“I don’t think they were very pleased. I don’t think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.”
Society to review climate message
By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News
There is debate over “feedback” effects on the climate
The UK’s Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.
They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.
The society’s ruling council has responded by setting up a panel to produce a consensus document.
The panel should report in July and the report is to be published in September.
It is chaired by physicist John Pethica, vice-president of the Royal Society.
Its deliberations are reviewed by two critical sub-groups, each believed to comprise seven members.
Each of these groups contains a number of society Fellows who are doubtful in some way about the received view of the risks of rising CO2 levels.
One panel member told me: “The timetable is very tough – one draft has already been rejected as completely inadequate.”
The review member said it might not be possible for the document to be agreed at all. “This is a very serious challenge to the way the society operates,” I was told. “In the past we have been able to give advice to governments as a society without having to seek consensus of all the members.
“There is very clear evidence that governments are right to be very worried about climate change. But in any society like this there will inevitably be people who disagree about anything – and my fear is that the society may become paralysed on this issue.”
Another review member told me: “The sceptics have been very strident and well-organised. It’s not clear to me how we are going to get precise agreement on the wording – we are scientists and we’re being asked to do a job of public communication that is more like journalism.”
But both members said they agreed that some of the previous communications of the organisation in the past were poorly judged.
Question everything
A Royal Society pamphlet Climate Change Controversies is the main focus of the criticism. A version of it is on the organisation’s website. It was written in response to attacks on mainstream science which the Royal Society considered scurrilous.
It reads: “This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change…”
One Fellow who said he was not absolutely convinced of the dangers of CO2 told me: “This appears to suggest that anyone who questions climate science is malicious. But in science everything is there to be questioned – that should be the very essence of the Royal Society. Some of us were very upset about that.
“I can understand why this has happened – there is so much politically and economically riding on climate science that the society would find it very hard to say ‘well, we are still fairly sure that greenhouse gases are changing the climate’ but the politicians simply wouldn’t accept that level of honest doubt.”
Another society protester said he wanted to be called a climate agnostic rather than a sceptic. He said he wanted the society’s website to “do more to question the accuracy of the science on climate feedbacks” (in which a warming world is believed to make itself warmer still through natural processes).
“We sent an e-mail round our friends, mainly in physical sciences,” he said.
“Then when we had got 43 names we approached the council in January asking for the website entry on climate to be re-written. I don’t think they were very pleased. I don’t think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.
“But we won the day, and the work is underway to re-write it. I am very hopeful that we will find a form of words on which we can agree.
“I know it looks like a tiny fraction of the total membership (1,314) but remember we only emailed our friends – we didn’t raise a general petition.”
much more here at the BBC
h/t to WUWT reader “Sandy in Derby”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bart says:
Exactly.
Well, I believe these sort of things have been both calculated and measured using satellite data. And, indeed, high clouds tend to produce a net gain of energy, i.e., they reduce outgoing longwave radiation more than they reduce incoming shortwave radiation. For low clouds, it is the opposite.
Cute but not an accurate portrayal of what I’m saying unless by “keep us warm” you mean that they would slow the cooling that would occur in their absence somewhat. This indeed would be the case, but obviously the earth would still cool very rapidly because extinguishing the sun would produce a huge radiative imbalance.
As I noted, low clouds block more shortwave radiation from reaching the earth than they reduce longwave leaving the earth, and it turns out that the net effect of clouds is to cause cooling. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that clouds are a negative feedback. To determine what the feedback due to clouds is, you have to understand how the amount of low clouds and high clouds (and also the optical properties of the clouds themselves) change in response to a warming. This is not at all obvious because warming both increases the amount of moisture in the air and increases the saturation vapor pressure in a way that seems to keep relative humidity on a global scale roughly constant (although there does seem to be some variability at the regional level). And, as I noted, Lindzen’s proposed “iris” negative cloud feedback was actually a REDUCTION of high clouds in the tropics in response to warming, which he argued would lead to a net cooling because it would allow more longwave radiation to escape. (So, if you don’t believe that high clouds cause a net cooling, take it up with Lindzen, not me.)
Jordan says:
I’m not clear why resonance is relevant here. Usually resonance occurs because there is a natural frequency at which a system wants to absorb energy so that if you send energy close to that frequency, you get a large response from the system…such as occurs on a swing.
I am also not sure what you think the relationship between feedback and energy conservation is, but a positive feedback, particularly in the sense that it is meant in climate science, does not violate energy conservation. In fact, the equations used in all the various climate models from the most simplistic to the most complex explicitly invoke energy conservation.
What a positive feedback means is that as the earth warms in response to the initial radiative perturbation (whether due to an increase in greenhouse gases, an increase in solar luminosity, or something else), changes occur that slow the recovery to radiative balance so that it takes a larger increase in temperature to restore radiative balance than would be predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation considering only the original radiative effect. Such changes can be, for example, an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, which itself has a radiative effect.
“”” Bart says:
May 28, 2010 at 4:50 pm
George E. Smith says:
May 28, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“Now Joel, try to keep it simple; we aren’t too bright here or we might become Climatologers too. Where (on the surface of the earth) would fall THE SHADOW ZONE formed by the sun shining on a cloud that is on THE NIGHT SIDE of the planet ?”
I guess Joel is trying to say that the cloud will trap IR on the night side without blocking any incoming sunlight. How he thinks this might add up to a net gain of energy, I really don’t know, but it’s a comfort to learn that, if everything we thought we knew about the life cycle of stars were wrong, and the Sun were to be extinguished tomorrow, the clouds will keep us warm. “””
I don’t have any interest in dumping on Joel. I read pretty much all that he posts; and I do follow up most of his leads (if I can).
But he does tend to exhibit, a characteristic; that I encounter a lot with the AGW proponents (I’m sure they aren’t alone).
Here’s an example: In a past publication, I was commenting on a book review; of a book on “Global Warming” by a well known author; the review; not the book, which I have not read. Specifically, I was asking the reviewer whether the author had settled the question as to whether the Temperature Change followed the CO2 change or Preceeded it. Then in another comment, I stated that “the laws of Physics would require that when the floating sea ice melts, the sea level would go down”. This was confirmed two years later from satellite measurements in the arctic.
The magazine posted (unseen by me) a reply, by the author; not the reviewer, saying: “when the oceans warm the water expands and the sea level rises.” giving my no opportunity to comment.
Well duh ! what does floating sea ice melting have to do with ocean warming (someplace else) ?
He never addressed the issue I brought up; but offered a totally different problem.
Joel does that too. I provided a (longwinded) discussion of the Temperature change between a shadow zone, and an adjacent non-shadow zone, claiming that my argument showed that any surface warming by either GHG of all existing species, plus surface warming due to radiation from cloud areas, NEVER makes up for the loss of heating due to blocked solar insolation.
Now I’ve even had a “polar scientist” challenge that; he stated that he had observed clouds move in overhead in the high arctic; and the temperature (in his location) rose. I believe him; I’ve not been in the high arctic to see such a phenomenon; but one thing I do know about that region; is that it is not common to see the sun overhead. If ti can be seen at all, it is relatively low in the sky (angle wise). So the cloud overhead was in fact NOT blocking the sun; so his observation did not conform to the experimental model I specified; the cloud moving in front of the sun, and placing me in a shadow zone.
What this chap had indeed observed, was that a block of warm moist air moved into the region; nowhere near the sun direction; and that warm air both raised the local temperature; and incidently also formed clouds overhead.
So Joel didn’t attack my argument to show readers where he believes I erred. He introduced quite extraneous things like a situation where no solar shadow zone adjacent to a solar illuminated zone existed. Then he resorted to “appeal to authority” citing Professor Lindzen and some research of his; but Joel never pointed to just how and why Lindzen’s work (which I haven’t read) refuted points of my argument.
Well I too could have resorted to “appeal to authority”. Instead of my lengthy ‘stick in the sand’ reasoning (hoping others could follow that) I could simply have cited well known Laws of Optics; and recognised Optics Experts; whose writings have withstood the test of time and rebuke from peers far more scholarly than me.
The illuminated earth/atmosphere/cloud system is an optical system; admittedly a somewhat unusual one. Arguably the illumination of a cloud (from below) is simply an optical image of the earth surface which is the source (one of them) of that illumination (irradiation). The subsequent (re) illumination of the surface is an image of the cloud source.
Standard laws of Optics state that ‘no optical system can form an image that exceeeds in irradiance (illuminance ‘brightness’), the image formed by an Aplanatic System.
They further state that ‘no Aplanatic system can form an image whose irradiance exceeds the radiance of the source. Then of course any Aplanatic optical system must satisfy the ‘optical sine theorem’.
This fundamental optical theorem was first published in 1873 by Abbe and Helmholtz; but more importantly it was most likely discovered ten years earlier by Rudolph Clausius; a very well known pioneer in Thermodynamics. He derived the Optical sine theorem condition from arguments based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Of course absolutely none of that is of any use to most WUWT visitors; but if Joel prefers appeal to authority; well I can do that too; but I’d rather try to illuminate; rather than obfuscate.
And may I remind everyone that we are interested in Climate; not last night’s weather; and to speak of changes in cloud cover; we are talking about changes that persist for climatically significant time scales; not some cloud that forms overnight because it was hot and humid during the day.
George E. Smith says:
June 1, 2010 at 11:02 am
“….I don’t have any interest in dumping on Joel. I read pretty much all that he posts; and I do follow up most of his leads (if I can).
But he does tend to exhibit, a characteristic; that I encounter a lot with the AGW proponents (I’m sure they aren’t alone)…”
_______________________________________________________________________
No this is not a characteristic seen only in AGW proponents. Farmers have been dealing with it from the USDA and WTO for several years too.
This is a similar type of manipulation in a more structured setting:
“In the USDA Friday March 18-19 meetings that were held for Traceability they have facilitators at each table. Now notice in these docs that each topic discussion is timed and then the groups move to another topic. No group knows what the other is saying. They did this in all the other NAIS sessions. It is highly manipulative and I highly doubt these people know who attend know what is going on other then the believers. What the USDA is using is the Hegelian dialectic to get a predetermined consensus. This process was designed by George Wilhelm Hegel, a transformational Marxist
Here is how it works: A diverse group of people ( Farm Bureau, American Horse Council, VETS ( believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis) gather in a facilitated meeting (USDA and with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent) using group dynamics (Peer pressure) to discuss a social issue (NAIS/Traceability) and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or Systhesis)
To understand it more (typing the HTTP http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm ) Read it all and you will see that the very groups we know use the ‘Process’ to sway our thinking. Learn and understand it. The Delphi technique ( type in Http http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm) is based on the Hegelian principle and there is ways to break this up but you must know how to recognize when the Delphi/Hegelian principle is being used.(type in the Http http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf002.htm ) “ Comment gisela — April 6, 2010 http://nonais.org/2010/04/01/nais-is-back/#comment-1754066
George E Smith says:
Well, I hardly think that it is extraneous to point out that an argument that looks at the total radiative effects of clouds has to consider the fact that the sun is not always present. I haven’t thought enough about your argument to know what else might be wrong with it…but that is certainly something that is.
As for “appeal to authority”:
(1) There seems to be a strange viewpoint among many on this website that because authorities are not infallible, it is therefore useless to consider their opinion and, in particular, that their own opinion deserves to be accorded at least as much weight as the opinion of a respected scientific authority. I happen to find this attitude strange and, frankly, rather arrogant. Scientific authorities in a field are authorities because they have thought about these issues a lot more than you and have probably acquainted themselves with the literature (and the basic textbooks) much better than you have. They have also proven that they can do original research in the field. To think that you can come in and show them to be wrong based on just a little bit of thought is certainly holding yourself in very high esteem. If you find something generally accepted in the field that doesn’t make sense to you, the thing to do…if you have any degree of humility…is to try very hard to understand where you might be wrong before you go off and conclude that the conventional wisdom is wrong and you are right.
(2) In the case of Lindzen, it is not just that he is an authority but that he is one of the few authorities who agrees with you on the larger issue (that AGW is no big deal) but who nonetheless still seems to have concluded that the conventional wisdom that high clouds have a net warming effect is correct…And, in fact, he has based a hypothesis of why he thinks AGW is no big deal on this being the case. That, I think, should give you pause.
“”” Joel Shore says:
June 1, 2010 at 2:40 pm
George E Smith says:
……………
………………Then he resorted to “appeal to authority” citing Professor Lindzen and some research of his; but Joel never pointed to just how and why Lindzen’s work (which I haven’t read) refuted points of my argument. “””‘
Well, I hardly think that it is extraneous to point out that an argument that looks at the total radiative effects of clouds has to consider the fact that the sun is not always present. I haven’t thought enough about your argument to know what else might be wrong with it…but that is certainly something that is.
As for “appeal to authority”:
(1) There seems to be a strange viewpoint among many on this website that because authorities are not infallible, it is therefore useless to consider their opinion and, in particular, that their own opinion deserves to be accorded at least as much weight as the opinion of a respected scientific authority. I happen to find this attitude strange and, frankly, rather arrogant. Scientific authorities in a field are authorities because they have thought about these issues a lot more than you and have probably acquainted themselves with the literature (and the basic textbooks) much better than you have. “””
Well Joel; perhaps you should distinguish between my criticism of “appeal to authority” and your quite unwarranted conclusion that ergo; I must be dismissing that authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t in any way dismiss what Professor Lindzen or any other recognized expert have to say on any of these matters; and suggest that “maybe I know better.” I have never said or implied that. In fact I have almost no knowledge whatsoever as to Lindzen’s specific teachings on climate; never read anything; except for things of his that Anthony has posted here.
That makes it even less helpful in understanding your criticism of my sketchings, without ever pointing out just where you feel that Professor Lindzen is in disagreement with something I have said.
I presented an argument; not for the entirety of reported climate science; but for a very simple to understand single aspect of the matter. Namely the common observation that two nearby locations; one in a cloud shadow (any cloud shadow) and the other out of that shadow that argued from that observation and some simple optical geometry reasoning, that the subsidiary warming of the surface by LWIR radiation from cloud regions due to the cloud having captured surface emissions; never makes up for the loss of direct heating due to the cloud shadowing of the sun.
I’m happy to read of any credible observation of the reverse being true; or of a particular cloud type for which that has been observed to be not true; or of any argument from Professor Lindzen or any other climate science authority which addresses that phenomenon.
But it isn’t helpful to simply say to me:- “Steven Hawking or Michio Kaku know more physics than you do.” and not offer how they would refute my reasoning.
As to this: “”” (2) In the case of Lindzen, it is not just that he is an authority but that he is one of the few authorities who agrees with you on the larger issue (that AGW is no big deal) but who nonetheless still seems to have concluded that the conventional wisdom that high clouds have a net warming effect is correct…And, in fact, he has based a hypothesis of why he thinks AGW is no big deal on this being the case. That, I think, should give you pause. “””
As I have pointed out I’m not conversant with the whole of climate science literature. For one thing; I have an actual job to do; so I can only read so much in spare time. So in particular I’m not conversant with Lindzen’s writings; and I take his authority and credibility simply on his reputation and what i have seen od his adresses. Also I have no free access to most of the climate science literature which is largely behind pay walls.
So the argument I have often seen in print as to why high clouds “warm the surface” has been that they are thin clouds, and don’t block much sunlight; yet they reradiate LWIR from the ground.
So it should be trivial to place two thermometers; one in the shadow of such a cloud; and the other out of the shadow. You’ll get no argument from me that the high thin cloud doesn’t block much sunlight; and the higher the cloud, the thinner it is and the less sunlight it blocks so the surface warms even more. And if the cloud is high enough it will almost be invisible, and it will block very little sunlight; so there will be almost as much sun in the shadow as out of the shadow. The thermometers will show whether the LWIR re-radiation ever replaces the lost solar insolation.
It would be nice if you can give a reliable peer reviewed paper citation from a reputationally accredited expert on research results that prove that the clouds are the direct cause of the observed warming; and are not in fact caused by the warming itself.
I’m familiar in some very primitive way; with the concept of a warmed surface leading to evaporation that rises in the atmosphere until the Temperature relapse rate gets the Temperature down to the dew point and clouds form. I understand to some extent; how higher surface temperatures and lower relative humidity will tend to delay the onset of cloud formation until colder lower density higher atmospheric conditions prevail.
What I have no understanding of, is how clouds can form at great heights without first having water evaporated from the ground because of the ground being warmer and moister.
I guess if it can be observed in the Arctic; that warm moist air moving into a colder region can give rise to clouds while warming the local surface; surely it can be observed elsewhere too.
No Joel; I do not challenge any of the authorities you want to name; as I am not even able to read most of their works; let alone understand them.
But if you choose to cite them as authorities; please try to link that to your criticism of my reasoning; instead of simply saying they know more than I do; which conclusion I am more than ready to accept.
It would be even more enjoyable, if you would refute my arguments with your own reasonings, since this does appear to be your field of expertise, and certainly not mine.
George E. Smith (11:02am):
You are spot-on in citing “no Aplanatic system can form an image whose irradiance exceeds the radiance of the source” from the Optics Handbook as physical refutation of the misguided “feedback” arguments favored by the AGW crowd. But this substantive point makes little difference to their public stance, which is all about form, not substance. Their incessant appeal to authority–when convenient, even those who disagree with them in the main–and ad hominem arguments provide ample evidence of that.
Instead of arguing real-world physics scientifically, they choose to ride the radiation-only hobby horse as if it were the only mechanism of transfering heat from the surface to the atmosphere. That’s why I don’t waste my time responding to them, even when they egregiously ignore the surface-cooling effect of evaporation and pretend that the consequent presence of water vapor in the atmosphere must somehow increase surface heating–above and beyond that provided by thermalization of the sole source of energy: insolation. Energy conservation, my foot!
George E Smith says:
Well, it is not mine either…What I have studied in this field has been haphazardly and informally in my free time. But, I did make what I think is a pretty fundamental point (although for reasons that I cannot fathom, you seem to think it is “extraneous”): Namely that your argument obviously fails for clouds that are on the night side of the earth. Such clouds clearly will have no effect on the incoming shortwave radiation…because there ain’t any but will have an effect on the outgoing longwave radiation. So, even if your argument about what happens on the day side of the earth is correct (and I haven’t really thought about whether it is or not), it would not demonstrate that high cloud necessarily causes net cooling.
And, I have pointed out another problem with your argument: You are fundamentally misusing the terms “positive feedback” and “negative feedback” in reference to high and low clouds because you are confusing two different issues: What effect an increase in certain types of clouds has on the radiative balance and whether those given cloud types are expected to increase or decrease with warming. Hence, your notion that low clouds are a “negative feedback” and high clouds are a “positive feedback” are fundamentally mistaken. In fact, it is my impression that most of the climate models predict that low clouds are a positive feedback (i.e., that there will be a decrease in low clouds with warming and hence this will produce additional warming), although this is something that Roy Spencer disputes. I am not sure what the models predict for high clouds although I believe that the general feeling is that it is the effect on low clouds that is more uncertain.
By the way, having gone back and read through your argument again, I also realize that you also seem to be completely missing a rather fundamental piece of physics in your discussion: namely, you do not seem to understand why it is said that high clouds tends to have a greater effect on the longwave radiation. The reason is that these clouds absorb radiation from the ground and then (re-)emit radiation; however, the rate of emission is governed by the temperature (i.e., it increases with temperature like T^4) and hence the higher clouds, which are colder because of their height, cause less radiation to be emitted back out into space. (It is much more useful, by the way, to consider the radiative balance between the earth-atmosphere system and space than it is to consider the radiative balance at the earth’s surface because the temperature at the surface is not fundamentally controlled by the radiative balance at the surface…Convection and evaporation / condensation play a very large role. So, a view focused solely on what is happening radiatively at the surface can lead you astray.)
Finally, I should note that just because people sometimes simplify things for the purposes of discussion does not mean that those things are actually studied in such a simplistic manner. In particular, climate scientists understand that both the thickness and the height of the clouds matter and there is a nice figure somewhere in the conference proceedings “Clouds in the Perturbed Climate System” that attempts (in a still oversimplified way) to show the radiative effect of clouds as a function of BOTH their height and thickness. So, rather than get all stressed out about the fact that you found one paper that had some simplified graph of the effect of clouds simply as a function of their height, you need to understand that it is understood that the real world is actually more complicated than that.
This all goes back to my original point that one needs to approach a field of science that you are not intimately involved in with a degree of humility rather than making arguments that seem to be based on multiple misunderstandings of some of the basic ideas.
Joel Shore says:
“As for ‘appeal to authority’:
(1) There seems to be a strange viewpoint among many on this website that because authorities are not infallible… & blah, blah, etc.”
*
The Appeal to Authority argument is false when the presumed authority is false. To test whether the appeal is false, ask whether:
1. The person is an expert in the specific field
2. The expert is identified [versus a vague “consensus”]
3. There is sufficient agreement [No: CAGW is a falsified hypothesis]
4. The person’s opinion is biased
Prof Lindzen is, in fact, an internationally esteemed authority on the climate, and therefore a true authority. [Unlike those with degrees in sociology, geology, etc.]. So it is not a false Appeal to Authority in that particular case.
#3 and #4 disqualify most presumed, self-identified authorities in climate science. Certainly the “consensus” is hyped up, fabricated, and has actually been shown to be heavily on the side of skeptical scientists [cf: OISM Petition]. Therefore, there is no agreement; no CAGW ‘consensus.’ None — no matter how red in the face the alarmist contingent gets over that fact.
To a greater or lesser degree, every scientist who is paid by outside entities with a pro-CAGW agenda is biased. Every last one of them. Some may, in fact, personally agree with the doom and gloom of CAGW, but that is not the point. The fact that large amounts of outside money is available for climate alarmists, at about a 1000:1 ratio over the minuscule funding, if that, available to skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist], shows that the system is compromised. Corrupt. Broken. FUBAR.
$2 billion a year buys plenty of biased alarmism: who pays the piper calls the tune. If anyone believes that Michael Mann’s latest $1,800,000 grant to ‘study’ mosquito vectors was not payola, raise your hand…
…I see. Well then, it’s unanimous. Everyone understands that if the grant payor had actually wanted a mosquito study, they would have gone straight to a mosquito expert; a biologist/epidemiologist. And gotten their study done for one-tenth Mann’s payola. Big Climate science is rife with similar payola [want examples? Just ask.]
So rather than appeal to a phony consensus of self-identified climate “authorities,” it would be more productive to heed George E. Smith’s last sentence above.
Well Joel, you truly are a jewel. You come as close as you can, without saying it in so many words; that I am arrogant, because I reject the works of experts in the filed who know far more than I do, and know much betetr text books than mine.
So then you tell us that; well you didn’t actually follow my argument; and so you don’t really know whether it is correct or not. And now you say that this isn’t even your field either; just some hobby interest that you dabble with in your free time.
Well so who is it that is arrogant ? Is this some new kind of National communicable disease? The State of Arizona passes a law that essentially says; whatever the Federal Statute signed into law in 1940 regarding non US citizens in America by Franklin Roosevelt; the darling of the left; as to the requirements for all legal resident non citizens to permanently carry on their persons, proof of legal residency status; to be produced on demand to any government official; that requirement shall now also be Arizona State Law.
so everybody has a conniptioon fit. President Obama calls it “misguided”; his radical activist AG Eric Holder says the justice depoartment will study the situation for Constitutionality; the Czarina od Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano; the Nation’s last line of defense, says it is a bad law. And not one of those Radical lefties has even read the law; it’s only ten pages; and does exactly nothing that Roosevelt’s Federal Law; that all three of those clowns took an oath to uphold, does not do.
So Joel criticises my Arrogant Optical analysis; which he has not followed and does not understand; yet he is sure that it isd wrong; because well all of his AGW heroes from the IPCC on down disagree with me; but he doesn’t know in what way; since he doesn’t understand my argument.
No it is not a complete theory of cloud climatology; and as Sky points out I do not adress all the heat transfer mechanisms of the atmosphere including evaporation; I didn’t intend to ; just the optical coupling issue; which doesn’t mean I ignore the issues sky raises; they just aren’t a part of this particular element.
Then of course we all know that by far the most Robust part of Climate Science and the computerized climate models the GCMs if you will, is the precision and completelness with which they address the role of clouds in climate. Yes it is not like that flaky near ground Temperature anomaly crap that Anthony has shone the spotlight on; you know the stuff that Hansen roared in front of the Congress more than 20 years ago; about all the warming that is supposed to happen by 2100; none of which (almost has yet shown up; and of course we know that CO2 has been rising inexorably at about 1.5 ppm per year, and the Temperature faithfully follows the log of the CO2, so considerably more than that 20% of Hansen’s warming, should already have occurred since the logarithmic process gradually slow down with time; so the big changes happen early. No, that part of the models is a big joke; but the cloud modelling; well that is the epitome of physical theoretical modelling; the crown jewel of climate science, and Joel’s Expert cadre.
So far be it from me to offer a simple analysis; of part of the most robust aspect of climate modelling; the treatment of clouds.
You shouldn’t have any trouble following it Joel; it is nothing more nor less than the simple optical coupling problem that is to be found in any common Opto-Coupler; well we are somewhat bipolar on that and some times we refer to them as Opto-Isolators instead.
Well actually they are supposed to Optically couple signals; either analog; or digital; while at the same time, electrically isolate two parts of a circuit.
So on one side you have an LED driven by a current signal to emit light proportional to the drive current. On the other side you have a receiving Photo-detector, that absorbs some of the light and generates a photo-current proportional to the received light. And the two are packaged in a single device separated by an electrical insulating; but light conducting medium capable of operating with perhaps 1500 -2500 Volts Electrical Potential difference between the input an output; but actually able to endure short discharge spikes of perhaps 15 to 25 kV.
So the Earth surface is the equivalent of the LED; and it is powered by the sun which heats it, so that it can emit roughly Black body thermal radiation proportional to the 4th power of the Temperature; and emit that in a Lambertian Radiation pattern.
Well of course neither the LED, nor the earth is truly a Lambertian radiator; but either one of them is so close to that; that nobody would ever bother to assume otherwise. The black body on the other hand Truly is a Lambertian radiator; but then the earth is only an approximation to that.
The photo detector is of course our cloud.
so the optical coupling problem is quite trivial; you have a circular disk uniformly emitting radiation in a Lambertian pattern from a source of radius (R1), and co-axially with that at some separation (d), you have a uniformly absoirbing disk of radius (R2); which can be greater than R1 or less; or even equal.
Well you see they are not really point sources or detectros; so you have light from any point on the LED heading off at some angle to the normal, until it strikes the photo-detector. Of course the Irradiance on the photodetector falls as Cos^4 of the off axis angle; that is pretty obvious almost by inspection.
So it’s a trivial Integral Calculus problem to solve for the coupled energy. You need to integrate over R from zero to R1, then again over R from zero to R2, and then twice more over (theta and phi) to cover the range of possible ray angles. Pretty simple actually; if you are curious, Joel you migh want to try your hand at it. Maybe Mike can give you a hand; he’s a Mathematician.
I did it over 35 years ago, in fact an Applications Engineer from Hewlett Packard, and I did it together, although I worked for a competitive company. When I say together; we both did it independently and then compared notes. The order of the integrations makes a huge difference to the difficulty of the problem Joel; so watch out that you choose the right sequence to do the four integrals. I have to fess up, that Hans selected a better order than I did, and his solution was much cleaner than mine; but then I turned the table on him; and showed him, that his solution equation; which was absolutely correct, was nevertheless, a very bad computing equation, because it had on the denominator, a difference of two nearly equal numbers, which could lead to high computation errors. I showed him how to derive a much more sanitary expression that eliminated the difference of near equal numbers, and replaced it with the sum of the same two numbers; but on the top of the expression. You’ll see that when you get that far Joel.
And then you will have an exact geometric expression for the coupling from ground to cloud, and also from cloud bacxk to ground. It’s a little different from the Optocoupler case, because one would take the diameter of the earth as infinite compared to a finite cloud size. It’s an important problem, because you want to make both the LED and the detector large in diameter compared to the spacing to increase the optical coupling. Unfortunately those two conductive surfaces also comprise a capacitor, so there is undesirable direct capacitive coupling from one side to the other; so that dictates towards small emitter and detector, and a long gap spacing; whcih you also want for high Voltage break down. Well the cloud height may affect Lightning strikes; but we can ignore that for the simple warming case.
Maybe I forgot to tell you Joel, that I am an expert on Optocoupler design and manufacturing. Started in earnest around 1970; and did it solidly for 12 years before going on to other things; but then coming back to it when I went to HP myself. Haven’t done any of that for the last decade or so; but the results fall right into use when figuring out the optics of clouds.
I somehow doubt that you will find the answer to that quadruple integral in any climate science text book Joel; not even the ones written by your AGW heroes.
But I’m not knocking them; that would be arrogant; since they are recognised as being experts on modelling of clouds.
And no Joel; I do not miss the point that at night, without the sun, the earth cools at a slower rate if there are clouds; well it cools more slowly even if there are not clouds, but a more humid atmosphere; the H2O in the atmosphere simply puts the CO2 to shame; either with or without clouds.
And if it is warmer but less humid; then those clouds will form at a higher altitude; and create the illusion that they are causing the warmer surface.
The point is Joel, from the Trenberth energy budget model, we can say that the night side cooling rate on average, in W/m^2 is only about 1/4 of the dayside peak solar input; and the resulting higher daytime surface Temperatures result in much faster cooling than the lower nightside Temperatures. In the daytime, those same clouds will also slow the cooling rate; but the sun blocking of incoming energy will outweigh any cooling slowdown. The fact is it still cools at night; cloud or no cloud.
And I’d still like to see that peer reviewed paper, that proves that the high clouds are the cause of the warmer surface Temperatures; and NOT the result of those warmer surface temperatures (along with a moisture source).
Good luck with your integral Calculus Joel; somebody on another thread said I couldn’t do integrals; so maybe you should try this one Joel.
“”” By the way, having gone back and read through your argument again, I also realize that you also seem to be completely missing a rather fundamental piece of physics in your discussion: namely, you do not seem to understand why it is said that high clouds tends to have a greater effect on the longwave radiation. The reason is that these clouds absorb radiation from the ground and then (re-)emit radiation; however, the rate of emission is governed by the temperature (i.e., it increases with temperature like T^4) and hence the higher clouds, which are colder because of their height, cause less radiation to be emitted back out into space. “””
Truly remakable reasoning you have there Joel. Yes the higher clouds are less dense; and they contain less GHG molecules; so they absorb less LWIR emitted from the GROUND, than would a lower more dense cloud.
And yes I agree completely with you; they are aslo colder; as is the atmosphere around them; whcih exchanges thermal energy with them; so because they and the atmsophere are much colder they radiate less to space (T^4). Now Joel; just where was it in your expert analysis; that you pointed out that since those high clouds are colder they also radiate much less LWIR to the ground. Don’t tell me you didn’t see that Joel ! Teh cloud/atmosphere LWIR emission is inherently isotropic; so first order, the amount of radiation emitted towards the ground is exactly the same as the amount emitted towards space; it is a 50-50 split.
But then as I have explained many times; far too many times on this forum, the spectral shift of the LWIR radiation with temperature lapse, and the narrowing of the absorption lines as temperature and density drops, favors the escape route to space, over the return trip to ground, because there can be multiple re-absorptions going either way;a dn there will be more of those coming back down, than escaping to space.
How come you missed that important physical principle Joel; that the re-radiation back down to the ground can’t be any more than the amount going upwards to space, and would seem to be considerably less. So the higher the clouds are, the less dense they are, the leass surface emission they intercept, the colder is their reradiation, and the less LWIR they return towards the ground; but even so; the higher the cloud is the hotter the ground gets with that ever diminishing (with height) returned LWIR radiation. A really excellent analysis Joel. Perhaps a little more spare time dabbling in logical reasoning, would be beneficial.
The synopsis seems to be that regardless, pretty much, of the height of the cloud standing underneath it in it’s daytime shadow will always make things cooler.
At night time there is no shadow so it feels much the same wherever you are because it’s the humidity of the air that carries heat.
Sounds reasonable to me.
George E Smith says:
I am not criticizing the calculation that you did in the sense of saying that you did it wrong. I am criticizing the conclusions that you draw from that calculation because, for the multiple reasons that I explained in my post (and perhaps some additional ones that didn’t occur to me), I don’t see the relevance of your calculation to the basic climate science question that you seem to be trying to address.
But, the whole point is that it is not particularly relevant to do radiative balance calculations for the earth’s surface when the surface temperature is not determined primarily by the radiative balance at the surface. There is a good reason why climate scientists worry about the radiative balance “at the top of the atmosphere”.
Nice strawman but I have never claimed anything close to what you say here. In fact, when I recently presented a problem on the radiative balance of the earth to my introductory physics students, I found myself saying that clouds are the Achille’s Heel of climate models…which may have been a little stronger than what I meant to say, but that’s what came out of my mouth (and, ironically, within a day after I said that, someone on this website with whom I disagree on the bigger picture used that exact same metaphor).
However, just because there is a lot that is not understood about clouds and their affect on climate change does not mean that nothing is understood. My point in bringing up Lindzen was in fact to demonstrate that someone who disagrees profoundly with the IPCC conclusions on AGW and, in particular, the treatment of clouds by the models, nonetheless does not disagree with the notion that high clouds tend to cause more warming than cooling.
As I have noted before, if you are going to argue against the consensus on AGW, it seems best for everyone if you do so by spending your time on points for which there is at least legitimate room for scientific debate rather than on issues for which there is not.
Well, sure, since the earth presents a disc of area of pi*R^2 to the sun but has a surface of area of 4*pi*R^2, it follows that the PEAK solar input in W/m^2 is about 4 times the average cooling rate. But, I fail to see the relevance.
Also, the cooling rate difference between day and night is not that dramatic. Let’s take a place where the diurnal temperature range is from 280 K to 295 K…That’s a pretty good diurnal range (27 F), probably larger than average, but the increase in radiative emission in going from 275 K to 290 K is less than 24%. And, I believe that once one gets above the boundary layer, the diurnal temperature range is sharply muted, so only the fraction of emission into space that is coming from close to the earth’s surface will show such a large variation.
Did you ever see an infrared satellite photograph? How do you think that they are imaging the clouds? They are imaging them using the fact that higher cloud tops are colder and that the radiative emission goes like T^4. The fact that high clouds absorb radiation from the warmer earth and atmosphere below and then (re-)emit less radiation because of their colder temperature causes there to be less emission back out into space. The necessary result of the radiative imbalance at the top of the earth’s atmosphere is that the system as a whole must warm.
Well Joel; or course I was being facetious; even sarcastic, when I suggested that cloud modelling is the most robust part of climate science.
Most of the literature; pro and con, would argue that it is the most poorly understood , and modelled part of climate science. Some go a bit overboard, and claim that water vapor isn’t considered in the GCMs; which of course isn’t true; but that doesn’t mean it is modelled correctly; but even IPCC fans say cloud modelling leaves a lot to be desired.
But despite that, you believe it is more fruitful for even more people to simply waste time and effort playing with standard deviations and linear trend lines, trying to find the magic set of their favorite numbers to prove that we are in a runaway warming trend.
I would think, that the prudent scientist; specially ones who seek peer recognition; would address the least understood parts. You know on an exam paper, it is always easier to get the first 20% of the available marks, than the last 20%; so one should always do the required amount of questions; even at the cost of not completing all of them. Don’t forget to tell your students that.
So a beginning Physicist should start out his career by working on gravitation; because that is well understood by the peer group, who will then appreciate his non-contributory utterances. Perish the thought he should work on something less well understood to actually make a contribution to knowledge.
So you don’t think surface emission has much to do with the radiative balance of earth’s energy.
By your own admission; you have stated that high clouds warm the planet more; and the higher the cloud, the more warming they cause. At the highest elevations, where the air density is lowest and the moisture content even lower, and other GHG molecules even less abundant; any cloud that exists there, will of course capture less and less radiation from the surface; or for that matter from re-emission from lower hotter atmosphere layers.
Now the radiant emittance from the surface is quite independent of the presence of that high cloud. If the surface is at +60 deg C during the desert day; or maybe 288 K for a ho hum general earth location; the surface emittance is quite independent of that cloud. But the amount of that LWIR radiation from the surface that is intercepted by that cloud is very much dependent on that cloud; as you have pointed out; because only something a bit more than half of that captured energy will be radiated to space; and slightly less than half; will be returned to the earth surface. With each subsequent GHG capture, a further division by two will occur.
Now the big mystery Joel; and here is where your reasoning powers would really help, is this. The surface is still emitting the same amount; but the ever higher cloud is absorbing and radiating to space, an ever diminishing amount, as cloud height increases. So what the hell happens to all the rest of that surface emitted radiation that doesn’t change with cloud height ?
Is there any chance at all Joel, that all of that surface emitted radiation that is not captured by GHG or your high cloud, simply passes on by the cloud and is lost to space, in a spectrum that is characteristic of the hotter surface temperature ? I’m sure the laws of Physics won’t simply allow that energy to simply vanish; isn’t that the first or zeroth law.
I’m trying hard to understand how a cloud that intercepts an ever diminishing amount of radiant energy, and reradiates to space about half of it, somehow prevents the rest of the non-captured energy from escaping.
Yes I know radiation is not the only cooling mechanism so don’t go there; but it is the final cooling mechanism since we don’t have many convective or conductive paths to the rest of the Universe. But if you think that somehow the earth cools by suddenly having some stratospheric layer of the atmosphere; where mean free paths and times exceed the lifetime of excited states, so that GHGs start to spontaneously decay; and in some supernova of radiant emission they dump the earth’s extra heat to space; somehow that doesn’t work.
The hottest desert surfaces at Temperatures of +60 deg C or higher; are the most efficient radiating bodies that are ridding the planet of it’s excess thermal energy. And they do so at spectrally shifted wavelengths where the influence of GHG like CO2 are somewhat diminished compared to 288 K average radiating surfaces.
Given the poor state of cloud modelling results; it seems to me that is where useful advances can be made.
You know Optics (geometrical) is one branch of Physics where it is hardest to make new progress, since the art goes back hundreds of years.
I once had to defend the Federal Government of the USA; specifically the Department of the Army, and the US Post Office, as an optical expert witness on a patent infringement lawsuit. I actually found pertinent prior art going back to the region around 1610; 400 years ago; some guy by the name of Johannes Keppler; later there was a newcomer by the name of Huygens who discovered some new stuff around 1700; only 310 years ago.
The late Warren J. Smith; a true giant in Optical theory and design; once told me, that it was his opinion that there were virtually NO valid lens design patents in the US patent office; because there was so much prior art; stuff so ancient that no newcomer would find anything new to discover in that field.
When Moses descended from Mt Sainai, with the ten commandments he actually had another tablet with some facts of Optical design enscribed on it.
One of those ancient truths was the fact that for a spherical imaging surface; reflector or refractive; there are only three cases of a spherical surface forming an extended image having zero spherical aberration. In every other situation, a spherical surface produces spherical aberration; which is why many astronomical telescopes employ parabolic mirrors for imaging of stars.
All three of those magic situations also have zero coma for off axis images; so they are also Aplanatic; the only three cases of Aplanatism for a single spherical surface. Two of the three also produce zero astigmatism, so they are Anastigmatic as well as Aplanatic.
One of the three is a trivial degenerate case; the object and image coincide on the surface itself; so it actually produces no Optical image magnification at all, and is usually avoided since images coincident with surfaces will inevitably be contaminated by dust or scratches on the surface, which will be painfully obvious to an observer. No matter, I have seen useful applications for that configuration; even used them. That case does contribute to the Petzval Sum, which is a fundamental Optical property that is important in every lens design and even for things as exotic as the magnetic lenses of the Large Hadron Collider. Well they may refer to it as “strong focussing”, but it is simply Petzval sum control.
The object and image, can also be coincident at the center of curvature of the surface of an immersion lens; where the object is inside the lens material. This case is Aplanatic; but not Anastigmatic; in fact it produces the maximum amount of astigmatism for s single spherical surface. It has a lateral magnification (angular) equal to the refractive index; but it is a very dangerous case; to be avoided; as many in the early LED display field discovered to their dismay. The spherical surface is also image forming as a partial reflector and the image is once again coincident with the object at the center of the sphere, and also with the refractive image. Problem is the reflected image has unity magnification; so you get a ghost image coincident with the magnified image and maybe 4% of its intensity for ordinary uncoated lenses. Looks really bad in a magnified LED display to have a 2/3 size ghost image superimposed on the desired image, and in sharp focus also.
So the only truly useful of the three cases is the so-called Aplanatic or Weierstrass Sphere lens; where the object is immersed in the lens material at a depth of R/n beyond the center of the surface of radius R. It is completely Aplanatic, and Anastigmatic, and it can focus a complete hemisphere of 2 pi steradians of rays from a point source, into a diffraction limited geometrically perfect point image which is outside the lens at a distance of n.R from the center of the sphere. The angular lateral magnification is n^2 or an areal magnification of n^4, and the image is also perfectly Lambertian from zero degrees out to an angle of arcsin (1/n); where it sudenly plunges to zero beyond that angle. All rays originating from a concentric sphere of radius R/n, which pass through the R/n sphere on their way to the surface emerge from the lens as if they came from the n.R Sphere that is also concentric with the lens.
It is the cornerstone for high power microscope immerison objective lens design.
So you’ll probaly find all three of those unique cases in whatever favorite optical text books you use; even the ones used by those experts that are a lot smarter than me, and know better books.
What you won’t find in any of those texts; by any of those super authors or in peer reviewed papers going back to Galileo; is the totally unknown fourth configuration of perfect diffraction limited Aplanatic/Anastigmatic imaging by a spherical surface. You won’t find it in any of those text books because it isn’t in any of them.
You could check the US Patent office to see if you can find any mention of it. The Patent office is sort of the Industrial Peer review process that reiews and passes muster on the works of actual working scientists and engineers. Whereas Academics must publish or perish; the working stiff must patent or perish; given that patents allow businesses and others to profit from their research results; which fortunately provides for the gainful employment of many people, besides those inventors.
If I’m not mistaken; you might find, a US patent # 7,495,837 granted on Feb 24, 2009 to a George E. Smith; who discovered that new fourth case of Aplanatic refraction by a perfect sphere.
No not the 2009 Physics Nobel Prize winner; he didn’t discover it; it was that arrogant know it all, that wastes our time on WUWT.
If you own one of the correct models of Logitech laser mice, you might even have one of those new refractive surfaces in your mouse; since it actually does useful things. Well it actually is combined with a unique ellipsoidal surface to expand the divergence angle of a VCSEL, laser, then colimate it to a perfect diffraction limited Gaussian beam; and in the process bend the beam by maybe 30 degrees from its original direction, so a surface mounted laser can throw a colimated Gaussian beam off at an angle to illuminate objects on the mousing surface.
No sorry; it isn’t any use in determining whether high clouds warm surfaces, and the higher the cloud the more the warming; or whether those warmer surfaces are the sole reason that the cloud is there at all.
So you see Joel; sometimes it is possible for amateur tinkerers like you for example to discover useful things that were not known to even the most respected and learned Academic practioners; or generations of such, going back centuries.
So keep tinkering Joel; it might be you who discovers the correct trend slope for the global mean lower tropospheric Temperature anomalies, and the correct standard deviation to use to prove that AGW is an acknowledged fact of science.
But be careful who you call arrogant; it might come back to bite you someday.
Hopefully some for those mushheads, whose parents entrusted their children to you; actually survive the experience, and maybe learn something along the way; it could help them out, a half a century down the road.
George E Smith says:
Good question. My guess would be that it goes into warming the IR-active layers (including the high cloud layers, but also the other absorbing layers).
Believe it or not, I’ve actually spent most of my career so far in industry too and, for what it’s worth, have several patents to show for it. The transition to academia is just something that happened to me in the last year. And, in fact, you and I weren’t working in areas that are too far afield from each other. (I did much of my work in the area of OLED.)
Congratulations on the patent. It sounds very interesting. My point about “arrogance” that you seem to have taken a bit of offense at is not any statement about whether or not you are very knowledgeable in the fields that you have worked in. My point is simply that when you come into a new field like climate science with the idea that the people in that field don’t know what the heck they are doing and you don’t really study up on the field but instead just read a small amount of the literature and immediately jump to the conclusion that the people in the field are idiots whenever you encounter something doesn’t make sense to you, then such an approach would tend to lead anybody, even very smart people, to make rather elementary mistakes. The fact is that in modern science the collected wisdom of many people is usually greater than the wisdom of one person who has not benefited from that collected wisdom (because they haven’t familiarized themselves with the literature and basic underlying concepts). There may be exceptions to this for people who are just incredibly brilliant, but I think few of us can claim that.
I’m not against questioning the prevailing wisdom in the field. In fact, my thesis was based (on a small scale) on my advisor and I coming into a small subfield that we hadn’t been working in and challenging part of the conventional wisdom in that subfield. However, we did that only after carefully reading a lot of the literature in the field and really working hard to show an example of where the conventional wisdom was wrong.
I am all for challenging conventional wisdom…but it has to be done with enough respect accorded to truly understanding the conventional wisdom first … and not jumping to the conclusion that it is wrong whenever you encounter an aspect of it that doesn’t seem to make sense to you.
“”” Joel Shore says:
June 2, 2010 at 6:11 pm
George E Smith says:
Now the big mystery Joel; and here is where your reasoning powers would really help, is this. The surface is still emitting the same amount; but the ever higher cloud is absorbing and radiating to space, an ever diminishing amount, as cloud height increases. So what the hell happens to all the rest of that surface emitted radiation that doesn’t change with cloud height ?
Good question. My guess would be that it goes into warming the IR-active layers (including the high cloud layers, but also the other absorbing layers). “””
Come now Joel; aren’t you grasping at straws ? I’m quite sure that you are smarter than that.
Let’s just step back; and see where we are with this specific issue.
We both agree that GHG of all kinds, including H2O and CO2 do absorb LWIR radiation that originates from the surface; BUT also from any lower layers of air that already caught some. By the way; I pretty much ignore all the other GHGs as not really mattering if we can get past the CO2/H2O issue. But I reserve a special place for Ozone, since it is uniquely placed in a thin high layer; and it falls right in “the atmospheric window”, and apaprently we need it any way.
So cloud or no cloud, GHGs are absorbing LWIR and THEREFORE warming the atmosphere, basically by molecular collisions that happen too fast for spontaneous re-emission (from the GHG) to occur. I don’t think we differ much on this concept.
Then it is a somewhat undisputed experimental observation tht arid deserts that are at record high surface Temperatures during the day; cool extremely rapidly; precipitously so, after sunset. (absent clouds of course). To me this is pretty indisputable proof, that CO2 is quite ineffectual in blocking enough LWIR emitted from hot surfaces, to do much surface warming by either the trapping or the re-radiation downwards. And of course I believe this is so because of the Wien shift to a shorter (8.8 microns) spectral peak wavelength for the LWIR spectrum. Even though this is right on the Ozone hole (spectral); even the Ozone can’t be doing much surface heating.
Now add in the H2O in a hot but not so arid situation (still sans clouds); and the observation is that it stays warmer longer; the cooling rate slows down; fairly establishing that H2O truly is a powerful GHG with a lot of warming potential. Note also that this same H2O during daylight hours intercepts quite a significant amount of energy out of the incoming sunlight in the 0.75-3-4 micron range; perhaps as much as 20% of the solar energy. Now this adds heating to the atmosphere; but it keeps that insolation off the surface and so cools the surface; so this is a negative feedback aspect of H2O as it relates to solar spectrum radiation of the surface. But the resultant atmospheric warming by the H2O is not really different from any other kind of atmospheric warmign from any GHG absorption of surface LWIR; it simply warms the atmosphere, and then that warmer atmosphere (by any means) sends increased LWIR re-emission from the atmospheric gases (and characteristic of THEIR Temperature; back to the surface; and of course about half of any such emission directed outwards rather than inwards; and the downward emissions then warm the surface and cause increased evaporation (since 70+ % of the surface is oceans. And in particular, I believe that this atmospheric warming of the surface; strongly results in evaporation since it is absorbed in the top ten microns of the surface (waters). But in any case this is arguably a positive feedback since the atmospheric warming (by any means either H2O or CO2) leads to further H2O in the atmosphere. This is the much loved “positive water feedback enhancement of CO2 heating.” Well you see that happens without any need for CO2; and the arid desert observation demonstrates pretty conclusively that CO2 sucks compared to H2O when it comes to GHG warming of the atmosphere.
Wentz et al support the surface temp rise to evap conversion at a rate of 7% evap increase per one deg C surface temp rise.
There is the additional fact that evaporation also transports a lot of surface (water) heat into the atmosphere (to great heights); which is a surface cooling effect. Trenberth doesn’t assign a very large amount to this effect. he says 78 W/m^2 versus 390 for the BB surface LWIR radiation. I have no reason to dispute those numbers; as to their relative amounts; I don’t like his methodology though. Teh Gaianian Language does not contain words like ‘average’, ‘trend’, ‘standard deviation’ etc. Gaia does NOT do statistical mathematics. Gaia’s Mantra is:- “What happens next, starts now !” but enough of that; Trenberth seems to be saying that evap at 78 isn’t much alongside 390 for radiation; and even less at 24, is ‘thermals’; aka conduction/convection.
I have no quarrels with that. I’ve always believed that conduction sucks compared to convection; and even moreso compared to evaporation. All of my computer microprocessors have evaporative heat pipe cooling sinks.
So according to Trenberth; conduction/convection/evaporation accounts for only 20% of surface cooling; 102 W/m^2 : 390 W/m^2. That pretty much sums up why I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to those other heat processes; since radiation is still 80% of the game. But the fact that I don’t pay a lot of attention to those doesn’t mean I ignore them. The radiation cooling is still the 800 pound gorilla that has to be dealt with.
I’m not sure you and I are in much disagreement WRT the above.
Where I disagree with Trenberth, is in the whole concept of averaging all this stuff out. If you look at his cartoon drawing he manages to find a way to claim that out of a grand total of 235 W/m^2 outgoing LWIR , THROUGH the top of the atmosphere; ONLY 40 w/m^2 exits DIRECTLY from the surface via the atmospheric window in the 8-12 micron region. Oddly; and presumably deliberately; Trenberth draws that 40 Watt trail right through the biggest cloud in the sky; presumably implying that it is of course spectrally in the water window; AND IT IS PASSING OUT THROUGH THE CLOUDS.
Joel; that is simply insane. The Peak Spectral Emittance of BB radiation is given by:-
W(lambdamax) = 1.288 E-11 . T^5 W/m^2/micron
At 288 K, that comes to 25.5 W/m^2/micron and the water window is reasonably open from about 8 to 12 microns; so that would give something like 100 W/m^2 going right out through the atmosphere (sans clouds). I actually don’t have a problem with believeing that something like 40 goes out right through (non-precipitating) clouds; but that is in addition to something like 100 simply bypassing the clouds and the GHGs.
But now if you go to a hot desert surface; well lets not be greedy; we’ll limit it to +50 deg C; although they can get much higher than that; so that is 323 K. Now the spectral peak has moved from 10.1 microns down to 9.0 microns. But the peak Spectral emittance has gone up to 45.3 W/m^2/micron; and that peak has moved into a better position in the window; and 4 microns of bandwidth now gives 181 W/m^2 direct escape to space sans clouds; along with maybe 45.3/25.5 8 40 = 71 W/m^2 through the clouds.
It’s the averaging; that Gaia does NOT do, that is gumming up the works.
Anyway; I don’t diss the folks who ares till repeating all the old fashioned measurements and hoping to find a different result. I don’t have any confidence in the anomaly methodology; since it still relies on a baseline, that itself is unmeasureable. And the there’s that OOoops! at around 1980 that Christy et al reported on in Jan 2001; that effectively black flags all the previous surface (ocean) measurements.
In the end; I don’t think it matters since I firmly believe that nothing more than simple cloud modulation is regulating the whole thing in a quite stable feedback loop.
Thanks for the comment on the patent thing; I’ve lost count of how many there are; but that one sort of grips me. Conrady gave an exact (geometrical) expression for Longitudinal Spherical Aberration’ and showed that it is zero for only the three conditions that are well known. Amazingly; what neither he; nor anybody else before or since discovered; was that his third solution; which is the useful Aplanatic or Weierstrass sphere; itself has two solutions. The one everybody knows about being the hyperhemispherical converging lens; but they all missed that if you reverse the refractive indices; you get a hollow concave hyper-hemisphere (well you can only mold the hemisphere part) that expands the beam angle perfectly (in the geometric approximation). We used it to increase a laser divergence angle which increases the expansion rate so you reach a beam diameter in a shorter more compact length and then a special ellipsoidal second surface perfectly colimates the beam (geometrically). Since both surfaces work at any beam angle size; you can then go off center with a smaller beam angle; and get a deflection of the principal ray at each surface. If you make the deflection equal at each surface you set up the minimum deviation prism condition; which makes the total deviation a minimum and stable against small angular rotations of the optical element. So it is highly tolerant of assembly tolerances.
Interesting that you worked in OLED. The small Sony one I have seen is spectacular. I have wondered about the chemical stability of OLED from contamination; but then LCDs had that problem in spades; and they have largely overcome that so it is a non issue. Probably will happen with OLED as well.
You need to think a bit more openly about the options Joel; the standard model sin’t too darn robust; none of the projections are happening on schedule.
I’ m with Lindzen; whatever is happening is of no consequence; a storm in a teacup.
Take care Joel.