Spencer on Earth's missing energy

Earths Missing Energy: Trenberth’s Plot Proves My Point

By Dr. Roy Spencer

The plot that is included in Kevin Trenberth’s most recent post on Roger Pielke, Sr.’s blog actually proves the point I have been making: The trend in the imbalance in the Earth’s radiation budget as measured by the CERES instrument of NASA’s Terra satellite that has been building since about 2000 is primarily in the reflected solar (shortwave, or SW, or RSW) component, not the emitted infrared (longwave, or LW) component.

To demonstrate that, the following is the chart from Trenberth’s most recent post, upon which I have overlaid the 2000-2008 trend lines from MY plots of CERES data, and which we have computed from the official NASA-blessed ES-4 Edition 2 global gridpoint dataset.

The plots I provided in my previous post have greater resolution in the vertical axis.

For those who are following this mini-debate, please see that post, not Roger’s version of my post, which was a draft version of my post and was incomplete.

And, again I point out, the most recent dip in the LW curve (above) is consistent with cooling of the global average troposphere seen in our plot of AMSU5 data. UPDATE, 1:45 p.m. CDT: small correction to above figure.

Advertisements

96 thoughts on “Spencer on Earth's missing energy

  1. Thank you! I have been wondering about this whole thing for the longest time and am often confused by the colors used in global graphs. Does red mean Earth is warming or cooling under that color? Are we talking incoming? Outgoing? Shortwave? Longwave? Anomaly? Adjusted for season? It is all very confusing. This post helps.

  2. Congratulations, Dr. Spencer! Just read your book too.
    Very nice work you are doing.
    I feel a bit sorry for the warmers. (Just kidding!)
    They dont know much about control loops, I’m afraid.

  3. OK – I don’t follow this every day so I’m not hip to all of the acronyms and abbreviations. What is OLR? I assume the vertical axis is delta troposphere temperature. Is it degrees F or C? BTUs? Calories? What do the different background color bands on the graph signify? Why is the Net value shown as equal to negative OLR minus RSW (Net = -OLR-RSW)? Why is OLR negative in the “NET” calculation and graph but shown as a positive value plot in the upper graph?
    Inquiring minds need to know…..

  4. So far AGW has failed to reproduce or predict climatic history, such as
    – the temperature record of the last 20 years
    – the missing hot spot in the tropical troposphere
    – the lack of cooling in the stratosphere over the past 15 years
    – the multidecadal sea ice oszillation in the arctic
    – increasing antarctic sea oce
    – the medieval warm period
    – the little ice age
    etc.
    …that means AGW proponents could not prove their theory.
    Do these new direct measurements actually mean that AGW (based on positive feedback) can now be disproven ?

  5. As someone (probably like many here) who merely dip in and out when time allows, and who isn’t up on the science of all of this…what does this mean? Can someone kindly just add a line of explanation as I don’t have the time to read the previous post on this?

  6. TO: Patrick Davis (May 11, 2010 at 11:04 am)
    I believe the correct units of complete climate ignorance are diddlysqwatts per square meter.
    Of course, the erudite Dr. Spencer is far removed from that realm.

  7. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the missing heat is based on models of AGW heat that SHOULD be building somewhere based on calculations of greenhouse gas capability and the amount of increasing CO2 we are putting into the air outside of natural sources. It is not based on the direct measures of incoming, outgoing, and net heating energy. If the models say heat should be building but we can’t detect it or find it, I would think a reasonable scientist would question the model as the first step to solving the puzzle.

  8. A, I’m getting all the post titles, dates, by who and the comments but not the body of the post itself. Did “we” make another change and I’m not clicking on the right thing – – or is there a problem?
    I have an I-mac w/latest OS and my browser is Safari

  9. Patrick Davis says:
    So, collectively, “we” don’t know didlesqwat (About this)! Right?
    I believe it’s Didlisq-watt, which is ~0W 😉

  10. Maybe I’m just tired – but how come this article can’t be seen on the main page?
    Anyway, what I find baffling is that anyone can watch the curves for outgoing radiation that Kevin Trenberth has provided, and not see that it’s the SW radiation that has a trend since 2000 and not the LW!?
    Which of course should tell anyone who whatches these curves that there is no proof for any imbalance due to diminished outgoing IR/LW at all. Which in turn tells us that there is no observational proof at all for GW through GHG:s. Or what am I missing here?

  11. Maybe the problem with the article is that the URL is misspelled? It says “enery” when it maybe should say “energy” to be loaded properly on the main page?
    Or… Maybe I’m just tired. 🙂

  12. Or is the logic on Kevins behalf that the downward trend in RSW should be seen in OLW also, and if it isn’t, then there must be an imbalance of energy?
    And that’s why the OLR-RSW calculation is interresting?
    Well, that seems a tad simplistic. What’s to say that an imbalance due to GHG:s can be proven this way at all?
    You need to disprove all other possibilities first, like changes in cloud cover, as Roy keeps saying, for example. Increased cloud cover will surely block some LW radiation, but that’s hardly the end of the world.
    Has Kevin proved that this (and other) possibilities are not to be counted on?
    I think not.

  13. In the 1990s reflected shortwave radiation was lower than the previous norm due to earlier high latitude spring snow melts. I believe I’ve read that these haven’t been as early in the last few years. Seven years of data doesn’t go back far enough to detect this change. Given the known problems with the models at high latitudes Andreas Roesch conducted a diagnostic sub-project on the issue. It was the most significant paper I saw during the Fourth Assessment Report draft review, because it reported that ALL of the models had a correlated positive surface albedo bias, and was able to provide a globally and annually averaged figure for the discrepancy.
    “The mean annual surface albedo of the 15 AR4 models amounts to 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All AR4 models are slightly above the mean of PINKER (0.124) and ISCCP-FD (0.121).”
    When the corresponding downwelling radiation reaching the surface of 198 W/m^2 is applied, the energy is over 3 W/m^2 globally and annually averaged. This is much larger than Hansen’s energy imbalance of under 0.8W/m^2 and is comparable to the AGW CO2 forcing.
    It should be noted that the earlier spring snow melt is a positive feedback that is not missing, but is under-represented in all the models. Somehow the models manage to “match” the 20th century climate warming despite missing this energy. Perhaps they “match” it with with increased sensitivity to CO2 forcing elsewhere in the climate, or as Wentz documented, by under-representing the negative feedback from precipitation in the water cycle.
    What is particularly pernicious about this model under-representation of the positive feedback to earlier snow melts is that the models do exhibit earlier snow melts in response to warming. What this means is that during climate sensitivity runs and climate projections they eventually catch up with the actual climate response. The earlier snow melts are self limiting, because there are diminishing returns earlier in the season due to the lower solar angle. So the model projections and sensitivity runs have over 3W/m^2 extra energy added to increase their climate warming, in addition to the errors that their false “matches” of the 20th century climate introduce.
    The working group I authors buried this result, and obviously didn’t adjust the 21st century projections or levels of confidence for this diagnostic result that was larger than the whole energy imbalance phenomenon of interest. Of course cloud errors are probably a magnitude or two larger, but the significance of this was that it was correlated error, not random error, that one could HOPE might be canceled by combining “independent” model results into ensembles.
    Roesch, A. (2006).
    “Evaluation of surface albedo and snow cover in AR4 coupled climate models”.
    J. Geophys. Res.. DOI:10.1029/2005JD006473.
    Here are a couple more quotes from the article:
    “The annual mean surface albedo of the AR4 models is 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All climate models are slightly above the average derived from the PINKER and ISCCP climatology. The participating models all capture the large-scale seasonal cycle of the surface albedo quite well. However, pronounced systematic biases are predicted in some areas. Highest differences between the models are found over snow-covered forested regions. The winter surface albedo of CNRM-CM3, averaged over the latitude zone from 50N-70N, is nearly 0.3 lower than in MIROC3.2 and INM-CM3.0. Comparisons with ground-based and remote-sensed data reveal that most AR4 models predict positive biases over primarily forested areas during the snow period. These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs.”
    “These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs.”

  14. From K. Trenberth’s presentation:
    “The main energy reservoir is the ocean, and the exchange of energy between the atmosphere and ocean is ubiquitous, so that heat once sequestered can resurface at a later time to affect weather and climate on a global scale.”
    An admission that the LIA and the MWP could be local manifestations of a global event?
    Methinks the rot(ten ice) has spread from the state of Den(ial)mark to pretty much everywhere the models look…..

  15. From the same source:
    The sea level has risen (IPCC?) by 50 mm (2 in.) in the last 30 years…..MAN THE LIFEBOATS!
    Based on the “curves” provided, looks like that “rise” will become a “fluctuation” shortly as it comes back down a bit. The Catastrophic has been tossed and the Anthropogenic is next in line….can Warming be far behind?

  16. “Martin Lewitt says:
    […]
    The working group I authors buried this result […]”
    Wasn’t WG I lead by a certain Kevin Trenberth?
    Thanks, Martin, most enlightening!

  17. I’m a bit puzzled about how trend lines are computed.
    Looking at the blue graph with its blue trend line and the pink “recent trend” line; I can not imagine what algorith, would yield that blue line. I’m comfortable with the pink line for the region it is in; but If I was driving the blue line, I would raise its right hand end almost to the pink line; but not quite; and the left end of the blue line I would drop, pretty much all the way down to where the blue squiggle comes in from the left.
    Now that position is calculated from my Eyeball Statistical Probablity algorithm; often simply referred to as ESP.
    The general principle behind ESP is that the squiggly blue curve, is NOT noise; it is essentially all signal. So the ESP algorithm says drop that line so that the squiggly area above the line is equal to the squggly area below the line.
    Now if the squiggles was just noise; then I could see doing an RMS error summation to place the trend line; but not if it is infact real data that we simply want to average.
    So I don’t quite get that blue trend line at all.

  18. Dr. Spencer,
    Partially referencing your article “A Response to Kevin Trenberth” on your site, you properly raise to Trenberth the possibility that the drop in temperatures in 2008 could account for at least part of that drop in the Net LW+SW.
    I am curious why you didn’t also raise that it could also be affected by the drop in TSI as indicated between the TSI reported by Dr. Svalgaard and other sites of 2008 and other TSI plots located on NASA’s site for the period of 2002-2003. The TSI seemed to have decreased a few W/m2 over that same period.
    I am assuming a portion of the brightness reported by the sounders is the reflected LW and SW never absorbed by the Earth system. Could not this drop in TSI over these years also have a hand in the Net LW+SW decrease reported? That seems just as logical as a drop in temperature over that period and both probably have a hand in what is seen in the satellite data. Is that not correct?

  19. DirkH,
    “Wasn’t WG I lead by a certain Kevin Trenberth?
    Thanks, Martin, most enlightening!”
    It was quite frustrating. They wanted to express even more confidence than the TAR. But the TAR had the confidence that could only come from blissful ignorance. But we now had high quality diagnostic studies available that showed that the models were not skilled enough to be relevant to the task at hand. Of course they should have expressed less confidence than the TAR, and not reported model projections or climate sensitivities at all, except perhaps as a footnote for the intellectually curious.
    Since there is little model independent support for the net positive feed backs, this is far more central to the climate controversy than climategate. How do you get the authors to admit that the models are probably two or three generations and a decade to a decade and a half away from being adequate to the task of attributing an energy imbalance of less than 1W/m^2? The working group I authors are getting a pass when perhaps they and the modeling community are the most responsible for covering up the current state of the science.

  20. Excellent point Pamela. Can any of the scientists that visist this site respond to Pamela Gray’s eariler post?
    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the missing heat is based on models of AGW heat that SHOULD be building somewhere based on calculations of greenhouse gas capability and the amount of increasing CO2 we are putting into the air outside of natural sources. It is not based on the direct measures of incoming, outgoing, and net heating energy. If the models say heat should be building but we can’t detect it or find it, I would think a reasonable scientist would question the model as the first step to solving the puzzle.”

  21. From PJB:
    “Based on the “curves” provided, looks like that “rise” will become a “fluctuation” shortly as it comes back down a bit. The Catastrophic has been tossed and the Anthropogenic is next in line….can Warming be far behind?”
    Oh, there’s probably some up-warming left in the interglacial. Let’s enjoy it before the Earth trends back to its much colder normal state.

  22. I always appreciate seeing Roy Spencer bringing the data. What does any blog about global warming need? More Roy Spencer!
    Here’s a video with Roy Spencer from 4/18/10 I came across. He talks about current temperatures:

  23. Pamela Gray says:
    May 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm
    How interesting, Pam. Seems like all we end up with is computer-modeled kits that don’t fly.
    Strange as it may sound, it says “hours of fun & enjoyment” right on the box.

  24. Steve Allen says:
    May 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    Excellent point Pamela. Can any of the scientists that visist this site respond to Pamela Gray’s eariler post?
    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the missing heat is based on models of AGW heat that SHOULD be building somewhere

    .
    It appears the ‘missing heat’ is Kevin Trenberth’s band-aid over his ‘travesty’.

  25. Manfred:
    “that means AGW proponents could not prove their theory.”
    They don’t have a THEORY. They have a hypiothesis. A theory is an explanation which is consistent with ALL observations and data and which can used to make testbale predictions. Ummmm…. ZIP, ZIP

  26. wayne says:
    May 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm
    “Dr. Spencer,
    Partially referencing your article “A Response to Kevin Trenberth” on your site, you properly raise to Trenberth the possibility that the drop in temperatures in 2008 could account for at least part of that drop in the Net LW+SW.
    I am curious why you didn’t also raise that it could also be affected by the drop in TSI as indicated between the TSI reported by Dr. Svalgaard and other sites of 2008….”

    __________________________________________________________________________
    There was also a change in the composition of the TSI according to NASA:
    “April 1, 2009: …..A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996….” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
    Does this not mean there has been a drop of 6% in SW? Isn’t extreme UV wavelengths considered short wave?

  27. Tom G(ologist) says:
    May 11, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    Manfred:
    “that means AGW proponents could not prove their theory.”
    They don’t have a THEORY. They have a hypiothesis. A theory is an explanation which is consistent with ALL observations and data and which can used to make testbale predictions. Ummmm…. ZIP, ZIP
    Heck do they even have any real data? Let alone something to be consistent with.

  28. Well I liked that video of Dr Spencer; he’s a really hansome dude, and not at all what I had expected. And if I may say so; he clearly doesn’t speak his mind; but is constrained by that tradition that we mustn’t get mad at anybody; and of course his research institute expects a certain modicum of propriety.
    What I’m waiting for is somebody like Spencer to get up and yell it from the roof tops.
    HEY ! it’s the WATER; STUPID !
    Roy keeps ballet dancing around the issue of how small a change in cloud cover it takes to negate any amount of CO2 you want to put up there.
    The question of what controls the temperature range on earth should be a fourth grade science question on “Are You Smarter, than a Fifth grader ?”
    IT’S THE WATER ; and CO2 has almost nothing to do with it.
    But we are grateful to havesomebody with Dr Spencer’s stature to carry the colors in this battle; along with John Christy they make a great team.

  29. One gets the feeling we are starting to close the knowledge gaps. It would help if some of the people who starve without government grants would get the courage or means to report on “the other half of the story.”
    Big Bear Solar Observatory has, in my mind, confirmed Svensmark’s theories of cloud-affected albedo by measuring back scatter from the moon. It has seemed to me that they are either afraid of offending their sponsors or perhaps just afraid of their data.

  30. I don’t get it. As I see it, OLR is down in recent years. And RSW is also down to. So less energy is leaving the earth. Assuming the incident solar radiation remains constant that says that earth is gaining energy, presumably heating up. Am I missing something?

  31. Pinker’s paper really sums up what Roy is saying;
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5723/850
    Pinker found from 1983-2001 a TOA decline of SW flux, more coming in, less going out, and a commensurate increase in BOA SW flux, S, which means more sunlight was hiting the deck. Pinker allocates the reason for this as being due to cloud variation which is supported by cloud studies of the relevant period; with less cloud there is less OLR from albedo; the reflected LW from the tops of clouds appears to always exceed the ‘trapped’ LW from the surface by the bottom of the clouds so with less clouds more SW hits the surface then LW leaves. And just think Gore is making a fortune misrepresenting this basic fact.

  32. I would have appreciated seeing the graphs uncluttered by the lines. Obviously the lines are supposed to tell us how to view the graphs. But the conclusions they encourage us to draw don’t seem to have any statistical significance.

  33. Answer to:
    Patrik says:
    May 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    I had the same question. It seems to me that OLR is outgoing longwave radiation, RSW is reflected shortwave radiation so the radiation balance is TSI-RSW-OLR where TSI is total solar radiation; that is, rate in-rate out where rate in = TSI-RSW (total-reflected) and rate out = OLR. Since TSI is supposed to be constant, the variable component is -RSW-OLR.

  34. David Segesta says:
    May 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm
    I don’t get it. As I see it, OLR is down in recent years. And RSW is also down to. So less energy is leaving the earth. Assuming the incident solar radiation remains constant that says that earth is gaining energy, presumably heating up. Am I missing something?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Perhaps.
    There was a change in the composition of the TSI according to NASA:
    “April 1, 2009: …..A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996….” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
    According to Dr Leif Svalgaard, the TSI did not change more than 0.1% so therefore there must be an increase in longer wavelengths to keep the TSI close to constant. See: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf
    For the incoming radiation from the sun
    99% of sun’s radiation fall between 0.2 – 5.6um with 80% at 0.4 – 1.5um
    Water vapour causes most absorption in the near infrared from 0.7um to 6 um with C0 2 bands at 2.7 um and 4.3 um. O2 and O3 absorb at the high end above 0.3um
    For the outgoing Long Wave Radiation
    energy is radiated at infrared wavelengths between 4-25um with the maximum emission occurs at 9.7um
    there is strong C02 absorption around 15 um, then intense water vapour absorption takes over right through to about 1 mm wavelength
    See: http://www.freerepublic.com/~jim/
    I do not know if my reasoning is correct but.
    There is a loss of 6% at extreme UV wavelengths. These are the wavelengths that would penetrate deep into the ocean. There is little change – 0.02% – at visible wavelengths , so therefore there is a compensating increase in the infrared (long wavelengths) where the incoming radiation would be absorbed by water and CO2. Also these longer wavelengths would not penetrate more than a short distance (centimeters?) into the ocean.
    Looks like the incident solar radiation may not have remained constant after all. The date 2005 (drop in RSW) coincides with the drop in Livingston and Penn’s magnetic filed strength (sunspot strength)in Figure 4. of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/sunspots-today-a-cheshire-cat-new-essay-from-livingston-and-penn/
    I am sure Dr lief will say the change is too minor but the change is still there along with the change in solar wind and the related change in cosmic radiation and perhaps cloud cover.

  35. I wonder how volcanoes (like in Iceland) that send out constant streams of ash and gas for extended periods in the lower and middle parts of the atmosphere would effect the SW and OLR scenario for the region its affecting. I remember dust storms from the Sahara Desert over the Atlantic may have an effect. Ash would do the same, I suppose. The effect on cloud formation/precip is another issue. Just wondering out loud.
    Another thing would be how this major oil leak in the Gulf and its possible spreading far and wide would affect SW/OLR scenario of the effected waters and sat SST measurements.

  36. So… we’re seeing less variability in LW this last decade than we are seeing in SW. Of course, CO2 effects are logarithmic, so the higher the CO2 levels are, the less variation as a % we would expect to see of CO2/LW forcing as a whole in comparison to the amount of CO2 we are adding each year. Who knew? Physics works!
    I was wondering though Dr Spencer, your graphs all show that the satellite data is from 85S to 85N. I know that leaves a fairly small part of the planet out of the numbers, but as we are looking for VERY small amounts of heat (compared to the big picture) and the arctic zones show the MOST temperature variability, and we have the least amount of data from them, does this not leave a rather large gap in the data?

  37. I’d love to see some clear information on albedo effects.
    Here in Australia “Our ABC” every now and then interviews kids who are wet behind the ears who invoke “the second law of thermodynamics”. As if the earth’s atmosphere is a closed system and all the energy that enters it stays there!

  38. George E. Smith says:
    May 11, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    I’m a bit puzzled about how trend lines are computed.

    Hi George.
    The lines are not computed from the squiggly lines.According to the author,
    To demonstrate that, the following is the chart from Trenberth’s most recent post, upon which I have overlaid the 2000-2008 trend lines from MY plots of CERES data, and which we have computed from the official NASA-blessed ES-4 Edition 2 global gridpoint dataset.
    bold mine, since just shouting it out did not help.
    The lines are for supperimposing Spencer’s analysis on Trenberth’s plots.

  39. The acronyms are a fair enough convention but need explaining, add:
    TSI = Total Solar Irradiance
    ASR = Absorbed Shortwave Radiation
    RSW = Reflected Shortwave
    OLR = Outgoing Longwave Radiation
    NET = Energy accumulating
    considering anomalies only: TSI = ASR + RSW = 0 (supposedly)
    NET = ASR – OLR
    ASR = -RSW
    -> NET = – OLR – RWS
    Less clouds (brightening) coupled lately with also less outgoing > recent accumulation

  40. “Anthony Cox says:
    May 11, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    Pinker’s paper really sums up what Roy is saying;
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5723/850
    Pinker found from 1983-2001 a TOA decline of SW flux, more coming in, less going out, and a commensurate increase in BOA SW flux, S, which means more sunlight was hiting the deck. Pinker allocates the reason for this as being due to cloud variation which is supported by cloud studies of the relevant period; with less cloud there is less OLR from albedo; the reflected LW from the tops of clouds appears to always exceed the ‘trapped’ LW from the surface by the bottom of the clouds so with less clouds more SW hits the surface then LW leaves. And just think Gore is making a fortune misrepresenting this basic fact.”
    That would suit me very nicely.
    To fit my New Climate Model all one needs to propose is that the main effect on albedo is the poleward / equatorward shift in the three main cloud bands, namely the ITCZ and the two mid latitude jets.
    Throughout the late 20th century warming trend all those bands were further away from the equator letting more solar shortwave in because a poleward positioning of the cloud bands reflects less due to the lower angle of incidence of solar input and leaves more open sky in lower latitudes.
    Now that the cloud bands are more equatorward more incoming solar is being reflected from the top of the atmosphere and less energy is getting into the oceans.
    I assume that Roy’s RSW is a Bottom Of Atmosphere decline which should be correlated with a Top Of Atmosphere increase which would fit with Pinker’s 1983 to 2001 findings but reversed.
    I mentioned long ago that I first noted that the jets were moving back equatorward from around 2000.
    Then the final step is to implicate changes in solar activity levels as causing the latitudinal shift of the cloud bands which my New Climate Model does. That then ‘squares the circle’ for a plausible complete hypothesis for global energy budget variability.
    Part of that variability being ocean induced and part being solar induced.

  41. Invariant
    “Still we may expect up to 8 degrees warmer weather east of Svalbard within 90 years”…
    This will come as a bit of a surprise for the Swedes and the Danes who this winter could walk across the ice for exchange visits and whose ships were trapped in ice until recently.

  42. Statistically, are these differences significant? And are the trends statistically significant? How do we know it is all not just noise?

  43. Of course all the regression lines on those graphs are not statistically significant, so basically this analysis is meaningless.

  44. Pamela Gray says:
    May 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the missing heat is based on models of AGW heat that SHOULD be building somewhere based on calculations of greenhouse gas capability and the amount of increasing CO2 we are putting into the air outside of natural sources. It is not based on the direct measures of incoming, outgoing, and net heating energy.
    ============
    Actually Pamela, you are wrong on this. From what I have read from Roy Spencer’s and Roger Pielkes articles this “missing heat” arises from observed radiation imbalances in the satellite data. I think though, we have a textbook case of confirmation bias; since the observed imbalance appears to agree with model predictions, scientists like Trenberth have jumped on this as “proof” that heat is being sequestered undetected in the earth’s climate system. The problem with all this is in the uncertaintites and the fact that the radiation imbalance is in the short wave whereas AGW theory says it should be in the longwave.

  45. Gail Combs says:
    May 11, 2010 at 7:54
    Perhaps.
    There was a change in the composition of the TSI according to NASA:
    “April 1, 2009: …..A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996….” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
    According to Dr Leif Svalgaard, the TSI did not change more than 0.1% so therefore there must be an increase in longer wavelengths to keep the TSI close to constant. See: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf

    Why would there need to be an increase in longer wavelengths to keep TSI “close to constant”. What percentage of the total is extreme UV?

  46. Thanks for another illuminating piece Roy. I thought in light of this article it would be worthwhile to look at solar output vs. absorption. Here is a wiki graph of same:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png
    I was surprised by this graph showing the delta from top-of atmosphere to sea level and what wavelengths are absorbed by what gases. This simple graphic shows the insignificance of CO2 absorption relative to O3, O2 and H2O. Nothing else gets a mention, and even CO2 is a tiny fraction.

  47. I made a feedback model just using 10.7 flux and an inertial mass. After setting the base lines, “waa haa “, the CO2 warming was duplicated. I will add in the Iceland volcano as a flux reducer. Is severe global cooling possible????
    This is too easy!!!

  48. Dear Dr. Spencer,
    I am very happy for your illuminating resolution regarding the missing energy. However, I would be most pleased to know whether you also can explain the “missing energy” between the ever increasing UAH satellite temperatures and the cold Siberian temperatures we experience in Europe these days. I suspect it must be terribly hot somewhere else to account for this – and I wonder where?
    Another question is whether you know for how long the negative North Atlantic Oscillation and negative Arctic oscillation will last?
    Best Regards,
    Invariant

  49. Dear Dr. Spencer,
    “From the early 1940s until the early 1970s, when NAO index exhibited a downward trend, European wintertime temperatures were frequently lower than normal. “
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/Docs/hurrell0895-science.pdf
    Could this possibly mean that European wintertime temperatures from the early 2010s until the early 2040s may frequently become lower than normal?
    I am starting to get used to the North Wind here in Norway, but come on, 30 years?
    Best Regards,
    Invariant

  50. Today I overheard a German TV weatherman stating that average May temperature in Berlin has dropped from 18 to 9 degrees Centigrade in the last 20 years. Now I don’t trust that’s necessarily correct (although it seems plausible, just looking out of the window at passers-by in winter overcoats), but anyway it was like a gust of fresh air to hear a statement like this in the mainstream media of my country. Looks like the recent Euro crisis has knocked some sense into some heads about what’s really and imminently important and problematic….

  51. The other day, upon the stair, I calc’ed some heat that wasn’t there.
    It wasn’t there again today; The heat I calc’ed has gone astray.
    Or perhaps wasn’t there to begin with.

  52. George E. Smith says:
    May 11, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    “But we are grateful to havesomebody with Dr Spencer’s stature to carry the colors in this battle; along with John Christy they make a great team.”
    Hear! Hear!
    A big HURRAY for Spencer, Christy and their teams !
    Real scientists, using real data from the real world.

  53. “”” davidmhoffer says:
    May 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm
    So… we’re seeing less variability in LW this last decade than we are seeing in SW. Of course, CO2 effects are logarithmic, so the higher the CO2 levels are, the less variation as a % we would expect to see of CO2/LW forcing as a whole in comparison to the amount of CO2 we are adding each year. Who knew? Physics works! “””
    “”” Of course, CO2 effects are logarithmic “””
    People keep saying that David. I wish that somebody who says that would cite a reference to some peer reviewed actual measured data showing a plot of mean global surface TEMPERATURE vs LOG(CO2 IN ATMOSPHERE).
    Not a computer model simulation but an actual observed and measured data.
    Then since you say that Physics works; what about a simple physics cause and effect relationship that shows why such a plot should be logarithmic.
    I’ve been following this subject now for about 30 years in some form or another; and I have yet to see either theory or data to support a logarithmic temperature to CO2 connection; or for that matter any other form of such a connection.
    For a start; the supposed driving force behind a physical CO2 to surface Temperature connection is the surface emitted LWIR thermal radiation; a small part of which, the CO2 in the atmosphere intercepts. That much we know is true; and the atmosphere itself is warmed by that intercepted energy. But the problem is that the surface temperature has a huge range on earth; a total of about 150 deg C from the coldest surfaces to the hottest surfaces; and that results in about an 11:1 range in the value of that LWIR emittance; so the driving force behind CO2 absorption and warming is not even a constant over the earth; so the resultant heating of the surface from the CO2 warmed air is also a highly variable effect.
    Doubling the atmospheric CO2 raises the surface temperature 3 deg C; the IPCC says so; well +/- 50% so maybe its 1.5 deg C, or maybe it’s three times that at 4.5 deg C; maybe, that is.
    Well doubling the CO2 in the air over Vostok Station will not raise the surface temperature by 3 deg C; or even by 1.5 deg C; there simply is not enough total energy emitted from the surface there, even if the CO2 absorbed all of it, which it doesn’t, it still wouldn’t raise the surface by 3 deg C.
    There’s no global network monitoring the local value of “climate sensitivity” as Stephen Schneider described it; so there’s no way we could even measure that.
    And what about the time lag factor. Photons can proceed from the surface to 300 km in 1 msec, and other photons can return in the same 1 msec. So give it a second for the energy exchange to take place. So what is the thermal time constant of the earth surface, and should we be measuring the CO2 increase, and then waiting 800 years to obseve the temperature rise ? Oops !, I forgot; the temperature rise seems to happen before the CO2 increase that caused it.
    So if you plot Surface T vs Log CO2 and vary the time delay from CO2 data to Temperature data; at what delay time do you get the best straight line fit showing that the relationship is logarithmic at that time offset.
    Frankly; I’m getting just a little tired of watching the Climatologers keep on fiddling with statistical trends and correlation coefficients, and standard deviations; and all that clap trap of statistical “mathematics”, in the vain hope that somehow somewhere, sometime, somebody is going to trip over the correct set of parameters; and out will pop a true model of the Physics of global warming via the CO2 hypothesis.
    Lord Monckton has said several times that the way to “address” the validity of AGW was to do it within the framework of classical theory that the Climatologers themselves all use. That seems to be to just help them search for the magic set of parameters that would show that AGW is wrong.
    And Dr Spencer along with Professor Christy, and maybe Dr Richard Lindzen, all seem to be trying to do that; to show that classical climate science does not really support AGW when you get the right set of statistical parameters or observations.
    I think it is high time to abandon Stephen Schneider, and his “climate sensitivity”, which is a neo-science “ether”, and stop looking for ways to try and force CO2 to shoulder the blame for normal global climate temperature variations; and simply fess up that we can’t show that CO2 has anything much to do with the earth temperature.
    Time to concentrate on the real villain which is that three phased bent molecule; without which there would be no life on this planet; or anywhere else or likely even possible.
    HEY ! IT’S THE WATER !

  54. John Karajas
    May 11, 2010 10:27pm
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with an open or closed environment. It does however have everything to do with the transport of heat in thermodynamic processes. Heat in a system is always OBSERVED to move towards
    a colder region. This movement produces work. The 2nd law is essentially a law of “heat power”. If you think this law is irrelevant or doesn’t hold water then don’t get involved in engineering. Those who design real world equipment absolutely must take the 2nd law into account or the final design will fail in short order. With regards to the atmosphere, the top of the troposphere averages around -55 oC, the top of the mesosphere -100 oC. Since hot air rises any kinetic heat in the atmosphere will make its way to first the tot then on to the mesophere. From here it makes its way to space which is of course the coldest at -273 oC. There is simply no mechanism for moving or redirecting heat flow in the opposite direction. To do so EXTERNAL WORK must be applied! Warmers attempts to invalidate the 2nd law are laughable, pitiful and LAME. For an example of this see the website (pseudo) science of doom’s website. Current climate scientists(and I use that term verrry loosely) are like magicians trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Sheer magic.

  55. George E. Smith says:
    May 12, 2010 at 10:29 am
    Time to concentrate on the real villain which is that three phased bent molecule; without which there would be no life on this planet; or anywhere else or likely even possible.
    HEY ! IT’S THE WATER !

    George, I like your style!
    I agree we need to look first at the classical science behind earth’s climate. Take for instance the geometry of the earth and it’s atmosphere. Look up “dip of the horizon”. You won’t find it in Wikipedia, that is for sure! Know why? It goes directly against AGW and GHG effects. See http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/dip.html.
    Look at the diagram. See the point ‘O’. That is a water molecule or CO2 molecule. If it radiates, how much will go back toward the surface and how much will go to space? At about 1000m high the difference is already 1%. Not 0.1% or 0.01% but a whopping 1%. At about 3000m it’s two percent, 51% to space, 49% toward the ground. You see, the odds are stacked against re-radiation back to earth, like Las Vegas casinos. You can never win and that is using simple geometry, not fancy computer models.

  56. I would like very much to see the spectral intensities of light reflected from the Moon, the brighter asteroids, Mercury, Mars, and Pluto. Have the IR and UV intensities reflected from these bodies changed? I would also like to see mapping of incident Solar radiation versus time on our various Solar observatories (in orbit around Earth and the Sun).
    Does the mix of energy depend on sunspots, solar storms, and solar radio flux?
    If so, how? I am not one to believe that the variation in solar storms has no effect on the mix of Solar energy, nor do I believe that the sources for the different wavelengths are fully understood.
    What is coming FROM the Earth has changed. What kind of change is there for what is coming TO the Earth?
    It is all a question of apples and oranges.

  57. “”” wayne says:
    May 12, 2010 at 11:29 am
    George E. Smith says:
    May 12, 2010 at 10:29 am
    Time to concentrate on the real villain which is that three phased bent molecule; without which there would be no life on this planet; or anywhere else or likely even possible.
    HEY ! IT’S THE WATER !
    George, I like your style!
    I agree we need to look first at the classical science behind earth’s climate. Take for instance the geometry of the earth and it’s atmosphere. Look up “dip of the horizon”. You won’t find it in Wikipedia, that is for sure! Know why? It goes directly against AGW and GHG effects. See http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/dip.html.
    Look at the diagram. See the point ‘O’. That is a water molecule or CO2 molecule. If it radiates, how much will go back toward the surface and how much will go to space? At about 1000m high the difference is already 1%. Not 0.1% or 0.01% but a whopping 1%. At about 3000m it’s two percent, 51% to space, 49% toward the ground. You see, the odds are stacked against re-radiation back to earth, like Las Vegas casinos. You can never win and that is using simple geometry, not fancy computer models. “””
    Wayne, I do not have any kind of broad band radiation measuring equipment with which to make my own radiation measurements. So I have never measured the LWIR emssions from the surface of the earth; anywhere. Nor have I ever measured the spectral composition of that radiation at any frequency, let alone with enough resolution to know what the exact emission spectrum looks like.
    Nor have I ever measured the thermal emission spectrum from the atmosphere back down to the surface of the earth. But I assume that Climatologers have and have all that data from all over the earth’s surface; at every possible kind of terrain and surface material. If not, then what the hell is it that they are doing with all those R&D dollars that they are continuously given by the taxpayers.
    But I think it is possible to make some plausible arguments; based on 8th grade high school science, as to why the radiation from the atmosphere should favor escape to space, rather than return to the surface.
    Just consider some pocket of atmosphere (clear air) with its normal complement of CO2. We could throw in other GHG including H2O; but that just complicates things and the point can be made with just a single component.
    So CO2 is known to absorb at a number of closely spaced narrow lines in a band from about 13.5 to 16.5 microns. That is the isolated CO2 molecule at a cold temperature.
    In the atmosphere, that CO2 molecule is vastly outnumbered by N2, O2, and Ar molecules, and it is constantly undergoing collisions with those molecules and thereby transmitting some of the absorbed energy from the LWIR spectrum to the ordinary atmospehric gas molecules. The higher the temperature, the greater the mean particle velocity; which actually goes as the square root of the Temperature (K). The result of that velocity, is that a Doppler shift occurs in the frequency of the absorption lines the molecules has, so it can absorb nearby wavelengths as well; so the actual real atmosphere absorption spectrum has those lines broadened by the Doppler shift. The absorption is also influenced by collisions, which alter the time the CO2 molecule spends in its excited state, and causes an uncertainty in the wavelength due to the Heisenberg Principle, resulting in a further line broadening based on collision rates, which depends on the atmospheric pressure.
    So we have a CO2 molecule exchanging energies with nearby molecules all at some temperature and pressure somewhere in the atmosphere. The atmospheric molecules containing electrons and having some non zero Temperature can then radiate a thermal continuum spectrum of LKWIR that depends on the atmospheric Temperature in that location. That radiation is emitted isotropically, there being nothing to favor some direction of emission.
    So maybe half is directed towards space, and half towards the ground.
    Now the air below the sample, is denser because of the higher atmospheric pressure there, and it is also hotter due to the normal atmospheric temperature lapse rate. So we can reasonably state, that a CO2 molecule at a lower altitude than the sample molecule; has both a higher doppler broadening effect, and also a higher pressure broadening effect; and therefore that lower CO2 molecule has a higher probablility of absorbing the thermal energy spectrum from above than the sample specimen does. So the likelihood of the downward radiation being reabsorbed by lower CO2 molecules is increased, the lower we go in the atmosphere. Reabsorption could happen multiple times, but always, the LWIR emission from the atmosphere travelling towards the surface encounters an increasingly stronger absorption by CO2; and every time such a trapping occurs the eventual re-emission of that energy by the lower atmosphere will split again between up and down.
    Now the portion of the original emission from our sample atmosphere, that proceeds upwards towards space, will encounter CO2 molecules that are colder and less dense that the sample atmosphere, so the 15 micron band absorption lines will be narrowed, because of the colder molecules with lower Doppler shift, and the lower density giving fewer collisions,a dn a longer time between collitiosn so both Doppler and pressure broadening ar less for the higher atmsphere, so the absorption door slowly narrows as you go up, rather than slightly widening as you go down.
    So the probability of reabsorption increasesa syou go down, and decreases as you go up; and every time there is a new capture and eventual re-emission, the energy is split in half again with half heading downwards, and the other half heading upwards.
    So one would expect that the escape route to space, is favoured over the return to surface route; and that will tend to reduce any thermal influence that atmospheric LWIR emission has on the earth surface. Regardless of the surface curvature geometry; the simple physics of the GHG mechanism, suggests that more of the CO2 absorbed energy escapes to space, than gets returned to the surface.

  58. Brian W says:

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with an open or closed environment.
    ….
    There is simply no mechanism for moving or redirecting heat flow in the opposite direction. To do so EXTERNAL WORK must be applied! Warmers attempts to invalidate the 2nd law are laughable, pitiful and LAME. For an example of this see the website (pseudo) science of doom’s website. Current climate scientists(and I use that term verrry loosely) are like magicians trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Sheer magic.

    We are not “attempt[ing] to invalidate the 2nd law”. We are attempting to apply it correctly. You are right about what the 2nd Law says in regard to heat flow but this is the NET heat flow. If you put a cold object near a hot object, it doesn’t magically detect the hot object is there and stop radiating. Rather, the Second Law just tells us that the heat from the hotter object that is absorbed by the colder object will be greater than the heat from the colder object that is absorbed by the hotter object.
    If you work out any model of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, whether it be a line-by-line radiation code or a toy model like Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse”, you will find that the net heat flow is from the hotter earth to the colder atmosphere, just as the Second Law requires.
    Why then, you might ask, does this result in warming? Well, the important point is “warming” compared to what. The comparison case for the greenhouse effect is the case where the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation and hence all of the radiation that the earth emits is radiated back out into space. The fact that an IR-active atmosphere causes some of that radiation to return to the earth means that the earth ends up warmer, even if the amount returned is only some fraction of the amount that the atmosphere absorbs.
    See here for more details: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html

  59. John Finn says:
    May 12, 2010 at 3:16 am
    “….Why would there need to be an increase in longer wavelengths to keep TSI “close to constant”. What percentage of the total is extreme UV?”
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Assume the TSI has remained constant (according to Dr Svalgaard)
    Assume the radiation out put of the sun is a gaussian distribution with the peak at the visible wavelengths.
    Then if the radiation
    dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and
    dropped by 6% at extreme UV wavelengths
    one can assume there was a varying drop in radiation between the visible and the extreme wavelengths.
    This leaves two options. First the entire output of the sun dropped, that is TSI dropped OR the curve shifted positions towards the longer wavelengths. That means more of the energy comes from wavelengths longer that visible so the total energy remains the same.
    Which is actually true depends on what is meant by “no change” in the TSI and extreme UV wavelengths. If my memory serves me correctly I think the change in TSI was actually 0.01% that would mean there was a drop AND a shift. It would be consistent with less sunspots. The flares associated with sunspots are supposed to generate higher energy wavelengths such as Gamma rays.

  60. george
    “I’ve been following this subject now for about 30 years in some form or another; and I have yet to see either theory or data to support a logarithmic temperature to CO2 connection; or for that matter any other form of such a connection.
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98GL01908.shtml
    Start there. that will get you part way home.

  61. Gail Combs says:
    May 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    John Finn says:
    May 12, 2010 at 3:16 am
    “….Why would there need to be an increase in longer wavelengths to keep TSI “close to constant”. What percentage of the total is extreme UV?”


    ____________________________________________________________________
    Assume the TSI has remained constant (according to Dr Svalgaard)
    I don’t think you can assume that. It doesn’t vary much but it’s not constant.
    Assume the radiation out put of the sun is a gaussian distribution with the peak at the visible wavelengths.
    Then if the radiation
    dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and
    dropped by 6% at extreme UV wavelengths
    one can assume there was a varying drop in radiation between the visible and the extreme wavelengths .

    There’s a lot of assumptions in there and a lot depends on how the falls were distributed throughout the spectrum. It seems perfectly possible that solar output remained well within the bounds of natural variability even given the percentage falls you quote.
    Which is actually true depends on what is meant by “no change” in the TSI and extreme UV wavelengths. If my memory serves me correctly I think the change in TSI was actually 0.01% that would mean there was a drop AND a shift. It would be consistent with less sunspots. The flares associated with sunspots are supposed to generate higher energy wavelengths such as Gamma rays.
    The 0.01% change in TSI is new information, i.e. it was not included in your original post.

  62. wayne says:

    Take for instance the geometry of the earth and it’s atmosphere. Look up “dip of the horizon”. You won’t find it in Wikipedia, that is for sure! Know why? It goes directly against AGW and GHG effects.

    Okay, so are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia doesn’t discuss this (at least under the search term you entered) because it might have some obscure application to AGW and GHG effects? Doesn’t that strike you as just slightly paranoid?

    Look at the diagram. See the point ‘O’. That is a water molecule or CO2 molecule. If it radiates, how much will go back toward the surface and how much will go to space? At about 1000m high the difference is already 1%. Not 0.1% or 0.01% but a whopping 1%. At about 3000m it’s two percent, 51% to space, 49% toward the ground. You see, the odds are stacked against re-radiation back to earth, like Las Vegas casinos. You can never win and that is using simple geometry, not fancy computer models.

    And, you expect this to have a significant impact how exactly? So, you use a computer model where a rise in GHGs results in the additional absorptions and re-emissions sending only 49% back to the ground and I use one that results in them sending 50% back to the ground. Do you honestly expect this to make a big difference? I don’t think we even know the radiative forcing to an accuracy of 1%…and we certainly don’t know the climate sensitivity to anything close to that. I think you are making a big deal about an effect that is effectively in the noise, whether it is currently accounted for in the models or not.

  63. “”” Steven mosher says:
    May 12, 2010 at 3:55 pm
    here. no paywall
    http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf “””
    Thanks for that reference Steven. I wouldn’t mind having access to GRL, but I don’t have any work related reason to; so I wouldn’t be able to take a tax deduction even if I paid for the subscription.
    I did look at that paper, and never did find anything about the logarithmic relationship between CO2 atmospheric abundance and mean global surface Temperature; which is my understanding of what Dr Spephen Schneider defined as “climate sensitivity”.
    They had a lot of things about “radiative forcings”, including an interesting one of -0.06 W/m^2 due to CO2 absorption of incoming solar spectrum energy. Funny thing; unless I missed it, they din’t have any radiative forcings due to H2O, either for solar spectrum, or LWIR thermal emissions.
    And of course all of that information is from computer models; and they apparently don’t have any measured values from real observations to support those tabulated numbers.
    It is interesting that they can calculate the radiative forcings to three significant figures; so how is it that they end up with a three to one range of errors in the final “Climate Sensitivity” number that IPCC reports.
    I guess I will have to look at some of those model referecnes to see the theoretical Physics derivation of the Logarithmic CO2 to mean surface Temperature “algorithms”.

  64. Joel Shore says:
    May 12, 2010 at 5:22 pm
    “Doesn’t that strike you as just slightly paranoid?”
    Paranoid? Are you kidding? Or just uninformed? Try to enter anything regarding global warming that goes against the gospel. Will not last 5 minutes.

  65. George E. Smith says:

    It is interesting that they can calculate the radiative forcings to three significant figures; so how is it that they end up with a three to one range of errors in the final “Climate Sensitivity” number that IPCC reports.

    For the well-mixed greenhouse gases like CO2, calculating the radiative forcing is the easy part…although I think the numbers are still uncertain by about 5-10%. Calculating how that forcing translates into a change in global temperature, including all the feedbacks is the hard part and where most of the uncertainty comes in.
    kwik says:

    Paranoid? Are you kidding? Or just uninformed? Try to enter anything regarding global warming that goes against the gospel. Will not last 5 minutes.

    (1) This issue of the horizon dip is only peripherally related to AGW…and, as I noted, won’t make a significant difference to what one determines regarding, so it is quite paranoid on that score alone.
    (2) I imagine that most things that you are talking about being entered are not just “against the gospel” but are in fact debunked claims. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source of nonsense but rather a source of reliable information.

  66. george:
    “I did look at that paper, and never did find anything about the logarithmic relationship between CO2 atmospheric abundance and mean global surface Temperature; which is my understanding of what Dr Spephen Schneider defined as “climate sensitivity”.”
    But you did find the reference to the log of forcings correct? If you want C out of that you should know how to get there.
    “They had a lot of things about “radiative forcings”, including an interesting one of -0.06 W/m^2 due to CO2 absorption of incoming solar spectrum energy. Funny thing; unless I missed it, they din’t have any radiative forcings due to H2O, either for solar spectrum, or LWIR thermal emissions.”
    The models ( called Line by Line radiative transfer models ) will also calculate these forcings. If you are writing a paper on trace gases, I suppose one can restrict the discussion to the topic. if its a chemical in Hitran, then the codes will calcualte the result.
    “And of course all of that information is from computer models; and they apparently don’t have any measured values from real observations to support those tabulated numbers”
    these models are a class of models that we use EVERY DAY to do a wide variety of engineering tasks. Like sensor design
    http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-44-29-6274
    You see, if you want to design a sensor that sits in space and looks back at the earth at an IR source, you have to have a physics that tells you how that energy is propagated through the atmosphere. personally, I used lower order models ( like modtran) to work on things that went boom and made bad guys disappear from the face of the planet. Do the models work? yes. ask the dead guys.
    or read>
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Uu0VqoPLdocJ:rtweb.aer.com/docs/aer_codes.pdf+verification+of+line+by+line+radiative+transfer+models+observation+data&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
    or gosh here.
    http://www.rtweb.aer.com/

  67. George E. Smith;
    When I said CO2 is logarithmic (which prompted your original rant almost all of which I agree with) I was referring to the claimed “forcing” (rotten term in my opinion) of C02 in watts per meter squared. The paper Steven Mosher pointed you to makes the point I was making. Both theory and measurement shows that what ever CO2 does to change energy balance, its effects decrease per unit of CO2 while earth radiance increases exponentially to T^4.
    So… while I disagree with the whole notion of CO2 doubling = 3.7 watts/m2 = 3 degrees (=/- 1.5), the point is that even if you blindly ACCEPT the IPCC and scaramologist numbers, and CO2 increases over about 350 PPM are INSIGNIFICANT BY THEIR OWN THEORY!
    Gory details here
    http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/co2-is-logarithmic-explained/

  68. “”” Richard Sharpe says:
    May 14, 2010 at 11:58 am
    CRS, Dr.P.H. says on May 14, 2010 at 10:35 am
    *ahem* This is all bunk….carbon dioxide supplementation of greenhouses has been practiced for many years, with very positive results. ADM uses waste heat and carbon dioxide from ethanol fermenters to boost growth of hothouse tomatoes in Illinois.
    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
    “For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.”
    According to my cool WUWT desktop widget, the Earth’s CO2 level is 389.64 ppm.
    Crops should grow just fine. I’d expect extra nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers to be required anyway, as those would become growth-limiting.
    Get ready for another green revolution.
    I am sorry Dr P.H, but I put my faith in the Peer Review Process. It is fool proof and the way to true enlightenment. You have been fooled by those charlatans in industry again! “””
    Well David; you know the rant wasn’t aimed at you; and sometimes the rant is the only way to get the message out.
    I just have this problem. I can go to NOAA Mauna Loa and get CO2 data; well some version of it at someplace on a mountain at some time. And I can go to; well no; there is nowhere I can go to get the earth’s temperature; any measure of it; I can get “anomalies” which however are not Temperatures but unless I know the baseline Temperature to which those anomalies refer; I can’t get earth’s temperature; but let’s just for laughs say I can.
    So I have CO2 and I have Temperature; and I have both 4 and seven digit log tables so I know how to get log(CO2).
    I also know how to plot Y = m.x + c so I can plot a line.
    But what I don’t know is:- WHAT Temperature measured WHERE at WHAT time do I plot against log WHAT CO2 measured WHERE at WHAT time.
    AlGore in his book shows that Temperature is linear with CO2 for the Temperature measured 800 years before the CO2 that caused it, is measured.
    Evidently if I get Temperature and log CO2 more or less at the same time like now I get a linear relationship between those. I don’t think even the IPCC knows what to plot against what to get a log relationship; and when you have a 3:1 error band; how do you prove that it is still a log relationship, since a linear one fits just as well with a 3:1 error band.

  69. “”” Steven mosher says:
    May 13, 2010 at 4:09 pm “””
    So Steven I looked at your opticinfobase reference and found it interesting; if only for the reason that it exists; specially that cloud stuff. Gee if only they could get to exactly what the ground level solar irradiance is underneath those clouds; which after all is what warms the surface in the presence of clouds.
    Well yes I realize that some of the outgoing LWIR is intercepted by those clouds, and some of it returns to earth; but unless some solar energy ends up underneath the clouds; it is never going to get any warmer.
    So when will they be able to continuously monitor real ground level solar spectrum irradiance; and do it at enough stations worldwide so that it (a) complies with the requirements of the Nyquist theorem for sampled data systems; and (b) gets collected up so as to report the real effect of clouds on the earth temperature or at least on its total energy input.

  70. Joel Shore May 12,2010 2:42
    Oh yes you are. You are attempting to redefine the 2nd law with “radiation”. The 2nd law is a kinetic thermal law, not a law with regards to radiation. I used the term magic because you and Mr Doom like to use it. Science is not “magic” nor is it a “guess”.
    You said “If you put a cold object near a hot object, it doesn’t magically detect the hot object is there and stop radiating”. First off, what is “cold and what is hot”? Secondly depending on the distance between the objects the cold object will have no sensible (usable or practical) effect on the hot one and vice versa.
    I do not subscribe to the “greenhouse effect” whatsoever. The earth is NOT a Greenhouse thanks. With regards to rte and line-by-line I wouldn’t waste my time.
    Then you say “or a toy model like Willis Eschenbach’s “Steel Greenhouse”, you will find that the net HEAT flow is from the hotter earth to the colder atmosphere. Here is where the confusion starts. The steel greenhouse is a radiative model. Radiation is NOT kinetic heat. The interaction of EMR impinging on matter produces heat by raising its vibrational rate. It is a conversion process. Radiation flow is NOT kinetic heat flow. You have satisfied the 2nd law with radiation. Not.
    On the so called “radiating layer” . Gases have a VERY LOW radiating power. Only a solid body has the ability to radiate with any kind of power. This would require a density increase at 5km(that’s where it is right?) in the atmosphere approaching at least very close to a solid. No such thing has ever been observed. The temperature at this altitude is -18 oC. Now I ask you, what body or gas in this universe can radiate anything at this temperature. It’s NOT HAPPENING. There is something seriously wrong with the Stephan Boltzmann Constant. Using two planar surfaces radiating towards one another when only one surface exists is surely a joke. Gases have no surface!
    The wattage figures in the K&T diagram are presented as static figures. For example 390w/m2 it is presented as occuring all over the surface BUT due to the effects of insolation this wattage would have to vary by latitude. In addition soil, vegetation, water, plastic, cement, asphalt etc. all present different emission characteristics. A pyrgeometer is a “thermopile in a case”. It measures voltage in the microvolt range. Watts is a measure of electrical work done and is V(volts) x I(amps) = watts. Thermopiles can supply no usable current to anything (100uv = .00001volt) so how can watts be calculated without a measured current flow into a load. Perhaps the real equation is v x magic = watts. Watts is an unphysical measure better to use btu or calories. No time left so I leave a saying, as George E Smith would say HEY! IT’S THE WATER!

  71. Brian: Your last post is so bizarre from start to finish that I really don’t know what to say. You think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to heat transfer via radiation?!?
    You think “Watts is a measure of electrical work done”? No it is a measure of power which is energy…or work of any sort…per unit time, i.e., a rate of doing work. You think “Watts is an unphysical measure better to use btu or calories.” What does an “unphysical measure” mean? Why is one unit physical and another unphysical? (BTUs and calories is different from Watts because the former are units of energy and the latter are units of energy per unit time. The apple-to-apples comparison is BTUs and calories to Joules…a Watt being a Joule per second.)
    You say, “The temperature at this altitude is -18 oC. Now I ask you, what body or gas in this universe can radiate anything at this temperature. It’s NOT HAPPENING. There is something seriously wrong with the Stephan Boltzmann Constant.” Are you aware that we measure the 3 degree cosmic background radiation…that is essentially blackbody radiation from an object at 3 degrees Kelvin, or about -270 C? Are you aware that there is the whole field of satellite remote sensing, which Dr. Spencer is a participant in, relies on the correctness of the physics underlying the Stefan Boltzmann Equation?

  72. Brian W,
    The 2nd law of dynamics is statistical not absolute. A warmer mass interacting with a cooler mass will will have particle distributions with a higher average kinetic and/or vibrational energies. The energies will tend to average out which will look like heat flow to the cooler mass until they reach equilibrium. But although the average energy is higher in the warmer mass, the distribution of energies may overlap and there will be some particles with higher energies in the cooler mass, so some energy at the micro level may actually flow in the opposite direction. At the macro level the numbers are so high that the statistics rule, and we get the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In the radiative case that Joel described, warmer and cooler black bodies in proximity in a vacuum will exchange black body radiation. In other words, energy in the form of photons from the cooler body will be hitting and absorbed by the warmer body and vice versa. Over time an equilibrium should be achieved, where they are both radiating at the same temperature because the warmer body is transferring more energy to the cooler than vice versa.
    You are correct that solids are generally better radiators than gasses. However gasses vary, and what are generally called the greenhouse gasses are called that because they are better radiators than the major constituents of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen which are poor radiators. They can perform the radiating of their wavelengths at the appropriate level in the top of the atmosphere. There doesn’t have to be anything solid-like. So, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, NO and other gasses do radiate into space.
    If you don’t believe in the greenhouse effect, how do you explain the much greater diurnal temperature swings in arid climates than in humid climates? What you are calling kinetic heat, should flow faster in humid air, since the increased percentage of H2O molecules are lower in mass than the chief components of arid air, N2 and O2. At the same temperature (average kinetic energy) the lighter water molecules will have higher velocities and should transmit energy faster, and thus cool the warmer ground faster.
    In reality, the lower water content of arid air allows the ground to radiate more efficiently directly into space, since there is less of the greenhouse gas, water. The ground itself then can actually become cooler than the air and assist in cooling the air. You can have ground that is radiatively cooler than air in other circumstances, such as when you get dew or frost. If there is a 2nd law of thermodynamics argument against the AGW hypothesis, I don’t think you are making it well, perhaps you can supply a link?

  73. George E. Smith says:
    May 12, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    Hi George, thanks for the reply.
    You kind of went way deeper than my comment about the “dip” deserves, it is only about e/m rays, not specifically co2 but any radiating molecule. It is just a purely geometric fact known for centuries but forgotten since radio and GPS navigation. It only applies to spheres (like the Earth) and radiation in a geometrical sense. It’s base is in ancient celestial navigation when sailors take sextant sightings of incoming radiation from stars or planets but the exact same principles apply to outgoing radiation from warm droplets in clouds or any radiation.
    I never hear anyone mention this fact about “dip of the horizon” but I do hear many on the alarmist side talk how GHGs re-radiate and half of the radiation goes back to the ground and half to space. That is totally, completely false by simple pure geometry but you might have to be an old sailor to realize it.
    Since there are warm droplets in the cloud tops they are radiating, in all possible directions on the average. But if you follow the possible paths that the radiation can follow, evenly spaced in 3D, more rays will point to space than intersect the surface of the sphere, Earth. That is because you are not exactly at sea level, where that would be true, but some ‘h’ altitude above the surface of the sphere.
    At exactly sea level your eye sees two equal hemispheres, one the sky, the other the solid earth. Now imagine at the moon. At the moon all of the radiated heat from your body but about 1% would go to space and 1% would hit the earth. Lower yourself down to geo-stationary orbit height. There at 25000 miles 8% is the dip. (90+8)/180 or 54.4% of the heat radiation from your body, or a molecule, would go to space and (90-8)/180 or 45.6% would hit the earth. That’s 19% difference. Lower on down into the atmosphere… you get my point?
    The higher you are (the molecules), the more “dip” effect and greater the percentage that will go to space than back to the ground. That is why I wanted you to scrutinize the diagram in the link.
    Here’s some calculated samples of to space compared to ground:
    It uses dip = acos(Re/(Re+Height)).
    At 195 meters, 1% difference
    At 775 meters, 2% difference
    At 1725 meters, 3% difference
    At 3020 meters, 4% difference
    At 4680 meters, 5% difference

    Do you get what I was saying now? That is all I wanted you to realize. Other on WUWT might be interested to know this obscure fact too, it’s just old boring geometry but it does affect the atmosphere and heat loss depending on how high water vapor or clouds are, vertically only.

  74. Joel Shore says:
    May 12, 2010 at 5:22 pm
    Just read my second explanation to George above. Even George thinks half up and half down. If your sharp with an imagination you will know exactly what I am saying. How’s your geometry? Have you ever navigated the seas by sextant? 😉
    I am primarily speaking there of warm clouds though it equally applies to CO2 molecules. Nothing escapes the geometry! (To be super critical you would also have to apply a tiny refraction corrections to those calculations above depending on the density of the air at a given altitude but that is generally insignificant.)

  75. Wayne,
    It sounds like the dip horizon should be applied if it already isn’t. It would be less significant for CO2 than for short-wave radiation (e.g.cloud albedo), since any dip angles towards the horizon would encounter more atmosphere and likely enter the absorption/re-emission regime again. The effective horizon for GHGs would be at an altitude closer to the top of the atmosphere.

  76. wayne says:

    Just read my second explanation to George above. Even George thinks half up and half down. If your sharp with an imagination you will know exactly what I am saying.

    I understand fine what you are saying. My point is simply that the impact of this effect on AGW will be essentially negligible. It may already be taken into account in the atmospheric radiation codes but even if it isn’t, the error introduced will almost surely be smaller than the current uncertainties in those calculations.

  77. Joel Shore
    May 14, 2010
    Nothing bizarre about it. Radiation is not heat. Radiation “creates” heat. The ability of radiation to heat is tied to its frequency/wavelength. 1500watts of radiation at a wavelength of 40 meters produces no sensible heating “effect”. You can’t stand directly in front of the driven element and get “heated”. You can however get a nasty RF burn if you physically touch the element(been there done that). Take a simple microwave oven, its “radiation” (less than 10cm in wavelength) heats up food quite nicely no “kinetic” heat was transferred yet “energy” was, through the interaction of the magnetron’s “radiation” with matter(food). Energy is broad term.
    In electrical terms watts IS equivalent to power. Quality of power is related to the amount of current that can be supplied at a given voltage. If a motor requires 5 amps at 120v to run properly and your source can only supply 3amps then your motor will not produce the required torque to do the work you require. As far as units of measurement are concerned I don’t say my amplifier puts out x number of calories or BTUs, you can do all the conversions you want but it may not be relevant to what you are dealing with.
    This is what I really mean by unphysical. Take the 390w again. The only reference I can find for its physicality is that it is equivalent to 4 100w lightbulbs. So 390w/m2 is roughly equivalent four 100w lightbulbs evenly spaced about an area of a square meter? Can you or Martin do any better because all I can do is laugh.
    If I take a block of say iron and cool it to -18 oC and hand it to you can you honestly say it is “radiating” anything useful at all. The real point of the issue is that matter on planet earth, at the temperatures its found at produces NO sensible “radiation” at all. This is confirmed by the use of night vision devices. Without an illuminating LED you won’t see squat. Now if if there was any substantial radiation at all from rocks, soil, water etc. you wouldn’t need to “illuminate” the area you are looking at with an IR LED. Go find yourself a pair and prove me wrong. The microwave background issue is actually another topic(big bang) and requires a post of its own.
    Here is a an excellent example of the 2nd law as it operates in the atmosphere. Recently we had a situation where an unfinshed row of houses was ruined by wind power. I remember that day well. I had arrived home and the temperature was quite comfortable, no jacket needed. I went back out about 5 minutes later and the temperature had dropped precipitously. The change was dramatic. I now needed a jacket. Later on, on the six o’clock news this event was announced and video shown. The media was saying “tornado” but the row of houses directly across the street was completely untouched. This was no tornado. This was the result of straight line wind.
    This is what happened. A warm air mass was coming into contact with a very cold one. The kinetic heat in the warm air mass immediately moved towards the colder one in the process of thermalization creating an extremely powerful wind. In fact the wind was so powerful that it went through the open unfinished windows and literally lifted one house, and slammed it into the other moving it off it’s foundation so that part of one house was partially laying on top of another. This happened to several houses in succession. It looked like a row of carefully placed dominos knocked over. I have never seen anything like it, an amazing sight. Now that is POWER. That is how the 2nd law operates. Through the power of THERMALIZATION. Did radiation play any role at all in this event? If a worker was present and killed did radiation play any role in his death? Of course not.

  78. Martin Lewitt
    May 14, 2010 8:14pm
    “The 2nd law of dynamics is statistical not absolute.”
    With reference to my previous post. Try telling that to the guy waiting to take posession of his new house. The 2nd law is not statistics. Statistics are used to quantify observation. Observation first, then stats. The micro level is unimportant as is quantum physics to this issue of the atmosphere. The “macro” level ruined those houses. What is “hot” and what is “cold”. The Draper Point illustrates this.
    Your second paragraph are “statements without proof”. Air is a very poor radiator of heat (not radiation). To illustrate this, if one heats an oven to 450 oF then opens the door just enough to stick your arm in the air will not leave you with 2nd or 3rd degree burns, yet the walls of the oven(solid, metal) will fry your skin. Air is the only thing we are talking about. Co2 is both a poor absorber of IR, and fast at reemitting its heat when compared to O2 or N2. CO2s rate of absorption is inversely proportional to it’s rate of emission(slow absorption, fast emission) and I can show you an experiment that proves it (a good one with a control).
    Explaining the diurnal swings in temperature is easier than you think. Take a desert for example. If you examine sand, due to the irregularity of the shape of the grains, each grain has most of its surface area exposed. This allows for a high level of kinetic heat dissipation. This is exactly the same as adding more fins to a heatsink to increase its surface area as manufacturers do. This increases its ability to thermalize with the air surrounding it. Sand is simply lousy at RETAINING kinetic heat. This brings specific heat into play. As soon as the sun goes down heat is dissipated quite rapidly and in a short time. Soil, grass, cement, buildings, rocks, vegetation and especially water are all far superior than plain sand at RETAINING heat. As we all know these things are in short supply in arid climes. Molecular mass and velocities are IRRELEVANT to this particular issue as is “radiation”. In a humid climate all this is REVERSED. You will find people (lots of em), animals, vegetation, buildings, roads and cities. The surface in humid climes can retain heat much more effectively and for a much longer time than a desert. Now water as you know has the highest specific heat of any common substance bar ammonia. This means it can absorb a lot of energy. Adding water vapor increases the specfic heat content of the atmosphere thus allowing the atmosphere to also retain heat longer. All of this MODERATES temperature reducing temperature swings. THAT is what in reality is taking place.
    No, the overwhelming aspect of kinetic heat movement in the atmosphere is due to THERMALIZATION not RADIATION and it’s not IMAGINARY and neither is the 2nd law!

  79. Brian W.
    ‘This is confirmed by the use of night vision devices. Without an illuminating LED you won’t see squat.”
    Thermal imaging devices don’t use LEDs but the infrared radiation emitted, and forms an image from temperature differences. Night vision devices based upon image intensifiers won’t be using LEDs either, but they are amplifying what little visible light is available.
    BTW, not all arid areas are sandy, and some humid areas are sandy, so that doesn’t explain the greater diurnal variation in arid areas. Your increased surface area hypothesis also doesn’t explain the dew or frost upon smooth metal of autos.

  80. Brian W: I suggest that you write your new theories of physics up for a journal and submit them. I am sure the reviewers will find them most “interesting”! In the meantime, the rest of us will ignore all of your ramblings and use the physical laws that have been very well verified rather than the rambling ideas of someone who seems to think he knows a lot more than he actually does. Here, by the way, is a description of how IR night vision goggles work: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/nightvision.htm

  81. Joel and Martin
    Hilarious! You don’t attempt to even address any of the critical points in my posts.
    Keep worshipping at the shrine of the black body and I’ll keep looking for a gas with a surface woo ha ha ha. Boy are you guys LAME.

  82. “” wayne says:
    May 15, 2010 at 1:58 am
    George E. Smith says:
    May 12, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    Hi George, thanks for the reply.
    You kind of went way deeper than my comment about the “dip” deserves, it is only about e/m rays, not specifically co2 but any radiating molecule. It is just a purely geometric fact known for centuries but forgotten since radio and GPS navigation. It only applies to spheres (like the Earth) and radiation in a geometrical sense. It’s base is in ancient celestial navigation when sailors take sextant sightings of incoming radiation from stars or planets but the exact same principles apply to outgoing radiation from warm droplets in clouds or any radiation. “””
    Wayne, I believe what you are describing, is simply the geometrical consequence of the earth being a sphere; so that radiation emitted from some altitude in the atmosphere “sees” slightly more than 2 pi steradians “above it”; as in clear of the surface, and slightly less than 2 pi below it. Then one can go into atmospheric refraction, and show that some of the “escaping” radiation will slightly curve past the geometrical horizon; and thereby further increase the escapable component.
    And I believe that Joel Shore’s position is that, this is such a small difference in equal split of the 4 pi steradians as to not constitute a significant effect.
    And I am in agreement with Joel; that this really amounts to the beating of a butterfly’s wing in a Brazillian Jungle; it isn’t going to spawn a tornado in Kansas.
    The phenomenon, that I was referring to, relates to the whole question of the multiple absorption and re-emission of thermal radiation caused by GHGs such as CO2 The CO2 near the ground may be the most important component, and may be close to “saturation” as some claim; although I have not seen good data on that; but even if it were saturated; the addition of more CO2, simply reduces the thickness of the atmosphere necessary to reach that “saturation” level; but it is the reabsorption of the thermal radiation from that lowest atmospheric layer, by the next layer of CO2 and other GHG components, that will keep the total interference with escape, from increasing with increasing CO2.
    That multiple emission/absorption cycle is what is extremely difficult to exactly compute; and the added kink that I offered is that the changes in the spectrum, and the absorption bands as the density, and temperature of the atmosphere changes with altitude; should result in favoring the escape route, over the earth return route; BUT, by how much ? The calculations are beyond the capabilities of the computing power available to me at this point; plus I have a job to do rather than solve that knotty math problem.
    I don’t think it is fruitful to deny the effect that GHGs like CO2 (and H2O) have in delaying outgoing thermal LWIR emissions; that is really a tough hill to try and defend.
    But it is in the contrary actions primarily due to clouds; where I see why the earth temperature regime is so stable; and the postulated thermal runaway due to CO2 is quite impossible.
    Earth’s CO2 “warming” to the extent that there is much at all, is a consequence of the 15 micron bending mode line of CO2; coupled with the roughly 10.1 micron peaked earth surface LWIR emission.
    On Venus it is the 4.0 micron assymetrical stretch mode, that is active at the Venus surface temperature of about 450 deg C.
    A very simple black body radiation argument can be made to show; that CO2 in any conceivable amount in the earth atmosphere, cannot possibly drive the earth Temperature through the absorption trough between those two lines and significantly activate the 4.0 micorn line.
    If at 288 K mean surface tempertaure, the LWIR emission peaks at 10.1 microns; while CO2 sits on the declining tail at 15 microns; the total thermal radiation emitted below 5 microns (half the spectral peak) is only 1% of the total emission. So to move that 1% threshold down to 4.0 microns to excite that band, the mean temperature would have to increase by 25%, from 288 K upt to 360 K; an increase of 72 deg C (because of the Wien Displacement Law). At that temperature the total thermal emission would be about four times as high; which would result in a very high cooling rate. The CO2 line would now be at nearly twice the peak wavelength rather than 1.5 times the peak; so the relative effect of the CO2 15 micorn line would go down, even though the total energy it absorbs goes up. Also that 25% in crease in temperature would cause about an 11.8% increase in the Doppler width of the 15 micron line; so additional CO2 capture; but nowhere near enough to actually cause that 7 2 deg C shift.
    And in the last 600 million years, the earth temperature has never exceeded 22 deg C (based on proxy data).
    So thermal runaway due to CO2 is total nonsense; and I haven’t even invoked the stern reaction that H2O would have to any attempt to raise the earth surface temperature by 72 deg C.
    Joel is right; although your horizon dip effect is a fact; it’s somewhat inconsequential in the numbers game.

  83. George E. Smith says:
    Wayne, I believe what you are describing, is simply the geometrical consequence of the earth being a sphere; so that radiation emitted from some altitude in the atmosphere “sees” slightly more than 2 pi steradians “above it”; …
    Exactly, I was merely making that factor visible since I never hear it mentioned. Your right, purely geometrical. It only has to do with the vertical dimension and only related to radiation via water vapor, clouds, possibly ice crystals, any radiators.
    I know 1% to 7% is a rather small adjustment, but that is much larger that I had assumed from the tiny minute adjustments used on a sextant reading 10 or 15 feet above sea level, that is until I took the time to calculate it at a more atmospheric scale. So I’ll drop further mention, just thought someone might not be aware it would reads here.
    Like your thoughts on general re-radiation. I’m following, my thoughts are pretty parallel to what you are saying but I’m still in the learning mode on that subject, it’s deep. Getting down to the exact wave number bands with various broadenings and such is still way out of my league, but I understand what is being said. Little experience there and have yet to run HITRAN and such to tangle it deeper. That’s on my backburner. Did a little spectrum work in astronomy years ago but at a very crude level.

Comments are closed.