Pielke Sr. on new Spencer and Braswell paper

“Brian H says:
July 26, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Negative feedbacks RULE!”
Yes they do. Earth system processes are ruled by the Second Law through Maximum Entropy Production (MEP). Forget about those simple First Law energy budgets, these will tell you nothing about the direction and speed of the processes, and have nothing to do with established temperatures. MEP seems to be the rule for all nonlinear fluid systems with entropy production due to turbulent dissipation (atmosphere and ocean) with many degrees of freedom in a steady state (from equilibrium).
Enjoy reading the next papers:
Nonequilibrium
thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE SYSTEM
Titan, Mars and Earth :
Entropy Production by Latitudinal Heat Transport
Also MEP is part of Miscolczi’s theory, the conversion of SWR to LWR proceeds following MEP (see 4.2.1) .
MEP is the auto feedback in earth thermodynamic processes.

Short term analysis like this is fraught with issues, not the least of which are the varying thermal inertia of different components of the climate (very little time for response) and the seasonal cycle. They only measure the very fastest climate response, not slower changes (ocean temperature, vegetation/ice albedo, and the like).
I find the short term (months) estimates unreliable as a result – paleo estimates and those based on data such as the 11 year solar cycle are (IMO) rather more trustworthy. And those all come out to about 3C/doubling of CO2…

As Dr. Nahle has again proved that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exist, maybe you should go back to ground zero and take out all references to “greenhouse gases” and maybe you might start to get something right!
The Experiment that Failed and can save the World trillions.
Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
By Berthold Klein P.E November 16, 2010 revision 11-19-2010 REVISED STARTING JULY 4,2011
PREAMBLE: After hearing from a Ph. D in mechanical engineering and a teacher of environmental studies that they could not follow this experiment it is necessary to rewrite this experiment. It is necessary that anyone that can read to be able to understand this experiment and what it means. I made a mistake in the first edition as it is created as I thought about it and did the experiment. This edition is for everyone -the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control and the Ph. D in social studies or science.
I have been communicating with some ordinary people and some Ph. D’s and I realize that my mission is a “Mission Impossible” being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend and that having a Ph. D means that their ego and arrogance will get in the way of comprehension. I will do my best with the help of those that edit the new version , so here goes.
Before this is released it will have been reviewed and edited by knowledge individuals most will have minimal science education but do understand that the “Greenhouse Gas effect” does not exist.
There are several words or terms used in this revision that need some explanation:
IR= infrared radiation is a form of radiation(invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sun light and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature.
IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of radiation (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR , there construction will not allow them to absorb the IR, they may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRags. The words “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary.
Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth’s fortunate location in the universe ,it’s temperature varies from a low of-90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water can change from a gas at all temperature ,to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above,and a solid below 32 F.(0 C). Many people who pretend to be scientists choose to ignore these facts and call Water/l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” As we go through this experiment it will become clearer why this is bad science.
CO2= a gas that is breathed out by every living mammal and most other living creature,it is absorbed by plants and algae and is them converted back to oxygen which we need to live. Most process that produce mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2( carbon dioxide) A very important and necessary part of live on this planets.
CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes ,cook food and run engines as cars,buses and trucks,etc .It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air(atmosphere) at very tiny amounts.( part per billion) While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone(O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight.(this reaction is documented by a paper in the EPA library) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. Its from swamps,rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leave piles etc. It is a part of natures process of recycling.
NO2= a gas formed by nature when there is lightening. It is also formed in any high temperature burning including engines. The gas is washed out of the atmosphere in every rainstorm. It is used by plants, and is very necessary for their growth.
To demonstrate if the “greenhouse gas effect exists it is necessary to define it.
The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases including
Water/vapor/liquid/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” A term developed by a renowned physicist as a theoretical way to compare radiation. There are only a few materials and conditions that approach these theoretical properties. (The earth and its atmosphere is not one of them.).
How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRag’s absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect”
as has been said the truth is in the details therefore anyone that wants to get into more of the details,please join in.
As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” lets start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor,solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRag’s as CO2 ,Ch4,NO2 and others gases -the IRag’s will be dealt with first.
Critical features:
1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”.Thus CO2 is supposed to be from 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ and CH4 (methane) is 1000 times that of CO2 Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a IR spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).This is a very important feature of the “ghg effect”
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the temperature of the Earth and “global atmospheric temperature will also increase.
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
7. Where does this lead?
We all know that the “greenhouse” effect exist. Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day.(summer or winter). Has walked into a store with south facing window , its temperature will be much higher than a car ,or window in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating- this was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955.
What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ”greenhouse gas effect exists.
All the AGW point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models. The problem with “computer models” is that unless all the factors that effect the atmosphere are included into the program it is “garbage in is garbage out”. When this is tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors. Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To data no one has come up with the “right model” More than 20 different “models of weather /climate program have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now ,let alone a hundred years from now.
Using the list of “critical factor” lets see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist.
To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today. In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “scale models”” or models with similar factors that can be either up sized or down sized. That are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events. That generate data that can be compared to known conditions or events.
As the amount of heating that is supposed to be added by the “greenhouse gas effect” is on the order of fractions of a degree per year-( some claim the change to be 1 to 3 degrees/ year) we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does demonstrate the effect then the Concept does exist. If the concept does works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached. However if the concepts does not work at High Concentrations of IRags then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud.
Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million( 1×10+6) . Another way to put it is if there are 1 million soldiers in the army and only one has a gun ,he better have a lot of bullets if he is going to defend the country. The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. If the effect exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate that “back radiation” Is causing a heating effect on the earth. .
Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2,thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4 ,the effect should be 57500 time stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 time more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 X the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere
As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB ( 2 X 10 -9)in the atmosphere , a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.
. Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.
The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove. Now 100 % CO2 is available for several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any Paint ball supply store, another is from a supplier of Dry ice. Do not use Alka Seltzer as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.
The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable.
How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that contained the IRags is glass containers then they measures the increase in temperature of the gas which had increased, they claimed this increase was do to the “ghg”effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was do to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. ( A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request). Another failure of these tests were their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating)
The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter(major diameter) were chosen. If you want you can use larger ones to contain larger numbers of IRag molecules.
Now lets discuss the experiment.
1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags ,and one with dry air as a control.
2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade.
3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data.
4. Take a large black mate board or a large black cloth or sheet and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature as it raises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5.
5. Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially. Record the temperature.
6. Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows” of the balloons.
Now lets repeat the Critical factors and note the result of my test to the critical factor.
Critical features:
1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer. The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface. The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below)inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. The balloons did not warn any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the Bohr Model.
4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed) As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1
cost about $60.00. many other models available.
I have thought about several refinements, but it would not change the bottom line that the “ghg effect” is a fairy-tale.
I’m sure that the AGW’s will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.
As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was place one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.
Now lets talk about water( H2O/lvs):
Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. Of course tomorrow it may be sunny and clear. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change. Now the “climate” has not changed for the last 300 years just ask the Indians.
Any way lets look a H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it ‘s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy( Heat of condensation), if the general air temperature is low enough ( below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.
This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” can not get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non are correct.
Now lets add the next variable- solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon , the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors ) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am when there is measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.
There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation have an effect on cloud formation,this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.
There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”
The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.
Mann-made global warming is a hoax,because the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy -tale.
Berthold Klein P.E.
November 19, 2010
List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
I am in the process of editing the text so it is more understandable And adding two more balloons for O2 and N2 but in it current text it should be usable.

Jeremy says; “We know this doesn’t happen!!!!!!!!!!”
And so too does climate science. A doubling of CO2 is predicted, with feedbacks, to cause around 3C warming. That’s it! Not “runaway” global warming. You can’t just wave your hands at it, you have to run the numbers and that is what they say.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
As I’ve been trying to say for quite some time there is no significant GHG warming over the ocean. The physical properties of water don’t permit it. You can’t slow down the rate of heat loss in a body of water by shining long wave infrared light on it from above. The effect only happens over land. It comes as no surprise to me at all there’s a large discrepancy between GCM predictions of surface temperature and actual measured temperatures but the discrepancy is only over the ocean. The GHG physics only work over land. Any model that doesn’t take this into account is going to overestimate global temperature rise in response to GHG increase by a factor of 3. The average model prediction is around 2.4C per doubling. The actual rise if it only occurs over land would be 0.8C per doubling. The measured response is about 0.7C. Hansen et al is off on a wild goose chase looking for the “missing heat” in the deep ocean when in fact it never entered the ocean in the first place. It was rejected at the surface and carried away in latent heat of vaporization. He needs to turn his gaze upward looking for that missing heat not downard.

steven mosher said July 26, 2011 at 3:04 pm:

For people who like this paper.
1. You accept Hadcrut? even on short scales ( which add up to long scales)
2. You accept averaging temperatures over great distances?
3. You accept the notion of a global mean temperature
4. You accept the physics MODELS that are used to produce satellite data products. Ya, that’s right satellite data is heavily processed. ( with AGW approved physics models)
Accepting those 4 kinda puts you in the Lukewarmer camp. Also, you will note that the low senstivity models did much better than high sensitivity. What’s that tell you?

Actually I don’t have a problem with pointing out when and how the (C)AGW-pushers own data doesn’t support their claims. Saves the additional headaches of defending better data sources as well as the conclusions. And your post, with its similarities to other recent strident posts you’ve made, tell me you could likely benefit from having more fiber in your diet. 😉

hagendl and Richard Verney,
Just a reference to
a paper that investigated solar-, lunar- and earth orbital cycles signals on Earth’s latitudinal insolation / temperature gradient. The authors conclude that: LTG sensitivity to LIG can be explained by Maximum Entropy Production theory, but this hypersensitivity appears poorly reproduced in climate models.
They also did a paper on glacial-interglacial cycles based on the latitudinal insolation gradient (LIG), and conclude: that LIG forcing of the LTG explains many criticisms of classic Milankovitch theory.
These papers strengthen MEP papers that suggest MEP as a possible explanation for the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

John B says:
July 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it is nonsense. CO2 and other greenhouse gases d o not retain the heat, they re-radiate it.
—————————————————————————————
Whatever amount it could “re-radiate” would also be meaningless. It can’t radiate more than it’s mass affords as well. Tiny mass = tiny energy potential = tiny energy potential means little energy is absorbed = Little energy available to be transferred.
A warm drop in a cold ocean does “heat” it. But it also like the affects of co2 on it can’t be measured.
AGW is non-sense and violates basic physics, because you have been misinformed about VERY basic physics makes you wrong.
P.S. Yeah, I’ll check wiki. 😉

steven mosher says:
July 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Stanb999
Start here:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
I’m fully aware of the GW hypothesis.
My issue with it is the atmosphere simply doesn’t have the mass to retain much heat. It can “re-radiate” it all it wants as I said above it’s a “wash”.
The radiation like all energy transferred from one place to another is limited by simple physics.
1. A molecule in a lower state can’t excite one at a higher state to a higher state. Do you disagree with this?
2. More collisions cause atrophy. The “energy” we are discussing is heat and as stated above heat can’t move from cold to warm. Heat is the measured result of excited molecules. An “energetic” particle moving from a cool molecule to a warm one will diminish the energy of the more energetic one. To put it in more simple terms…
You have two bowling balls. One moving at 100 KPH and one moving at 50 KPH (in the same direction for illustration). What GW is suggesting that when the 100 KPH ball runs into the ball going 50 KPH the energy is transfered from the 50 KPH ball to the 100 KPH ball making a total of 150KPH of traveling energy.. Then “energy” retained in the balls is the same as it was prior due to it’s continued existence. When in reality both balls are now traveling at the same speed. So the two molecules are the same “temperature” AKA. 75KPH. You lost speed so you lost energy. Dithering about where the energy from the ball going 50KPH ended up is moot. Down, up, or sideways.
3. Adding more bowling balls “GHG”…. increase collisions thus the rate of atrophy.. Temperature fall is increased. True, more energy moves higher in the atmosphere…. But with less total energy.

Don’t get excited, this will be ignored.

steven mosher-“1. You accept Hadcrut? even on short scales ( which add up to long scales)”
On short timescales certainly (all data sources show that the short term wiggles occur, although their magnitude is larger in the troposphere) issues with any of these datasets are mostly matters of long term trend estimates. Over the oceans we have satellites that measure the SSTs in recent years, and these are probably pretty good.
“2. You accept averaging temperatures over great distances?”
For what purpose? This is a vague statement, personally I prefer if we preserve the spatial structure as it may be informative but for the purposes of the radiative budget we want that closed, so the whole Earth makes sense.
“3. You accept the notion of a global mean temperature”
Arguendo, sure. The question here is, how does this measure really relate to the energy flow? What Roy has shown is that there is a relationship, so there is some thermodynamic meaning to the “average temperature”. That doesn’t make it the best way to measure actual heat, and it remains the case that it is a poor measure of such.
“4. You accept the physics MODELS that are used to produce satillite data products.”
A Physics model (whatever “AGW approved” means…) presumably meaning based on fairly basic physics (and herein I should make it clear I consider GHE as included under “basic physics”) which you seem to want to use innuendo to connect to GCMs to the analysis of satellite data. Not gonna let you get a way with that 😉 they are two different things.
“Accepting those 4 kinda puts you in the Lukewarmer camp.”
Kinda is pretty vague. One can surely accept your points and believe in too little AGW (ie very low sensitivity) to really qualify as a “lukewarmer”…This group gets more vaguely defined by the day. This is why although I sympathize greatly with many people who consider themselves “lukewarmers” and agree with many things that at least some of them say, I would never be so presumptuous as to declare myself in said group, and I cringe whenever someone calls themselves a member of said group, as I often wonder how closely their views really align with others going around using the term.
“Also, you will note that the low senstivity models did much better than high sensitivity. What’s that tell you?”
“Much” is something of an over statement. in fact, both the least sensitive models and most sensitive models are actually quite distant from the data (look at the figures!) I don’t want to jump to conclusions but I would argue that this is probably strong evidence that the sensitivity of the models is too high. My own analysis of the satellite data suggest that the sensitivity is less than 1 K for a doubling of CO2 (forcing of 3.7 W/m^2). From what I hear this is too low to make me a “lukewarmer”, maybe a full-blown d-word.