecules via a large number of collisions.

    Similarly, if a collision causes kinetic energy of a nitrogen molecule to be transferred to be stored in a GHG molecule then the gas is cooled because the nitrogen molecule is decelerated but the GHG molecule is not accelerated.

    This is an extremely improbable event as the collision would have to occur in such a way as to transfer the energy into a vibrational mode only, the cross section for this event would be very small. Most of the collisions would transfer mostly translational energy, next likely rotational and least likely vibrational.

  249. I hope both Richard and Ira forgive my lack of education beyond high school. This is cause to poor articulation and reduced correct scientific terminology. I can reason a cause-affect process through, when I understand the general principles. however I lack the math skills to quantify this; and I am aware that in many cases WE lack the observational tools to determine these ultimate affects as well.
    I have studied CAGW for many hundreds of hours. First at Climate audit, until I knew the arguments of the detractors of CAGW, and the proponents, before I read them, and then, at WUWT.I learned more. I am convinced that the C in CAGW never existed. I think that the G also never really existed (in recent anthropogenic times) except on very short time scales, and the W entirely depends on the selected time scale, and is currently AWOL, and on all recent time scales is well within the null hypothesis of natural warming. In short, post normal science has moved a weak theory to a political front, to great social harm and waste.

  250. Phil above touches on details beyond my thought process regarding conducted energy vs radiated energy; and the interactions between non GHG and GHG molecules. In general I suppose the denser the atmosphere, the more likely to be an increase in conduction transfers vs radiated energy transfer. Or, more specifically an increase in radiant energy to non GHG molecule, via conduction, and an increase of non GHG conducted energy to GHG molecules. I think an advanced level of understanding is needed here.

  251. Phil.:

    re your post at January 18, 2014 at 5:42 am.

    Yes, and there are many other details which could also be added.
    I was trying to explain basic principles in language comprehensible to lay people.

    As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, people wanting detail should attend a course or – at least – read some text books.

    Richard

  252. David A:

    re your post at January 18, 2014 at 5:44 am.

    There is nothing to “forgive”, and if I did ‘talk over’ you then I apologise because I genuinely did try to engage with you using ‘layman’s language’.

    Richard

  253. However I do maintain the GHG molecules in general increase residence time of energy from upwelling LWIR radiating energy, and decrease residence time of conducted energy from non GHG molecules. Also, via receiving dowelling TSI within the atmosphere, GHG like Water Vapor, reduce said TSI residence time, via often preventing said energy from reaching the surface.

  254. Thanks Richard, yet I fear that you have not comprehended that Ira’s comments support my statements in many ways.

  255. David A:

    re your comment to me at January 18, 2014 at 6:02 am.

    Please do not “fear”. We learn from honest and mutually respectful disagreement.

    If you can show me to be wrong then I shall learn and be grateful for it.

    Richard

  256. A small flame under a pot of water will, over time equalize at a certain T, providing a small consistent flow of water into the pot to keep the water level. Put a lid on the pot, and the temperature will rise due to the fact that the energy from the flame stays in the pot :”system” longer.

  257. David A:

    I understand you to be addressing me at January 18, 2014 at 6:32 am when you request

    Please reread Ira’s post at Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
    January 17, 2014 at 7:23 pm

    OK. I have done, and I still do not see anything other than in the post from Mario Lento at January 17, 2014 at 11:30 am which I agreed at January 17, 2014 at 11:39 am.

    I said I would withdraw in favour of Ira unless points were specifically addressed to me, and I have only addressed such points since then.

    I now ask you to consider that none of us is completely ‘right’ and we are all ‘wrong’ to some degree because the world is as it is and we ‘view it through a glass darkly’. These conversations exist because we are trying to remove some of the distortions in what we ‘view’.

    Your ‘view’ will be accepted if it turns out to be more useful than mine. I see no purpose in championing my view because I have stated it.

    Ira concludes his post you commended to me by saying

    CONCLUSION: THUS, LONGER AVERAGE “RESIDENCE TIMES” SEEM TO BE RELATED TO HIGHER SURFACE TEMPERATURES.

    Assuming his conclusion is true, then your task is now to convince me that his conclusion is useful. I see that conclusion as being a trivial consequence of alterations to inputs and outputs which are capable of measurement (at least in theory).

    Richard

    PS If you want to see the inevitable outcome of a “I am right” crusade then follow the comments of Terry Oldberg in this thread.

  258. Richard, I think that the antagonistic style of many posters prohibits rational discourse. I am not them, so no need to engage on that level.

    As I have found, and reasonably established that an increase or decrease of the residence time of any form of energy within our system, leads to an increase or decrease of total energy, and that all the physical properties of matter composing our system follow this principle, which I have coined “David’s Law” , it is useful to ask if any change, anthropogenic or otherwise, changes the residence time of some aspect of energy within the earth’s system.

    Specifically I have pointed out how an increase of GHG both increases and decreases the residence time of disparate aspects of earths thermodynamic properties, all the while admitting I lack the math and physics to accurately quantify these energy gains or losses; and att he same time assert that it is likely that present day climate science also falls short in ability to determine this also

    However I think the understanding of the relationship of energy residence time to understanding these many disparate processes, is useful in attempting observational and experiential quests for greater scientific understanding..

  259. To move from the general to the particular; can a unit of energy, transferred from a non GHG molecule to a GHG molecule, reduce the residence time of that unit of energy with our “system” and lead to less energy? More specific, how often does this happen?

    I have asked at least five or six such questions in this thread, outlining several possible ways for a GHG molecule to reduce residence time of earth’s energy, and never received a direct quantifying
    answer, or even had the general principle acknowledged, except by Ira.

  260. David A:

    At January 18, 2014 at 7:23 am you say

    To move from the general to the particular; can a unit of energy, transferred from a non GHG molecule to a GHG molecule, reduce the residence time of that unit of energy with our “system” and lead to less energy? More specific, how often does this happen?

    I have asked at least five or six such questions in this thread, outlining several possible ways for a GHG molecule to reduce residence time of earth’s energy, and never received a direct quantifying
    answer, or even had the general principle acknowledged, except by Ira.

    Sorry, but I DID address those questions in my post addressed to you at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1536767

    Furthermore, Phil. quoted my reply and pointed out that that the effect is trivial. As he says in his post, it is trivial because it is so rare that – for practical purposes – it can be ignored. His pertinent post is at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1540060

    The time between excitation and de-excitation of a molecule is a few nanoseconds whether or not it releases the energy radiatively or collisionally.

    If I missed any of your questions then it was not intentional.

    Richard

  261. I am grateful we have progressed to question if understanding the veracity of disparate matters thermodynamic residence time within earths system is useful. I have outlined above several other examples of why this is useful;

    I have, on the basis of residence time, questioned the veracity of Willis’s proposition that if the watt per square meter down welling LWIR due to clouds, is equal to the same watt per meter down welling SW , sans clouds, then they make the same contribution to earth’s energy budget.

    I have questioned the assumption that geothermal heat flows from ocean depths. be discounted due to their very small watt per sq meter flow, again based on the very long residence time of such energy input, and on the law of the conservation of energy. Again, I assert this understanding to be useful.

  262. David A:

    I hope you will understand that I am writing in attempt to be helpful.

    You conclude your post at January 18, 2014 at 7:47 am saying

    Again, I assert this understanding to be useful.

    How is it useful?

    Richard

  263. Richard, I do find your posts informative, and this in particular,.. “Simply, the energy from the photon is stored in the GHG molecule and the GHG molecule does not change its speed. If that stored energy is supplied by a collision to e.g. a nitrogen molecule then the nitrogen molecule is accelerated: the energy that was stored in the GHG molecule becomes kinetic energy in the nitrogen molecule so the gas gets hotter..”

    This process would move energy which the GHG molecule could potentially zip off to space, to a non GHG molecule, increasing the residence time of that energy, and converting that energy to higher T. The fact that such transfers happen rapidly does not quantify how often they happen, nor does it quantify how the GHG received that energy, which could happen in disparate ways. I have not seen any numbers which quantify the percentage of conducted energy within our atmosphere, nor have I seen any numbers which quantify how often such conducted energy encounters a GHG molecule, and reduces that energies residence time, nor have I seen numbers on how a reduction in GHG molecules would increase the relative percentage of conducted energy within the atmosphere, as well as increase the amount of conducted energy..

    I have posted many rational questions, all based on the principle of energy residence time within our earth’s system. I find these questions useful. .

  264. Reply to Richard stating,
    David A:
    I hope you will understand that I am writing in attempt to be helpful.
    You conclude your post at January 18, 2014 at 7:47 am saying

    “Again, I assert this understanding to be useful.”

    How is it useful?
    Richard
    ————————————————————–
    If the SW radiation in Willis’s analogy has a far longer residence time then the LWIR due to clouds, then it will have a large net gain to earth’s energy budget, despite the fact that the watt per sq meter is equal.

  265. I postulate that the SW radiation will enter the earths oceans to depth, having far longer residence time. I postulate that the LWIR will expand much if its energy in accelerating the water cycle, be lost in evaporation, and released at altitude, to be liberated by GHG molecules, the more numerous, the more likely to be quickly liberated from our “system”

  266. Typo correction, ” I postulate that the LWIR will expand” Change “expand” to expend. Apologies’.

  267. David A:

    Your post at January 18, 2014 at 8:00 am continues to press me on unknowns which I have already pointed out.

    As I said, the energy budgets are based on assumptions because so much is not known. Saying things are not known is not an evasion: it is acceptance of our state of knowledge.

    Simple calculations indicate that almost all the IR in the 15 micron band emitted from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by molecules in the lowest 100 m of the atmosphere. And – as I said – excited molecules release their energy in nanoseconds. Almost exactly half of the IR released from those molecules goes down and the other half goes up.Can you say with certainty what happens to that energy next? Or, in common with everybody else, do you adopt assumptions?

    Questions are only useful if they have answers or if they point to needed information. We know the information we need about the climate system and it is almost everything.

    Richard

  268. Concerning this comment of mine…”I postulate that the SW radiation will enter the earths oceans to depth, having far longer residence time. I postulate that the LWIR will expend much if its energy in accelerating the water cycle, be lost in evaporation, and released at altitude, to be liberated by GHG molecules, the more numerous, the more likely to be quickly liberated from our “system”

    In this scenario the GHG has increased the residence time of the initial energy from the surface, but, at the cost of reducing SW to the surface and the far longer residence time of an equal wattage of SW energy. All the pluses and minuses must be quantified, and our science is not yet at this level of understanding.

  269. Richard, a question on this statement of yours, ” And – as I said – excited molecules release their energy in nanoseconds.”

    You also said this, ” The time between excitation and de-excitation of a molecule is a few nanoseconds whether or not it releases the energy radiantly or collisionally.”

    Yes! and I have pointed out how if the release is via collision, (conduction) it has a different affect on the residence time of the energy. If a GHG molecules energy is released via collision to a non GHG this increases residence time. I have pointed out to Ira’s barrel analogy that GHG molecules increase the residence time of radiant energy, (enlarge the exit hole) and decrease the residence time of conducted energy. (shrink the exit hole) . The fact that both happen in nano seconds does not answer how often they happen, and how relative changes in the percentage of, and total amount of conducted energy in an atmosphere change, depending on the amount of GHG within the atmosphere.

  270. Your post here richardscourtney says: January 18, 2014 at 8:16 am strikes me as contradictory
    “As I said, the energy budgets are based on assumptions because so much is not known. Saying things are not known is not an evasion: it is acceptance of our state of knowledge.”

    followed by…” We know the information we need about the climate system and it is almost everything”

    I am saying that we do not know our earth’s inflow and outbound budget to the accuracy necessary to capture changes caused by long term (decades to centuries) minor variations in aspect of energy within our system that have very long term residence times, (also decades to centuries) despite their minor flux in wattage per square meters. I am talking solar changes, ocean residence times, jet stream movements affecting them, etc.

  271. David A:

    re your point to me at January 18, 2014 at 8:33 am.

    Both effects happen in nanoseconds so it would make negligible difference to the total energy in the molecules if either effect were solely responsible for discharging the energy. The change to the flux would be extremely small.

    At the atmospheric densities in the lower atmosphere it is likely that almost all the discharge is collisional but – again – that depends on assumptions.

    I yet again strongly commend that you refer to standard texts because these basics are well understood. Of interest is how these phenomena translate into energy fluxes through the atmosphere system. And – as I also said – the GCMs are constructed as an attempt to determine these fluxes.

    Science is numbers and we don’t have most of the needed numbers. Any quantifications you can derive you should publish.

    Richard

  272. richardscourtney says:
    January 18, 2014 at 8:48 am
    David A:

    re your point to me at January 18, 2014 at 8:33 am.

    Both effects happen in nanoseconds so it would make negligible difference to the total energy in the molecules if either effect were solely responsible for discharging the energy. The change to the flux would be extremely small.

    One small correction, for the 15 micron band of CO2 the average time for an emission of a photon is of the order of millisecs whereas the collisions occur about 10 times per nanosec which is why collisional deactivation dominates in the lower atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere the density is lower so the collisions are less frequent and emission becomes more important.

    At the atmospheric densities in the lower atmosphere it is likely that almost all the discharge is collisional but – again – that depends on assumptions.

  273. Phil.:

    Thanks for your clarification at January 18, 2014 at 9:11 am.

    Yes, again you are right in all you say.

    This stuff really is detail when what needs to be considered is the (un)reality of the ‘big picture’ as expressed in the different energy budgets. When people start to grasp that then they will gather how and why almost everything about the climate system is unknown.

    I summarised my view of the important information in my first post to this thread. This link jumps to it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1533823

    But, as your post indicates, simplification should not mislead, and I am grateful for both your comments on what I have been trying to say. Again, thankyou.

    Richard

  274. In Ira’s post:
    6.The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.

    According to Richard Courtney’s simple kinetic theory guide GHG molecules do not speed up on quantized photon absorption but increase their vibrational and rotational energies instead. The mechanism for transferring this increased GHG energy to O2 and N2 molecules must be by collisions which increase average speeds and therefore gas temperature ; a ‘pinball’ type transfer quantized of course.

  275. I would like to hear Ira’s comments, if he read this far;

    Richard stated..”as I also said – the GCMs are constructed as an attempt to determine these fluxes.”\====================
    =====================
    Me, Yes, and I think we agree they have not done a very good job. They are informative however. They uniformly run to warm. CO2 is the dominant uniform factor, and they would universally run closer to observations if the C.S. to CO2 was reduced.
    ==================================================
    Richard states,
    Science is numbers and we don’t have most of the needed numbers. Any quantifications you can derive you should publish.
    ———————————————————————-
    I agree that we do not have the numbers. I think a proper understanding of energy residence time as a universal factor in all thermodynamic processes is useful. Without overcomplicating things, please comment on my one example with Willis.

    I have, on the basis of residence time, questioned the veracity of Willis’s proposition that, if the watt per square meter down welling LWIR due to clouds, is equal to the same watt per square meter down welling SW , sans clouds, then they make the same contribution to earth’s energy budget.

    I postulate that the SW radiation will enter the earths oceans to depth, having far longer residence time. I postulate that the LWIR will expend much if its energy in accelerating the water cycle, be lost in evaporation, and released at altitude, to be liberated by GHG molecules, the more numerous, the more likely to be quickly liberated from our “system” I assert that (as an example) 10 straight days of SW pumping into the tropical ocean, will accumulate for the entire 10 days, losing little to space; whereas 10 days of LWIR from clouds, will lose far more total energy to space. I postulate that the residence time of the WL of radiation, as well as the materials encountered, are the reason the residence time and total accumulated energy within the system varies, despite an equal wattage flow per square meter.

    I have given the illustration of an open pot of water, of fixed dimensions, as a defined system, in a balance with a small flame and a steady trickle of water of the invariable temperature and volume, to keep the water level the same, achieving a thermodynamic balance. One can think of many ways to change the energy content of the pot. Everyone of those ways requires either a change in input, a hotter or cooler flame, or a change in the residence time of the energies currently in the pot, if the input remains constant. Placing a lid on the pot, increases the residence time of the energy within the pot. Thinning the thickness of the pots metal, or changing the metal to a more conductive metal, would reduce the residence time of the energy entering the pot, etc.

    The GH affect is, in the end, an increase in the LWIR residence time within the atmosphere.
    GHG molecules have the potential to both increase and decrease energy residence time. The greater the increase in residence time of the energy, the greater the potential energy accumulation. Understanding the disparate affect of different WL on the materials encountered relative to residence time of energy, is always informative of a gain or loss in a defined systems total energy. Understanding that an equal flow of wattage, does not equate to an equal amount of energy within a defined system, as in the example with the observations Willis reported, is conducive and useful to understanding the energy budget of our earth.

  276. THANKS David A, Richard (richardscourtney) and Phil for continuing this discussion which I have followed closely and with great interest.

    I do not have anything “deep” to add, but I think there is some “meat” in David’s example of 1 w/m^2 of SW (Sunlight) vs 1 w/m^2 of LWIR (backradiation from GHGs) striking the ocean.

    Yes, of course, a WATT is a WATT in that energy is conserved, and I did NOT agree when David A said (January 16, 2014 at 6:31 am) “… SO NO, NOT ALL WATTS ARE EQUAL, AND NOT ALL WATTS OF THE SAME VIBRATION WAVE LENGTH ARE EQUAL EITHER, …”

    But, if you go back and read David again, as I just did, he adds “DEPENDING ON THE MATERIALS THEY ENCOUNTER. THE MAY CONTAIN EQUALL ENERGY, BUT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT RESIDENCE TIME WITHIN THE SYSTEM, AND SO THE TRAFFIC ANALOGY IS PERTINENT.”

    I would never baldly assert that “not all watts are equal” as David did, but would make the point by saying “not all watts have equal EFFECT”. (Analogously, all votes for President are equal, but those cast in “purple” states have more EFFECT than those in solidly “red” or “blue” states. As a resident of Florida, which can go either way, my vote for President is more sought for by political operatives than that of a resident of a state that always goes one way.)

    We all agree that a w/m^2 of Sunlight striking a bright cloud and being reflected back to Space has less effect on the energy budget of the Earth System than an equal w/m^2 of Sunlight striking a dark surface and being absorbed. But, what of the Sunlight that is absorbed on the surface vs and equal quantity of LWIR backradiation that penetrates and is absorbed in the ocean depths?

    Let us consider David’s example of 1 w/m^2 of SW (Sunlight) vs 1 w/m^2 of LWIR (backradiation from GHGs) striking the ocean.

    a) SW Sunlight: Clear water is nearly transparent to visible SW radiation. That 1 w/m^2 of Sunlight will penetrate deeply and be absorbed by impurities in the water or the bottom surface, which will thereby warm.
    b) LWIR Backradiation: Water is opaque to LWIR. That 1 w/m^2 of LWIR backradiation will be absorbed by and warm the ocean surface.

    Thus, In David’s example, the LWIR backradiation absorbed by the ocean surface has a more immediate effect on the mean Surface temperature of the Earth than the SW Sunlight penetrating deeply below the surface.

    If, in a controlled experiment, we turned on the Sunlight over the ocean for a given number of w/m^2 for a set period of time, the surface temperature would increase by “X” degrees. If we simultaneously ran the controlled experiment on a similar patch of ocean but with LWIR backradiation of the same number of w/m^2 for the same time period, the surface temperature would increase by “Y” degrees and “Y” would be more than “X”.

    However, if we simultaneously turned off both the SW Sunlight and LWIR backradiation, both “X” and “Y” would decrease, AND, after some period of time, temperature “X” would be greater than “Y”, which is opposite to the initial readings. (Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George struggle over which cough medicine to buy. One is “faster acting” but the other is “longer lasting” :^)

    Furthermore, consider what will happen if we run the experiments for a very long time? The LWIR backradiation would warm the impurities or the bottom surface which, in turn, would warm the water in the depths, and that warm water would rise to the ocean surface and increase the surface temperature. After a long period of time, would “X” and “Y” be equal???

    In the actual case, SW Sunlight is available only during the day (duh!), but LWIR backradiation is available both day and night, though it is generally stronger during the day. How does that affect long-term “X” and “Y”?

    Bottom line: Interesting to compare 1 w/m^2 of SW Sunlight with 1 w/m^2 of LWIR backradiation. Perhaps, when averaged over a long period of time, both have an equal effect, and, a WATT IS A WATT whether is it absorbed and re-emitted after a short period of residence or over a longer period or residence.

    Ira

    • Ira;

      The LWIR backradiation would warm the impurities or the bottom surface

      Say what? Water is opaque to LW, IR or other.

  277. Thanks, Brian H (January 19, 2014 at 11:52 am) for your correction to the twelfth paragraph of my comment (Ira Glickstein, PhD, January 19, 2014 at 9:53 am). I meant to say “SW Sunlight” and inadvertently typed “LWIR backradiation”. Of course water is opaque to LWIR.

    Indeed, as I said in paragraph eight:

    a) SW Sunlight: Clear water is nearly transparent to visible SW radiation. That 1 w/m^2 of Sunlight will penetrate deeply and be absorbed by impurities in the water or the bottom surface, which will thereby warm.
    b) LWIR Backradiation: Water is opaque to LWIR. That 1 w/m^2 of LWIR backradiation will be absorbed by and warm the ocean surface. [Bold added]

    In paragraph twelve, I meant to say:

    Furthermore, consider what will happen if we run the experiments for a very long time? The SW Sunlight would warm the impurities or the bottom surface which, in turn, would warm the water in the depths, and that warm water would rise to the ocean surface and increase the surface temperature. After a long period of time, would “X” and “Y” be equal??? [Bold added]

    Ira

  278. Dear Ira, thank you for your response. The superior expression of a PHD education to my high school educated articulation of thoughts is appreciated. It is indeed bold for a complete layman to claim coinage on a law of thermodynamics; “Only two things can affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change in the input, or a change in the residence time of some aspect of the energy within the system.”
    However I have found this very useful in considering the Greenhouse effect, and other climate questions. Please note that in some of my initial comments regarding SW radiation, verses LWIR, I commented on how the earth does this experiment annually. I asked ; Does the earth gain energy during the SH summer, despite the fact that the atmosphere cools. I appreciate greatly the question marks in your metaphorically Newtonian question, “After a long period of time, would “X” and “Y” be equal???” As we do not know the residence time of the solar SW radiation, we cannot exactly quantify the answer, although Richard provided the insight to likely at least get the sign correct, affirming that we likely do gain energy during perihelion.
    I would like to clarify my residence time traffic analogy. Numbers are simplified to a ten basis, for ease of math and communication. Picture the earths system (Land, ocean and atmosphere) as a one lane highway. Ten cars per hour enter, (TSI) and ten cars per hour exit (representing radiation to space.) The cars (representing one watt per square meter) are on the highway for one hour. So there are ten cars on the highway. (the earth’s energy budget)
    Now let us say the ten cars instantly slow to a ten hour travel time. Over a ten hour period, the energy budget will increase from ten cars, to 100 cars, with no change of input. Let us say we move to a one hundred hour travel time. Then there will be, over a one hundred hour time period, an increase of 990 cars.
    Of course the real earth has thousands of lanes traveling at different speeds, and via conduction, convection, radiation, evaporation and condension, albedo changes, GHGs, etc, etc, trillions of cars constantly changing lanes, with some on the highway for fractions of a second, and some for centuries. Also The sun changes WL over its polarity cycles far more then it changes total TSI. Additionally the sun can apparently enter phases of more active, or less active cycles which last for many decades.
    Such thoughts caused me to question the disparate contributions to earth’s total energy budget of SWR verses LWIR.
    Such thought are cause for me to question the total amount of geothermal heat within the oceans, as many of these cars are on a very slow, century’s long lane.
    Such thought cause me to question the assumption that the earth, if it had an equally dense atmosphere, sans any GHG would be 33 degrees cooler. I will accept this as the radiative effect of GHGs.
    However, in such an earth, sans GHG, a great deal more radiation would reach the surface. A great deal more energy would leave the surface to the atmosphere due to conduction for two reasons. One, the greater energy reaching the surface. Two, the residence time of the conducted energy in the atmosphere would increase. The local thermodynamic equalibrium would gradually expand, via the second law, to the entire atmosphere, until a conductive balance of “back conduction” to the surface was reached. The lapse rate would flatten, and, due to a lower density of molecules, all in a thermodynamic equilibrium, reduce convection. Reduced convection equals longer energy residence time. Convection, due to the night day cycle, different incident angles, and earth’s rotation, would of course continue, but just be reduced. No GHG to radiate the conducted energy equals longer residence time.
    Now add one (very lonely) GHG molecule to such an atmosphere. If it receives energy from a conducting non GHG molecule, and zips that energy to space, it reduces the residence time of the conducted energy, (Cooling) verses it increasing the residence time of a LWIR photon from the surface. (Warming) if it redirects that energy back to the earth.
    So, it may be fair to say that, in general, (I lack the courage, or perhaps hubris, to assert another law) “GHG molecules reduce the residence time of conducted energy, and increase the residence time of radiated LWIR energy.” It may be fair to say that the relationship between the percentage of GHG in an atmosphere, and the amount of conducted verses radiative energy in an atmosphere, creates a nonlinear relationship to the warming or cooling effect of additional GHG molecules.
    Thank you for listening.
    Cheers,
    David Anderson

  279. IMPORTANT NOTICE
    Gentlemen discussants , long time and I’m in finding the underlying causes of climate change and following it with a discussion about including this in this forum . I have something important to point out, of course , if one of you and other interested parties have the desire and the ability to solve this enigma . Almost every term that you remarks, which may affect climate change , it is not even close to the same cause , but only occurs as a result of what is the cause of all these phenomena. Science has not yet realized it , and it seems there is no desire to listen to this as I am . EVERYTHING HAPPENS TO THE SUN has one basic cause. I have some indicators to prove the most occurrences, but it is very difficult for me that I resolved without the powerful program , astronomical data and material resources . Since this is a decision the greatest enigmas related to the whole of humanity , and much worth, I offer collaboration to try to solve , but only under contractual obligations . Sunspot cycle of 11.2 years are changed up to 17.5 years , but there are some legality as well as the butterfly diagram of 123 years ( 11×11 ) , and so on . My findings can be used for the occurrence of an earthquake . You should try it, and if it proves true, this will be my way to justify the costs if he understood . My e – mail is : majstor.n @ hotmail.com ; nmilović483@gmail.com ; nikolamilović26@jahu.com
    I expect a call , even though I was an unknown , see the discussion on Linkedin.com

  280. chemengrls says:
    January 20, 2014 at 2:24 am
    Heat balance: Input – output = accumulation
    ===================================================
    Yes, because energy cannot be destroyed. But determining the residence time, now that is the rub.

  281. Dr. Ira Glickstein

    So, my motivation for this Visualizing series was not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.

    Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.

    Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.

    Your claim is the AGW memespeak that “visible light is the heat we feel from the Sun” – we cannot feel visible light from the Sun, we cannot feel shortwaves as heat. . That is simply a physical fact.

    Your claim is the AGW memespeak that we do not get any longwave infrared heat from the Sun – the NASA page contradicts you.

    We cannot feel visible as heat because it is not powerful enough to move our molecules of flesh and blood and water in us into vibration. That is simply a physical fact.

    Visible light works on the much tinier electron level, it is called electronic transition, not on the bigger more powerful molecular vibrational. This tinier electron level is the level of photosynthesis and the stimulation of nerve impulses which give us sight. Visible light from the Sun gets bounced around the sky by the tinier electrons of the whole molecules of nitrogen and oxygen – bounced around more is blue light, because it is more energetic it gets to be bounced around more. That is how we get our blue sky.

    ‘More energetic shortwaves’ bandied about by AGW to suggest that this equals power to heat is sleight of hand to distract that the more highly energetic the tinier it is, and the much tinier microscopic and even tinier visible light cannot move whole molecules into vibration, ergo, it cannot heat them – AGW removes all sense of scale, but those who know the difference in size and effect between the wavelengths of heat and light are not fooled.

    Your AGW memespeak claims that visible light is the powerful heat energy from the Sun which is absorbed by the surface and physically heats it up. Your AGW memespeak is that we get no thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared from the Sun.

    That is what you told me when I first discovered this was the AGW teaching, direct from you.

    Visible light from the Sun is not the same as heat from the Sun and so visible light does not move land and ocean into vibration so cannot be heating them up – look up transparent in optics..

    Deal with the facts as the NASA page clearly shows, we know that what we are getting from the Sun as heat is longwave infrared because we can FEEL it, that is how we can tell it is heat. That is how we can tell it is longwave infrared. It is invisible but we can feel it. It takes heat from the Sun to heat up matter. To get matter into vibration which is kinetic energy which is heat.

    You cannot ignore what that NASA page is telling you.

    It is telling you that we do get direct heat from the Sun which is longwave infrared so that immediately shows your AGW memespeak Trenberth et all energy budget of “shortwave in longwave out” is a load of nonsense. We get longwave in.

    That is the truth, that is the physical fact.

    But more, that direct from NASA page shows that the AGW energy budget is a deliberate load of nonsense, because traditional teaching still knows the difference between heat and light and industries make a living from knowing the difference. So who are AGW memespeakers trying to fool?

    Here is traditional teaching from direct NASA pages: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

    “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

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

    This is standard elementary science which we have known since Herschel’s great work, his discovery that the great heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible infrared, and we have refined it further with better measurements than his crude moving of a glass prism by hand at the edge of a table. We know now that shortwave infrared is not hot, that it is not heat, so we do not call it thermal infrared – that is reserved for the longer waves of infrared which are the real heat energy, thermal means ‘of heat’.

    AGW memespeak again tries to confuse here, it claims “thermal means it comes from a hot source” so it can pretend by association that “visible light is thermal therefore hot therefore able to heat matter”, because it needs to back up its “shortwave in” in order to use real world measurements of the direct thermal longwave infrared from the Sun and its heating effects for AGW’s “backradiation”.

    That direct from NASA page is proof that “backradiation by greenhouse gases” is not possible in traditional well known by years of empirical testing and application real physics, because, it shows up the AGW trick of taking real world measurements of longwave infrared heat downwelling direct beam from the Sun and pretending that this comes from backradiation, with the deliberate lie that visible from the Sun is heat and doing the work of heat.

    No one who knows that all the heat we feel direct from the Sun is the invisible longwave infrared and visible light is not heat can be conned by this.

    Here, deal with this too:

    “Wikipedia:
    “…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”

    Since AGW claims only “shortwave in” and says of that its shortwave infrared is only an insignificant 1% – what has it, AGW/CERES/Trenberth done with the rest of the infrared from the Sun?

    It pretends it comes from ‘backradiation’ …

    The AGW Trenberth CERES energy budget claiming real world direct beam measurements of longwave infrared from the sun is “backradiation by greenhouse gases” is a deliberate science fraud just like all the manipulations of temperature data. That is a fact.

    The direct from NASA page giving traditional empirically well known science teaching shows us how this was done.

    You cannot ignore this.

  282. Myrrh says:
    January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm
    +++++++++++
    There’s a lot of interesting material here. I look forward to hearing some responses.

    This will be a learning moment.

  283. Myrrh says: January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm
    … Your AGW memespeak claims that visible light is the powerful heat energy from the Sun which is absorbed by the surface and physically heats it up. Your AGW memespeak is that we get no thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared from the Sun. …

    …Wikipedia:
    “…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”

    Please LOOK at the Solar Spectrum chart from the Wikipedia page you are quoting. (The Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight and the diagram is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png)

    Note that we get UV, VISUAL, and NEAR-INFRARED radiation from the SUN. Please NOTICE that Solar radiation peaks around 500 nm (0.5 micron) in the VISIBLE LIGHT region, and that it extends from about 300 nm (0.3 micron which is UV light) through about 2,500 nm (2.5 micron which is NEAR-INFRARED).

    We call ALL of this incoming Solar radiation “SHORT-wave” because, being less than 2,500 nm (2.5 microns), it is much shorter than the “LONG-wave” radiation from the Earth surface which peaks at about 10,000 nm (10 microns) and runs from about 4000 to 25,000 nm (4 to 25 microns).

    Only a tiny percentage of the radiation from the Sun is the LONG-wave (FAR-INFRARED) portion of the Solar spectrum, and that provides only a tiny amount of HEAT ENERGY to the Earth surface.

    The Wikipedia quote you provided says that the 1004 WATTS of Solar radiation that would be absorbed by a 1 meter by 1 meter square of black material is composed of 445 WATTS of VISIBLE LIGHT, plus 527 WATTS of NEAR-INFRARED, plus 32 WATTS of UV).

    If the VISIBLE or UV portions were not there, and only the NEAR-INFRARED was there, the square meter of black surface would not get as hot would it? It would get about (1004 – 445)/1004 = 0.56 as hot (about half as hot).

    I hope this clears everything up for you.

    Best wishes, Ira

  284. Ira, if you find time to respond to the thoughts expressed in my post here, David A says: January 20, 2014 at 1:48 am, I am certain I will find it informative, as I find all your comments. My thoughts on the accumulation of energy, and it relationship to “residence time” within any defined system, (the traffic analogy) are based on the law of the conservation of energy, where energy can only enter and exit a defined system, but as long as it is within that system, it is indeed energy.

    In particular I am curious what you may consider to be the total geothermal heat content of our oceans, and what may be a very long residence time of deep volcanic heat flow through a thinner ocean crust. How long might that residence time be? Also your thoughts on my assertion that GHG does, about 50% of the time, increase the residence time of LWIR from the surface, but may decrease the residence time of energy the atmosphere has received from conduction. (This is why I was asking Richard C questions on how often GHGs receive conducted energy vs radiated LWIR.) Like many things, in the real world, it gets quite complex. Thanks in advance. Sorry to be the annoying student with so many questions. In truth, my assertions are questions.

  285. David A, someone once quipped that “a fool can ask questions that even a wise man cannot answer.” :^) – and you are not a fool and I am not a wise man when it comes to the Climate System.

    I hope there is someone in the WUWT community who can comment more wisely on your “residence time” ideas.

    I have been thinking about it and I gave some of my thoughts earlier in this thread.

    Here is a thought I have not expressed earlier: All the fossil fuels stored underground are packets of energy that came to the Earth from the Sun millions or billions of years ago. When that Solar energy reached the Earth it was absorbed by the land surface and ocean surface and near-surface, warming the Earth System. Some of that energy was re-radiated out to the Atmosphere and eventually lost to space.

    But some of that Solar energy was taken up by bacteria and plants and so on. Most trees mature and die and decompose, releasing their stored energy for other life forms to eat, or as warmth that gets radiated away in a relatively short time period. Most land and sea life similarly matures and dies and decomposes, releasing their stored energy for other life forms to eat, or as warmth that gets radiated away in a relatively short time period.

    HOWEVER, some trees get covered by soil and, eventually become COAL.

    HOWEVER, some sea life gets covered by soil and, eventually becomes OIL and GAS.

    COAL, OIL and GAS are therefore, in effect, packets of Solar energy that have a VERY LONG ‘residence time’ (millions or billions of years) on Earth. Of course, when we extract COAL at the mine or OIL or GAS at the well, and burn them as fossil fuel, they release their stored energy and that energy gets radiated away in a relatively short time period.

    Question: If packet “A” of Solar energy contained in a quantity of fossil fuel has been on Earth for a MILLION years, and packet “B” of Solar energy contained in another quantity of fossil fuel has been on Earth for a BILLION years, and both are burned today, did packet “A” and packet “B” contribute the EXACT SAME amount of warming to the Earth System?

    If “A” and “B” contributed the EXACT SAME, and “B” has a ‘residence time” 1000 times as long, that would seem to indicate that ‘residence time’ is not that important. On the other hand, if “B” has contributed more to the warming of the Earth System, what is the mechanism?

    Ira

  286. Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
    January 23, 2014 at 10:06 pm
    Myrrh says: January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm
    … Your AGW memespeak claims that visible light is the powerful heat energy from the Sun which is absorbed by the surface and physically heats it up. Your AGW memespeak is that we get no thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared from the Sun. …

    …Wikipedia:
    “…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”

    Please LOOK at the Solar Spectrum chart from the Wikipedia page you are quoting. (The Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight and the diagram is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png)

    Note that we get UV, VISUAL, and NEAR-INFRARED radiation from the SUN. Please NOTICE that Solar radiation peaks around 500 nm (0.5 micron) in the VISIBLE LIGHT region, and that it extends from about 300 nm (0.3 micron which is UV light) through about 2,500 nm (2.5 micron which is NEAR-INFRARED).

    Yes Ira, that is my argument.., that is the same AGW memespeak you are regurgitating and even this wiki page contradicts it on the same page.

    What don’t you understand when I say that traditional science says this AGW claim is bs because you have excised the direct beam heat from the Sun which is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared which is what we actually feel as heat from the Sun?

    As I have shown by the direct from NASA quote and even this wiki page gives the traditional breakdown of more than half infrared from the Sun measured at the ground, when AGW memespeak says this is not even produced by the Sun let alone received as heat at the ground.

    We call ALL of this incoming Solar radiation “SHORT-wave” because, being less than 2,500 nm (2.5 microns), it is much shorter than the “LONG-wave” radiation from the Earth surface which peaks at about 10,000 nm (10 microns) and runs from about 4000 to 25,000 nm (4 to 25 microns). ….I hope this clears everything up for you.

    Best wishes, Ira

    My best wishes are that you listen to what I’m saying… The contradiction comes from a direct NASA page – you cannot ignore this contradiction.

    The NASA page says that you are repeating a lie in your claim that we get no longwave infrared heat from the Sun and this means that the energy budget premise on which your “backradiation from greenhouse gases” is based is also a lie – it is clearly fake physics, clearly a science fraud. This is not something which you, as a scientist, can ignore.

    We cannot see longwave infrared, but we can feel it as heat. That is how we know it is longwave infrared, because we can feel it as heat.

    We can feel it heating us up as we absorb it on our skin and internally. The powerful longwave infrared from the Sun raises our temperature and makes us sweat.

    We cannot feel shortwave because it does not have this affect on us, shortwave infrared is not thermal, it is classed in with light not heat. Reflective not Thermal.

    That is why shortwave infrared is not called thermal, (from the Greek meaning of heat), because it is not the infrared wavelength of heat. It is not hot. We cannot feel it as heat.

    AGW memespeak’s energy budget has taken out the real thermal energy from the Sun because it needs to use real world figures of this to pretend it comes from “backradiation by greenhouse gases”.

    Enough Ira – concentrate on the fact that AGW memespeak claims we get no direct longwave infrared heat from the Sun when traditional science direct from NASA and the wiki quote I gave contradict this.

    Traditional physics which understands the difference between light and heat we get from the Sun contradicts this AGW/Trenberth/CERES energy budget and can see that it is a deliberate perversion of basic physics.

    You must deal with this contradiction.

    AGW has taken out all the direct longwave infrared heat we get from the Sun and falsely attributed it to “backradiation from greenhouse gases”.

  287. Ira Glickstein, PhD:

    Thankyou for your reply to David A at January 24, 2014 at 6:15 am.

    Your introduction of the ‘residence time’ of the chemical energy in fossil fuels is excellent. It provides a good explanation of the issues I tried but failed to explain to David A when presenting my view. I wish I had thought of it.

    Perhaps the matter will be resolved one way or the other by addressing your question; viz.

    If “A” and “B” contributed the EXACT SAME, and “B” has a ‘residence time” 1000 times as long, that would seem to indicate that ‘residence time’ is not that important. On the other hand, if “B” has contributed more to the warming of the Earth System, what is the mechanism?

    And, of course, human use of fossil fuel is not the only return of energy stored by fossil fuel. Natural consumption of fossil fuel with resulting energy release is much more; e.g. from bacteria digesting oil seeps, natural coal seam fires, volcanic subduction with volcanic return, etc.

    Personally, I see no such mechanism. However, and sincerely, if David A does suggest such a mechanism then I will be pleased to have learned.

    Richard

  288. Myrrh says: January 24, 2014 at 7:31 am …
    … you have excised the direct beam heat from the Sun which is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared which is what we actually feel as heat from the Sun?

    As I have shown by the direct from NASA quote and even this wiki page gives the traditional breakdown of more than half infrared from the Sun measured at the ground, when AGW memespeak says this is not even produced by the Sun let alone received as heat at the ground. …

    … The NASA page says that you are repeating a lie in your claim that we get no longwave infrared heat from the Sun and this means that the energy budget premise on which your “backradiation from greenhouse gases” is based is also a lie – it is clearly fake physics, clearly a science fraud. This is not something which you, as a scientist, can ignore.

    We cannot see longwave infrared, but we can feel it as heat. That is how we know it is longwave infrared, because we can feel it as heat.

    We can feel it heating us up as we absorb it on our skin and internally. The powerful longwave infrared from the Sun raises our temperature and makes us sweat. …

    In a previous thread on WUWT I said that I would no longer reply to your comments, and now, having been accused of “repeating a lie”, I am sorry to have wasted my time doing so.

    My final words to you:

    1) The Solar Spectrum graph on the Wikipedia page you approvingly quoted from shows that virtually ALL the radiation energy received by the Earth from the Sun is SHORT-wave (meaning it is less than 2,500 nm or 2.5 micron). That is NOT a lie. That as been measured and recorded and studied extensively, both by satellite instruments in Space and careful observers on the ground. (The Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight and the Solar radiation graph is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png)
    2) As you admit, you feel warmth when your skin is radiated by Sunshine. Thus, SHORT-wave radiation as depicted by the Wikipedia page IS capable of causing HEAT when it is absorbed by your skin. (I am sure you have taken a magnifying glass and focused Sunlight on paper and seen it char and even burst into flames, which PROVES SHORT-wave Sunlight radiation, when absorbed, is HEAT energy.)
    3) As depicted in the upper part of the fourth graphic in my main Topic, radiation from the Earth to Space has been measured by instruments looking down from satellites. As depicted by the lower part, and radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface (‘backradiation”) has been measured by instruments looking up from the Surface towards the Atmosphere. These measurements have been taken many times in different places and, as indicated by the dashed lines in my fourth graphic, they ALWAYS approximate so-called “blackbody” radiation that peaks in the LONG-wave region at 10,000 nm (10 microns). As indicated, the measured curves have “bites” taken out of the idealized “blackbody” curves and those “bites” correspond to the well-known and often measured absorption and emission spectra of H2O and CO2, the main so-called “greenhouse” gases. That is PROOF that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is real. That is NOT a lie.

    Ira

  289. Ira postulates…
    “Question: If packet “A” of Solar energy contained in a quantity of fossil fuel has been on Earth for a MILLION years, and packet “B” of Solar energy contained in another quantity of fossil fuel has been on Earth for a BILLION years, and both are burned today, did packet “A” and packet “B” contribute the EXACT SAME amount of warming to the Earth System?”

    If “A” and “B” contributed the EXACT SAME, and “B” has a ‘residence time” 1000 times as long, that would seem to indicate that ‘residence time’ is not that important. On the other hand, if “B” has contributed more to the warming of the Earth System, what is the mechanism?
    Ira
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Thank you for your response and questions. Let us see if ingenuity is equal to the maze.

    The law stated was, “Only two things can change the “energy content” of a system in a radiative balance, either a change of input, or a change of some aspect of the residence time of the energy within the system.

    (Short answer) If “B” was here 1000 times as long as “A” , then the energy content of the “system” was, that much higher, for 1000 times as long.

    Your analogy isolates the inflow, hence my “short answer” The affect of residence time depends on inflow not changing, and being continuous.

    If continuous equal packets of energy, continuously flow into the 1000 times as long (B) fossil fuel lane, and into the the1000 times shorter, (A) fossil fuel lane, then lane (B) will eventually have 1000 times the energy content of “A”. The “B” fossil fuel reserves will indeed become, over that 1000 times longer “residence time”, or one billion years, 1000 times larger. By stopping the inflow in your analogy, you forced the short answer given.

    We have always agreed that 1000 watts, is 1000 watts. ( Myrrh’s comments to please be set aside) So, 1000 watts, cannot ever be more, or less, then 1000 watts, via the conservation of energy laws. Your analogy, by separating the relationship between continuous inflow and accumulation, says, in my view, nothing more then that.

    Accumulations of energy depend on continuous input. The Greenhouse effect, is dependent on continuous input of more solar insolation, while GHG molecules delay the release of LWIR from the surface. (This last sentence should be in caps)

    The fact that all energy does not always manifest as heat is not in dispute. It is the inflow, for now assumed to be continuous and invariable, energy residence = accumulation, outflow.

    Now, back to your analogy. Fossil fuel production is a miniscule portion of earth’s solar energy input. (Lately measured in Hiroshima Bombs, (-;) It is miniscule compared to the geothermal heat flow into the oceans, (which most climate scientist dismiss as being to small to be of consequence) which is continuous, and does quantitatively add to the oceans heat content, the total amount in the ocean is indeed based on residence time, which no one has bothered to analyze that I am aware of. (I suspect that there are a lot of Hiroshima Bombs there)

    So, I am more curious about your thoughts regarding the total geothermal heat in the oceans, and your thoughts cogent to my comments on GHG molecules increasing the residence time of LWIR, (warming) but maybe decreasing the residence time (Cooling) of atmospheric energy which reached those molecules via conduction and convection. This was expressed in more detail here, in my comment on January 20, 2014 at 1:48 am.

    All the best, and I am thankful Richard is still following this conversation. His comments are ever welcome.

  290. Ira, thank you; I posted a good response, (if I don’t say so myself) but it disappeared. So, when I have a bit more time I will redo it.

    All the best
    David A

  291. Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
    January 24, 2014 at 7:16 pm
    Myrrh says: January 24, 2014 at 7:31 am …
    … you have excised the direct beam heat from the Sun which is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared which is what we actually feel as heat from the Sun?

    As I have shown by the direct from NASA quote and even this wiki page gives the traditional breakdown of more than half infrared from the Sun measured at the ground, when AGW memespeak says this is not even produced by the Sun let alone received as heat at the ground. …

    … The NASA page says that you are repeating a lie in your claim that we get no longwave infrared heat from the Sun and this means that the energy budget premise on which your “backradiation from greenhouse gases” is based is also a lie – it is clearly fake physics, clearly a science fraud. This is not something which you, as a scientist, can ignore.

    We cannot see longwave infrared, but we can feel it as heat. That is how we know it is longwave infrared, because we can feel it as heat.

    We can feel it heating us up as we absorb it on our skin and internally. The powerful longwave infrared from the Sun raises our temperature and makes us sweat. …

    In a previous thread on WUWT I said that I would no longer reply to your comments, and now, having been accused of “repeating a lie”, I am sorry to have wasted my time doing so.

    Ira, I am trying to point out to you physical facts here which show that basic science has been corrupted to produce the AGW energy budget, I have given a page direct from NASA which clearly contradicts the AGW energy budget claim.

    It is obvious to those who do know the difference between heat and light from the Sun that the AGW energy budget is a lie. It cannot be called anything else, therefore, it is a science fraud.

    I cannot make you willing to investigate this fraud for yourself or make you follow my explanations, but, what you cannot dismiss is that my explanation is on a page from one of the most prestigious science bodies in the world – it is their teaching which directly contradicts the AGW energy budget which you continue to repeat. Your argument is with them, not with me..

    My final words to you:

    I hope not.

    1) The Solar Spectrum graph on the Wikipedia page you approvingly quoted from shows that virtually ALL the radiation energy received by the Earth from the Sun is SHORT-wave (meaning it is less than 2,500 nm or 2.5 micron). That is NOT a lie.

    And the NASA page and quote I have given says it IS a lie.

    Because it excludes the great heat waves we feel from the Sun, which is longwave infrared.

    Traditional teaching from NASA says you are wrong.

    That as been measured and recorded and studied extensively, both by satellite instruments in Space and careful observers on the ground. (The Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight and the Solar radiation graph is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png)

    And as I am trying to point out to you here, these figures are being presented selectively in aid of the AGW science fraud.

    They do not show the great amount of heat energy, longwave infrared, from the Sun, because, they are using real world measurements of it to pretend it comes from “backradiation by greenhouse gases”, “from the atmosphere”.

    They have excised the great invisible longwave infrared heat from the Sun completely – and to stop it being thought of at all they have put two scenarios in place which are now ubiquitous in general education.

    The first that the Sun only produces their claimed “shortwave in” as you’ve given from wiki, and the second that there is “an invisible barrier at TOA like the glass of a greenhouse preventing any longwave infrared heat from the Sun entering”.

    While exploring further from our first discussion, nearly three years ago when I first learned about this AGW energy budget, and asking for information on this unknown to traditional physics “invisible barrier preventing longwave infrared from the Sun enterring at TOA”, I was told, with a degree of disdain, that this was only the claim from CAGWs, that AGWs said the Sun didn’t produce any amount of it of any significance so no significant amount of it reached us, as per the wiki you’ve just given this postulated from the planckian 6000°C Sun…

    I spent only a short time musing which was the most ridiculous, an invisible barrier preventing the great heat we feel from the Sun entering or that our millions of degrees hot STAR was not radiating any heat.., but you won’t be able to appreciate that as long as you are unwilling to see this from my perspective.

    2) As you admit, you feel warmth when your skin is radiated by Sunshine. Thus, SHORT-wave radiation as depicted by the Wikipedia page IS capable of causing HEAT when it is absorbed by your skin.

    That is disingenous Ira – the NASA page and quote I give says clearly that the heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infrared, thermal infrared, and that we cannnot feel heat from shortwave infrared. In fact, it says, we cannot feel near infrared at all.

    I have explained why we cannot feel shortwaves as heat, because it isn’t big enough to move our whole molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat up matter.

    (I am sure you have taken a magnifying glass and focused Sunlight on paper and seen it char and even burst into flames, which PROVES SHORT-wave Sunlight radiation, when absorbed, is HEAT energy.)

    That is absurd, it proves nothing of the kind to artificially enhance light from the Sun and you are excluding the actual invisible longwave infrared heat from the Sun. Are you claiming that there is a magnifying glass all around the EArth at TOA..? Or are you claiming here that longwave infrared cannot get through glass?

    Because you certainly can no longer claim that we do not get longwave invisible heat from the Sun because that direct from NASA page contradicts you – it clearly and unambiguously says that the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, which is longwave infrared and the same invisible heat we feel from a fire, etc.

    I remind you that what I am saying is traditional physics, empirically well understood and used in countless real world industries..

    C.O.D. empirical – based or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory;

    According to AGW faked physics, all those companies making glass and film for windows are conning us by claiming they are reducing the direct heat we get from the Sun, and instead by maximising the entry of visible light they are actually heating our rooms!

    3) As depicted in the upper part of the fourth graphic in my main Topic, radiation from the Earth to Space has been measured by instruments looking down from satellites. As depicted by the lower part, and radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface (‘backradiation”) has been measured by instruments looking up from the Surface towards the Atmosphere. These measurements have been taken many times in different places and, as indicated by the dashed lines in my fourth graphic, they ALWAYS approximate so-called “blackbody” radiation that peaks in the LONG-wave region at 10,000 nm (10 microns). As indicated, the measured curves have “bites” taken out of the idealized “blackbody” curves and those “bites” correspond to the well-known and often measured absorption and emission spectra of H2O and CO2, the main so-called “greenhouse” gases. That is PROOF that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is real. That is NOT a lie.

    And what I am saying is that their measurements are not “radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface (‘backradiation”) has been measured by instruments looking up from the Surface towards the Atmosphere” – but, measurements of the direct longwave infrared heat from the Sun.

    This is the precise point where their sleight of hand fraud for “backradiation” begins – the pretence that the great heat we get direct from the Sun is “from the atmosphere”.

    Real world measurement are not “from the atmosphere”, they are from the Sun. They go to great lengths to get clear sky readings. Hence, as on the same wiki page, we get over half of the radiation reaching the ground direct from the Sun to be infrared.

    While AGW say only 1% of their “solar shortwave in” is infrared – so I ask again, what have they done with the rest of the infrared direct from Sun which has been measured at the ground?

    Ira, you cannot keep repeating your claims still insisting you are right because I have given you information which contradicts you on the precise point on which the AGW backradiation fraud hinges, it is contradicted on this point by no less a body than NASA.

    If you ever do find yourself willing to explore this contradiction I think you will be as appalled and saddened by the destruction of basic science in general education as I am, and as amazed at the cleverness of the fraud in the subtle sleights of hand employed in creating it.

    • @Myrrh January 25, 2014 at 6:32 pm

      +1000

      Your capacity for politeness, in the face of terminal denialism, is greatly to your credit. Why can’t people see the bleedin’ obvious?

      Think back to any pleasant spring day when you might decide to have the first sunbathing session of the year, in a shade temperature of, say, +20C/68F. It’s fine in direct sunlight, even with a breeze; however, as soon as one small cumulus cloud casts its shadow on you, you sense that it instantly becomes markedly cooler. The cloud drifts on and you immediately sense this as the sun’s direct heat blasting in to you is restored.

      I sense that NASA has a party line which follows its source of funding; however, earnest scientists in the organization have commenced Operation BACKPEDAL.

      Occam’s Razor.

  292. David A says: January 25, 2014 at 5:56 am
    …The law stated was, “Only two things can change the “energy content” of a system in a radiative balance, either a change of input, or a change of some aspect of the residence time of the energy within the system.

    (Short answer) If “B” was here 1000 times as long as “A” , then the energy content of the “system” was, that much higher, for 1000 times as long. …

    Well David A, I think you may actually be correct. In an earlier comment, I asked “what is the mechanism?” (for a packet of Solar energy “B” that happens to be stored as fossil fuel for a billion years increasing the energy or temperature of the Earth System 1000 times more than an equal packet “A” that happens to be stored only a million years, if both are burned today).

    Here is my take on the mechanism, and it is basically what you said in your most recent comment, but I will say it differently. Here goes:

    1) Consider the Earth System: ALL energy comes to the Earth System from Space and goes from the Earth System to Space via RADIATION (except for physical things like meteors coming in from Space and spaceships going out to Space, which may be discounted because they are insignificant compared to the RADIATION in terms of energy to and from).

    2) When a packet of Solar energy (SHORT-wave radiation) comes into the Earth System via RADIATION, it raises the total energy in that Earth System by that amount.

    3) When a packet of energy leaves the Earth System via RADIATION (SHORT-wave radiation reflected from white clouds or other light-colored objects, or LONG-wave radiation from the Surface or from GHGs in the Atmosphere), it reduces the total energy in the Earth System by that amount.

    4) Say a packet of Solar energy comes in and is immediately reflected by a white cloud. During that very brief period, the total energy in the Earth System has been increased, and then immediately decreased.

    5) Now consider a packet “A” of Solar energy that comes in, is absorbed by some plant, which, over time gets covered in soil and turns into coal that remains buried for a million years until it is burned today and turned into electrical energy, and used to power a spotlight that radiates it out to Space. The total energy of the Earth System has been raised by the arrival of packet “A”, and remained raised for a MILLION years.

    6) Now consider the Solar energy in packet “B” that was absorbed a billion years ago and burned and radiated out to Space today. The total energy of the Earth System has been raised by the arrival of packet “B”, and remained raised for a BILLION years.

    7) So, packet “B” has raised the total energy in the Earth System for 1000 times as long as Packet “A”. Looked at this way, ‘residence time’ does seem to have a direct proportional effect on total energy content of the Earth System.

    So, does total energy content of the Earth System translate into higher Global temperature? I (now) think it does! Consider a gas. The “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the moving molecules. If we had a quantity of gas inside a perfectly insulated container (zero radiation, convection, conduction), and we add energy, the temperature will increase and remain higher forever. The “temperature” of a liquid or solid is something like the average vibration of the molecules, so the temperature of a quantity of liquid or solid material in a perfectly insulated container will increase if we add energy, and remain higher forever!

    But, what about phase changes? We know that transition from a solid to a liquid, or from a liquid to a gas, requires a great deal of energy input, but yields no temperature increase. (A container of ice absorbs lots of energy as it turns to water, but the temperature remains at zero C. A container of water absorbs even more energy as it turns to steam, but the temperature remains at 100 C.) So total energy content is NOT directly proportional to temperature, is it?

    Considering fossil fuels. As they were formed over eons, that represents conversion and storage of Solar energy into coal, oil and gas that continually increased the energy content of the Earth System. If we were to burn all fossil fuels in a short period of time and RADIATE ALL that stored energy out to Space, that would decrease the energy content of the Earth System.

    Does that mean that human burning of unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels over a relatively short time period is DECREASING the energy content of the Earth System (compared to what it would be if fossil fuels remained undisturbed)? Does that mean that human use of lots of fossil fuels only temporarily increases temperatures on Earth (by the direct heating effects plus increase in GHGs) and that when that burst of energy is radiated out to Space, as it will eventually be, that the long-term effect will be a cooling of the Earth System?.

    Someone (richardscourtney?) please help us out here!

    Ira

  293. Mario Lento says:
    January 23, 2014 at 6:10 pm
    Myrrh says:
    January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm
    +++++++++++
    This will be a learning moment.

    We can only hope..

    Tom says:
    January 25, 2014 at 7:41 pm
    @Myrrh January 25, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    Why can’t people see the bleedin’ obvious?

    It is only obvious to those who were or are still being taught traditional physics, the general population who don’t require it for their work or interest in some applied science form or other will simply accept the faked physics of AGW as if science facts. Even of those who can spot the difference, how many take an interest in these arguments at all let alone come across a discussion which might stimulate to think about what is being said?

    I took an interest in this particular aspect from a discussion instigated by Willis pondering the Trenberth energy budget and continued to explore it because I wanted to know what was actually meant by the terms used in it – and couldn’t quite bring myself to believe it really was saying shortwave heated land and water, mainly visible light, and that there was no radiant heat from the Sun as the AGW base premise. What really shocked me as I read description after description giving the same fake physics as if real was that these descriptions came from universities and science bodies without showing the slightest embarrassment. It has now become establishment teaching over the last couple of decades and you can see this in new papers written, not as often as you will see AGW memespeak on temperature and carbon dioxide incorporated into premises, but I have seen it in passing.

    I sense that NASA has a party line which follows its source of funding; however, earnest scientists in the organization have commenced Operation BACKPEDAL.

    Well, this page from NASA was actually saved from being lost by those earnest scientists.. The whole section was on the main NASA pages with the note saying it would remain up for a month and then disappear, when I first found it. I wanted to save it online and Anthony showed me how, but that disappeared after a few days and couldn’t be retrieved, and then the section itself disappeared from the NASA site. I thought it had gone for good, and then around a week later it reappeared again as you see, but as a stand alone. Someone there was determined to keep it available.

    Traditional teaching is still available.., but it is now very hard to find online.

    The thing to remember by those to whom the differences are not immediately obvious, is that traditional physics makes sense. But they will have to look around for themselves to find the great difference in size between shortwave and longwave and the different effects these have on meeting matter before they can see that the claims made are nonsense, and to watch out for the world play..

    AGW is very clever at word association in their sleights of hand, for example as above in using “atmosphere” together with real world measurements of downwelling radiant heat which is actually measured direct from the Sun. It is not until one can see they have taken out the real downwelling radiant heat from the Sun that their “backradiation from greenhouse gases” becomes obvious as a fraud.

    Another is the use of “absorbed” in their claim that visible light heats the ocean; by deliberately confusing the general use of absorbed meaning attenuation, which could be for a variety of reasons, with the specific meaning of absorbed as in energy being absorbed by an electron or whole molecule. Water is a transparent medium for visible light from the Sun, it is not even absorbed on the electron level but transmitted through unchanged, and on that level couldn’t be heating it anyway. If it could be absorbed it would be bounced around by the electrons as the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen bounce it around in the atmosphere – though you won’t get an answer if you ask how much this is heating the atmosphere, as their memespeak is “all energy from the Sun is the same and all creates heat when absorbed”…

    It becomes even more obvious when you bring in photosynthesis – if visible light is the great heating energy we get from the Sun then there would be no life in the oceans as we know it and we would not have evolved into the carbon life forms we are from these first protoplants moving onto land.

    It is not just that real world traditional physics makes sense, the parts make a coherent whole, but it is that AGW memespeak makes nonsense of it. That is when it really becomes obvious it is faked.

    But it is a clever fraud, it is all in the detail and the detail needed to analyse it is difficult to gather from all the different science disciplines involved, and gets convoluted very quickly… Here I’ve gathered it all down to the very pivotal point of the “backradiation” fraud on which their whole AGW claim is based, as having the fewest parts..

    That AGW/Trenberth/CERES et al’s energy budget is a fraud because they have taken out the direct longwave infrared we feel as heat from the Sun in order to give it their “backradiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere” claim, ergo, the backradiation by greenhouse gases is a fraud.

    They have corrupted empirically very well known science on the difference between heat and light from the Sun as still taught traditionally. And the direct from NASA page I have given contradicting them is proof of their science fraud.

    It doesn’t get simpler than that.

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

    • @ Myrrh January 26, 2014 at 8:42 pm

      It’s all very simple when you stick to basic physics. I now have 2 killer arguments which, from different routes, expose the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect as a fraudulent invention – at least in terms of net surface warming caused by backradiation from trace gases such as CO2.

      I hope you will agree there is a strong delayed cooling effect from condensing water vapour. Delayed cooling (eg when cloud cover prevents night frosts long enough for the sun to reappear) is quite different to an already warmer surface being made yet warmer by backradiation from gases, which don’t change state, in a cooler sky.

      The other explanation that the UNIPCC GHE is fraudulent comes from unpicking the KT energy budgets cartoon. Their error is in equating energy flux in = energy flux out. There is no universal law which mandates that these 2 things must be equal. There is such a law, however, which demands that energy in = energy out. The sleight of hand in the cartoon is to ‘average’ what should be 480 W/m^2 blasting half of the globe at all times, to 240 W/m^2 falling on the entire globe. From that point on, any ‘science’ which flows from that fantasy is physically meaningless and is designed to deceive. The outcome of that fraud is that the artificially cooled sun (NB the T^4 factor) can support a maximum ‘average’ surface temperature of -18C. It follows that magic must happen from the sky in order to explain why the ‘average’ temperature is +15C. Mouth-breathing PPE grad politicians easily fall for this and we get taxed, thanks to junk science and a global 24/7 information warfare campaign over decades by MSM.

      So, they take real sunlight which can heat things directly by LWIR and they say it can’t. Also, they artificially cool it by deceitfully doubling the surface area which it hits. All of a sudden, the sun can’t melt ice (-18C) or evaporate water and it’s magic from the sky to the rescue. Who knew? (Certainly not Dr Ira).

Comments are closed.