While we are marveling at the recent revelation out of Serbia that shows a connection between cosmic rays, clouds and temperature, our own volunteer moderator, Roger (Tallbloke) noticed and collated some comments from Bill Illis which are well worth repeating here. Thanks Rog for catching this while I was otherwise engaged. I repeat his post here, which consists of a WUWT comment, but be sure to bookmark Tallbloke’s Talkshop
Over on the Spencer Good, Bad and Ugly response to Dessler 2011 thread on WUWT, Bill Illis quietly drops this little bombshell:
While we are having no luck finding a good correlation between clouds and temperatures in a feedback sense (the scatters are providing r^2 of 0.02) which indicates there is probably NO cloud feedback either way (and the IPCC calculates that positive cloud feedback might be half of the total feedbacks so that is very clearly in question now) …
There is a very interesting relationship between the Net Cloud Radiation levels and the Total Global Net Radiation as measured by the CERES satellite (which I don’t think anyone has looked yet being busy trying to find the temperature feedbacks).
I’m getting Cloud variability being a very large part of the variability in the total Global Net Radiation Budget – anywhere from 65% to 100% (with R^2 between 0.29 and 0.77).
First the (not really convincing but better) scatter using the CERES data (that Steve McIntyre and Roy Spencer made available).
And then the (much, much better) relationship over time.
And then the versions of the data that Dessler provided (where adjustments where made according to the ERA reanalysis dataset which some think is actually a little more accurate). 100% of Net Radiation governed by Clouds with R^2 at 0.77 .
And then over time, a really tight relationship.
So, do Cloud Variations affect the Earth’s Energy Budget? – the title of Dessler’s new paper – His own data says: holy moley!
DirkH says:
September 12, 2011 at 7:14 am
LazyTeenager says:……
“Let me see if I have this correct. You take a quantity x – nearlyconstant and plot it against x and you get a gradient very close to 1.00 and a very high correlation coefficient.
>…The fact that the variation in Cloud Net Radiation does not only correlate, but is close to identical to the variation in Total Net Radiation means that THERE IS NO OTHER major influencing factor. Clouds modulate the radiation; little else does.
++++++++
Recall that cloud condensation nuclei interact with higher frequency radiation prior to growing large enough to interact with visible light.
I am adding that if you looked for Net Cloud Radiation and if the number of small particles is large because of their being created by a burst of incoming GCR, the correlation might be even better. As I understand it, the NCR and TCR measure different spectra, the NCR being a sub-set of the TCR so the correlation can’t be perfect.
What UVsees as a ‘cloud’ is invisible to the naked eye. But it is there, (re)radiant in all its glory.
RE: davidmhoffer: (September 11, 2011 at 9:34 pm)
“No. It is more like saying that the foot-pressure on the gas pedal, and hence the rate of gasoline flow into the engine, accounts for MOST of the variability on the speed of the car.”
Actually, I left out any mention of ‘speed’ as the imaginary car might not be in gear. The point I was trying to make was that while cloud variation does account for most of the variability in net radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere, *some* of that variation is thought to be caused by the rate of ionizing radiation, such as cosmic rays, penetrating our atmosphere.
Thus, I think, to properly evaluate the role of this radiation as a climate driver, one should compare the cloud formation potential of this radiation with other factors affecting the formation of clouds.
Clouds contribute to cooling by two mechanisms. First, they reflect incoming solar radiation back out to space and second, they often are indicators of an ongoing convective process that is bringing warm air from the surface up to high altitudes, where thermal radiation from H2O and H2O molecular aggregates (water/ice) can escape to outer space.
I have just read two very interesting article about the supposed greenhouse affect. The first describes the philosophy of the study relative to current thinking. The second article is the mathematical development of the theory. I can follow the logic and physics, but at my age, the math makes my head ache. I would greatly appreciate if one of you younger folks would look and critique the article.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Dick G
Almost all of the confusion expressed in this blog comes from the lack of clarity and specificity of understanding of the four terms: Heat, Energy, Radiation, and Temperature. The terms apply individually to very different things. They can be related but what that relationship is, is very much conditioned by the specific details of the system being discussed – ie. CONTEXT. I suggest for those who are confused, get grounded on the actual physical meaning of these four terms AND the actual physical context to which they are to be applied. Then and only then will the comments you make be distinguishable from total nonsense.
The AGW fraud exists BECAUSE there is wide spread ignorance about what Heat, Energy, Radiation, and Temperature actually are and how one can properly apply and interrelate them. The tendency is to drop context, equate the terms sometimes, emphasize their differences when it is conventional to do so, and embed the discussion in self serving techno babble that is devoid of reality based content or context.
Spector says:
September 12, 2011 at 8:27 am
RE: davidmhoffer: (September 11, 2011 at 9:34 pm)
“No. It is more like saying that the foot-pressure on the gas pedal, and hence the rate of gasoline flow into the engine, accounts for MOST of the variability on the speed of the car.”>>>
Actually, I left out any mention of ‘speed’ as the imaginary car might not be in gear.>>>
And I added the concept of speed in order to make the analogy meaningful.
Spector says:
Clouds contribute to cooling by two mechanisms. First, they reflect incoming solar radiation back out to space and second, they often are indicators of an ongoing convective process…>>>
You claim TWO mechanisms, but then you list ONE mechanism and one INDICATOR.
Clouds are just resistors. They resist incoming solar radiation from getting to earth surface, and they resist outgoing longwave radiation from earth escaping to space. In situations where they resist more in coming than out going, they have a net cooling effect. In situations where they resist more out going than in coming, they have a net warming effect (in both cases, as compared to there being no clouds at all). The following are all examples that you need little science background to understand and you can find data to support these examples from thousands upon thousands of temperature records, not to mention millions… nay billions… of people who will tell you these are correct from personal experience:
1. On a hot day, in coming cloud has a cooling effect… in the day time.
2. But on that same day, if there is cloud at night, temps will cool off only a little. If there is no cloud, temps drop dramaticaly. Happens every freaking day in the desert.
3. Change the day to a cold one. Say, intead of mid summer, mid winter at a high latitude. Cloud cover results in warmer temps during day AND night. Why? Because at high latitude in winter, there’s diddly squat for solar radiation coming in even at mid day, and only for a few hours. The amount of outgoing longwave from the earth surface becomes much more significant. So clouds result in warmer temps during the day AND during the night.
Ask any farm boy from a high latitude why he hates clear blue skies in the middle of January. He’ll tell you why. He’s got to get up at 6:00AM to feed the cattle before going to school and it is -30C or worse outside, he doesn’t even have to look at the thermometer to know that. Ask that same farm boy why he rushes to get the cattle fed first thing in the morning in mid July when there is a clear blue sky. Why not sleep in a couple of hours, there’s no school in July… He’ll tell you why you silly city slicker. First of all, the cattle are hungry. Second of all the temps are going to hit +30C or higher by noon. Best to start tossing those 80 pound hay bales over that 8 foot fence while the temp is still only +18C.
Regards,
ex-farm boy
DirkH (September 12, 2011 at 7:23 am)
“Two things are important besides the correlation:
There is no significant time lag.
The scale of the two variables IS THE SAME – meaning the cloud-caused radiation anomaly covers practically all the total radiation anomaly.”
Even for an alarmist that shouldn’t come as a surprise. That’s just common sense.
Paul Vaughan says:
September 12, 2011 at 11:51 am
DirkH (September 12, 2011 at 7:23 am)
“The scale of the two variables IS THE SAME – meaning the cloud-caused radiation anomaly covers practically all the total radiation anomaly.”>>>
Even for an alarmist that shouldn’t come as a surprise. That’s just common sense.>>>
If that were the cause Paul, then the alarmist would be admitting that CO2 variance is not significant. Which they don’t. And common sense isn’t common. Anyone with an ounce of common sense know THAT.
case not cause.
I hate my fingers. they make so many spelling mistakes and everyone blames ME.
RE: davidmhoffer: (September 12, 2011 at 10:56 am)
“You claim TWO mechanisms, but then you list ONE mechanism and one INDICATOR.
“Clouds are just resistors. They resist incoming solar radiation from getting to earth surface, and they resist outgoing longwave radiation from earth escaping to space. “
Point taken about ‘clouds’ per se, I was thinking of the two cooling effects of water vapor in the atmosphere. In general, clouds are good reflectors, both up and down. However, any process that facilitates cloud formation also makes convection more likely. Convection allows escaping thermal energy to do an ‘end run’ around the strong greenhouse effect of water vapor.
At high altitudes, clouds can also be emitters IR characteristic of the temperatures of the cloud tops. The tropopause, at -55 deg C, is typically the coolest region of the lower atmosphere and this is also the normal upper limit of rising condensing convection.
Spector;
Agree for the most part. But clouds are emitters of IR at ALL temps and at ALL altitudes. The only question is how much. and compared to how much they absorb (which is different from what they reflect). OK, so that’s two questions, not one. Blame my fingers, it isn’t my fault.
Again, what a wonderful thread, which is why as a biological scientist I come here every day.
Lucy and Tallbloke for asking clarification and to davidmhoffer trying to relate everything.
Thanks for asking for clarification. The hitcounter at the top of the page, as well as the blog award indicate that MANY more people who come here are not climate scientists, perhaps not scientists at all, and are sometimes a bit confused. I would suggest that even though I am not a climate scientist, I AM a ‘motivator’ of people at the grassroots level, which is why I love this site so much. This site ‘arms’ me with pretty balanced knowledge. Everything from hearing aids to the polar icecaps! Diverse.
So please. I need help on this ‘paper’ to compare and contrast what is presented and how it relates to Spencer and Dessler.
maybe davidm did it but this ‘dummy’ didn’t quite understand!
A power point someone?
Thanks
I’ve pointed to it before on this blog, but the proof is simple and uncomplicated, and
does not require a degree in physics. There is only one single constituent of the atmosphere
that can cause the observed “trapping” of energy referred to as the “Greenhouse effect”.
For the description given of the cause of this effect to be true for any ideal gas or
mixture of ideal gasses (and that includes H2O if it existed ONLY as an ideal gas), would
require that both Kirchoff and Beers be invalidated. I know that they haven’t been, because
that news would have made the cover of every scientific journal in the world. Since there is a
linear relationship between absorption and concentration (Beers law), and the total
concentration of any collection of bodies cannot exceed 100%, absorption can never exceed 100%. Yes, there is one, and ONLY one exception, and that requires increasing the path length but does NOT require increasing the concentration of any of the absorbing species.REFLECTION.
In my field – spectroscopy – this method has been used for decades to increase the path
length, and thereby increase the amount of absorption ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE INPUT ENERGY, in IR spectrometer sample chambers using MIRRORS, which only has an effect on the wavelengths which have already been absorbed (Kirchoffs law). REFLECTION is the ONLY effect that is capable of “trapping” EM waves.
There is only one condensable gas in the earths atmosphere. It fiercely maintains a
spherical shape as it does so, and as a spherical dielectric, its scattering and absorption
properties are described by Mie theory. Mie theory calculations are what is buried in the
infamous line-by-line codes that are based on radiative transfer THEORY. There are also
modified Mie calculations used to describe ice crystal absorption and scattering properties.
Since the single-scattering albedo of the majority of cloud droplet size parameters vs.
the wavelengths emitted by the atmosphere and surface yields ~0.54 or higher, it is easy to see that extending those results to the number of water droplets and ice crystals in a typical
cloud easily yields backscatter of ~100%. This is the reason these “gentlemen” keep on so
desperately contradicting any suggestion that clouds are a cause, or the sole cause, of the
“greenhouse effect” or global warming, going back at least to the Wang, et.al. paper nearly a decade ago.
Simply stated, only reflection can increase the path, and only the already absorbed
wavelengths can be absorbed again, causing an increase in the internal energy, or TEMPERATURE, of the absorbing species. The calculation is simple. Averaged over a sufficiently long time period, the absorption times the cloud fraction + the original absorption = the long term absorption of the surface and the near surface atmosphere.
As an aside, it is MY belief that anyone who believes that a computer model can
simulate cloud microphysical properties that change both locally and globally on the order of
femtoseconds, and then extend those calculations out decades or centuries over the entire
planet, should likely be ascribed the title of “delusional”.
A final word, this bit on the cloud project; there is an overlooked aspect of atmospheric interaction with the rest of the heliosphere that is also affected by the solar cycle; an oversight that is caused by the age-old closed-system, and in my opinion, closed-minded, view of the atmosphere. If you haven’t heard of the IBEX project yet, I strongly encourage everyone to look at it and consider the implications. New water forming in the atmosphere via H&O ENA’s entering it from particle streams the earth intersects, coinciding with the spring in the respective hemispheres, and which are modulated by the solar cycle? – hmm, I feel an hypotheses forming? Several, in fact. Perhaps more theoretical windmills to tilt at lie just around the corner. IBEX hasn’t been orbiting long enough or collected enough data yet to yield any long term statistical correlations and charts, but based on the small amount of information collected in just a couple of years, this AGW nonsense should be buried in one of those CO2 sinks they are always worrying about.
Can anyone explain how the Jet Stream effects weather? Or the Gulf Stream? Certainly when the Gulf Stream slows or even is diverted, this brings on colder weather to the North Atlantic?
When I was studying at Uni, it was said, that the glacial periods were preceded by warmer temps.
As more fresh water came from the Arctic, this forced the warmer salt water down. The same
effect was found by the first submarine that traveled under the polar ice.(1957) They found that for the first 30 or so feet (might be more, can’t remember), there were no fish they had gone deeper because the surface water contained less salt.
I don’t think you can say that cosmic rays are the only factor, certainly they can increase cloud
cover and therefore rain fall. But the main thing is and this is important, this or these studies discount the effect of CO2 on climate, or even carbon emissions/pollution. Julia Gillard keeps lumping pollution, CO2 and climate change in the same bag. Certainly in the 1950s when London experienced SMOGS, and thousands died as a result, they declared London a smoke free zone. This meant you could not burn coal, anthracite, domestically. They had smoke
inspectors and if they spotted smoke coming from chimneys, they knocked on your door, explained that if spotted again, they would be fined two hundred pounds (heaps of money in early 1963). Some still burned coke, but that doesn’t produce smoke, but sulphur dioxide. They then introduced coal lite, a smokeless fuel, before central heating took over of course.
RE: davidmhoffer: (September 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm)
“Spector;
“Agree for the most part. But clouds are emitters of IR at ALL temps and at ALL altitudes. The only question is how much. and compared to how much they absorb (which is different from what they reflect). OK, so that’s two questions, not one. Blame my fingers, it isn’t my fault.”
As I see it, the altitude determines how much of the emitted radiation will succeed in escaping to outer space without encountering another absorber–the higher the altitude, the shorter the gauntlet. At the tropopause altitude, according to MODTRAN, it looks like 90 percent of the emission band is open, but there is a 10 percent hole around the primary CO2 absorption frequency.
The chart below shows the absorption coefficient for water. The peak absorption of 10,000 per 1/cm indicates that, at a wavelength of 3 microns, the radiation will be reduced to 1/e or down to about 36.79 percent of its initial value by absorption after going 1/10,000 of a centimeter through a water droplet. The reference number ‘e’ is the base of the ‘natural’ or Napierian logarithms.
File:Water absorption spectrum.png – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_absorption_spectrum.png
Also of interest:
London South Bank University;
Water Structure and Science – Martin Chaplin;
Water Absorption Spectrum
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
Spector;
I find this wikipedia graph a bit easier to use in terms of illustrating the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
However, you have to spend some time understanding a lot of the issues that the graph itself doesn’t explain fully, nor the article. For example, it is easy to see that the absorption spectrum of water vapour over laps that of CO2 for the most part. But note that the efficiency with which CO2 will absorb a photon in the 9 to 12 micron range is much higher for CO2 than it is for water vapor. Let’s guestimate it at 4:1 more likely that a CO2 molecule will absorb any photon in that wave length than H2O will. Is that significant?
Well…yes and no. At sea level in the tropics, water vapor is in the 40,000 PPM range. So at 400 PPM, it really makes little difference if CO2 is 4 times as efficient. But at higher altitude (ie cold), or higher latitude (ie cold) water vapor concentration drops off in a hurry, so CO2 becomes a bigger piece of the puzzle. A very small puzzle piece, and one that is subject to the law of diminishing returns as CO2 is logarithmic, but technicaly…more important at cold temps than warm temps for that reason.
As for your note about altitude of the cloud, sure, the higher the altitude the more likely that any given photon emitted will escape to space…. IF it is emitted in an upward direction in the first place. The cloud is really just water droplets (not vapor!!!!) and each droplet emitts based on its temperature, but any given photon can be emitted in ANY direction. On average, just as many photons are emitted “downward” as are emitted “upward”. So…how would clouds make any difference at all then?
It is a matter of absorption versus emission. Clouds absorb and/or reflect upward bound photons from below, and the same for “downward” bound photons from above. Most of the “downward” bound photons would come from the Sun. So, in day time, the cloud absorbs/reflects a lot more “downward from above” photons than it does “upward from below”. Hence, cooling. But at night, there’s no “downward from above” photons to absorb, so “upward from below” becomes the dominant factor. Photons are absorbed from ANY direction and are emitted again in ANY direction.
Hence at night, the cloud absorbs upward bound photons from earth surface, and emitts them again. Since roughly half wind up going “up” and the other half going “down”, it is like the cloud is sending half the photons (and the energy they carry) home again…hence warming. If the cloud wasn’t there, those upward bound photons that would have been absorbed by the cloud simply escape 100% instead of 50% being sent home. Hence, warming isn’t exactly the right term, more like “less cooling”. The reverse is true in day time, as photons from the sun that are absorbed by the cloud will be re-emitted…some up and some down. But if the cloud wasn’t there, they would ALL continue on downward. Unless they hit something else, lol.
ECEGeorgia;
Thanks for the compliment, sorry it didn’t become clear for you. Unfortunately, physics text books are 500 pages for a reason…. But let me take a shot at your question which was:
“I need help on this ‘paper’ to compare and contrast what is presented and how it relates to Spencer and Dessler.”
OK, so we have to start at the beginning for the middle and the end to make sense. A big part of AGW theory is that CO2 raises temperatures by aborbing and re-emitting photons carrying energy that would otherwise have escaped to space. No argument there. But how much? Without going into the physics and all the nasty math, the IPCC estimate is that doubling CO2 will result in an extra 3.7 watts/m2 which in turn results in a 1 degree C increase in temperature “on average”. Three problems here.
FIRST, if one DOES all the nasty math, it takes 5.5 watts/m2 to raise the “average” surface temperature of the earth (15 C) by one degree. Yikes, how does the IPCC get to claim 1 degree then? The answer is that temperature is NOT directly related to watts/m2! Watts/m2 is related to the temperature in degrees Kelvin RAISED TO THE POWER OF FOUR. So, seen from space, the earth isn’t 15C, it is an “average” of the surface to the TOA (Top of Atmosphere) which is more like -20C. At -20C, it would only take 3.7 w/m2 to raise the temp one degree, BUT, at earth surface, that would mean…more like 0.6 degrees.
SECOND, CO2 is logarithmic. Hence the use of the term “doubling”. I liken it to sun glasses. If you had several pairs of sun glasses, each of which absorbed 50% of any light that hit them, would putting on two pairs make it completely dark? Of course not. The first pair would absorb 50% of the light, and the second pair would absorb 50% of what was left, still allowing 25% through. Put on a third pair, and they would aborb 50% of what got through the first two pair, leaving 12.5% of the light still coming through. So…CO2 ought not to be a big deal by that measure. Since we started burning fossil fuel big time in 1920, CO2 had gone from 280 PPM to 400 PPM. So…if we were to get 1 degree C more warming out of CO2 than we are RIGHT NOW, we would have to get to…. 800 PPM. If everyone leaves their cars running all the time and drives like maniacs, we should get there in about…300 years. So what’s the big deal?
THIRD, FEEDBACKS! Herein lies the ENTIRE argument. (I’m getting to Spencer and Dessler and Illis, just bear with me). Here is a handy place to get solid data from, in this case water vapor. Scroll down the page a bit and you will see a graph showing how much water vapor air can hold at any given temperature:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-d_689.html
As one can see, at cold temps, the amount of water vapor drops off dramatically. So AGW theory is founded on the idea (amongst others) that the 1 degree rise in temperature from CO2 doubling (over the next 300 years, giggle) would result in more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, so would add still more warming. I’ll reserve my sarcastic comments regarding getting something for nothing, perpetual motion, smoke and mirrors…oops. Anyway, the IPCC commonly quotes CO2 doubling as having a net effect of plus 3 to plus 4.5 degrees based on a number of different feedbacks.
(When posts get long the editor starts jumping around so I’m going to continue this in another coment)
CO2 => Feedbacks => Spencer => Illis PART TWO.
This all has to do with clouds…how? Clouds are formed of water droplets which in turn are formed from water vapor, which the IPCC assumes will increase because of the one degree C increase from CO2 doubling. Then they make ANOTHER assumption, which is that clouds are a positive feedback.
So ends the “three problems” explanation we need as background… on to the papers.
SPENCER
Spencer’s paper looked at earth’s radiance to space compared to what the “computer models” have estimated. He found that more energy was being released to space than what the models were assuming. That, dead stop, invalidates the models by itself (assuming his data and analysis are correct, which I believe they are). Why are they getting it wrong? Spencer’s paper suggests that while the models are built on the assumption that clouds are a net positive feedback, they are in fact much lower thanthe models assume, are possibly even NEGATIVE feedback rather than positive. If Spencer is correct, then one may as well nail the AGW coffin shut. Without a big positive feedback from +1 degree = more water vapor = more clouds = another +3… CO2 is a pretty feeble scare story.
DESSLER
In what appeared to be a very hastily put together paper, Dessler disputed Spencer’s results. It took two years for Spencer to get his paper through peer review to publication. Dessler managed to read Spencer’s paper, analyze it, write his own paper disputing Spencer’s, and get it published in just six weeks. Spencer promptly published a critique of Dessler on WUWT about one day later, poking gaping holes in Dessler’s paper, which Dessler HIMSELF contacted Spencer to coordinate fixing. Climate Audit, where statistical analysis id done in excrutiating detail (the only way to do it right!) pretty much trashed Dessler and showed that properly analyzed, his data agreed with Spencer. Dig into that political mess and you’ll get a zillion versions of that story, but here’s the only part I need to know. Dessler’s original paper contained blatantly personal attacks on Spencer that had nothing to do with science. In my books, that’s discrediting itself, and Dessler has since withdrawn those remarks.
ILLIS
OK, my fingers are getting sore. While I have followed this thread with interest, I didn’t read Illis work in detail, but his bottom line isn’t hard to understand. Spencer and others have long argued that clouds dominate earth’s climate variations to the point that other factors such as CO2 are simply insignificant by comparison. Illis appears to have simply done the obvious, which is to compare the variations in earth’s radiance to space over all to variations in radiance due to clouds. The result? It is right in the post’s title. MOST of the variation is due to clouds. There’s hardly anything left for CO2…or methane…or etc etc etc.
So…Co2 is insignificant (like we knew 20+ years ago) compared to clouds, clouds are not a major positive feedback and are probably even a negative feedback, making any additional cloud cover from extra water vapor a cancelling effect on what ever warming CO2 actually causes.
davidmhoffer says:
September 13, 2011 at 12:15 am (Edit)
CO2 => Feedbacks => Spencer => Illis PART TWO.
Well said.
CAGW models have at their core the issue of radiation budget and balance – the Arrhenius paradigm. However now Illis has made clear that cloud cover dominates earth’s radiance to space.
And cloud cover was one thing that the CAGW models FAILED to include and account for.
Now it is clear – as it should have been for a long time – that research into earth radiation balance is synonymous with research into cloud cover – the two are one and the same.
Tallbloke,
I tried to warn you on your blog, but you resorted to censorship (which is extremely offensive).
Seeing you chase this red herring (“the Bart thing”) is further proof that you have not yet invested the time necessary to understand the ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL message of Tomas Milanovic.
The variables ARE related. This is NOT news. The variables are NOT linearly related. They are COMPLEXLY related. Bart’s methods canNOT handle the job. He appears inexperienced and GROSSLY UNAWARE of the spatiotemporal nature of the variability.
I wasted a good portion of my half-day off this week getting acquainted with the variables under discussion to try to figure out what all the misunderstanding & fuss was about. [My plan for that time was to proofread a 25 page article I might volunteer to WUWT (an activity which ends up taking months since I have so little free time).]
Putting new ideas in the spotlight is a great way to stimulate exploration. You & I agree there. However, we have to place a value on peoples’ time & attention.
My concern is that if a breakthrough comes along, your judgement is insufficient to distinguish it from a crapshoot – i.e. you’ll put the crapshoot & the breakthrough on a “level playing field”.
You & others can’t be blamed for what you don’t know in general, but in specific I’ve warned both you & the community over and over AND OVER to read Milanovic – AND YET PEOPLE CONTINUE TILTING AT WINDMILLS – and I assure you this is an exact analogy.
This is about FUNDAMENTALS of sampling design & summary aggregation criteria. Anyone who chooses to ignore it will be tilting at windmills ad infinitum. Anyone who thinks it’s about “mysterious” “unknown” physics is ignorantly misdirecting their hunt, like this:
“On comprend, mais cela équivaut à chercher ses clefs au pied d’un réverbère parce que c’est là qu’il ya de la lumière.”
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/theses.html#lod
From Google Translate (for those who can’t read French):
“It is understandable, but it is like looking for his keys at the foot of a street lamp because that’s where there’s light.”
Recently I’ve been extending a collegial hand offering help to you & your readers. You’ve responded with nervous jitters, which have again (this happened before) escaped your control and escalated into the hammer of alienating censorship.
See Judith Curry’s stimulating piece on decision-making under ignorance:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/22/can-we-make-good-decisions-under-ignorance/
Ignorance plays into the hands of those who need the perception & persuasion of so-called (but fundamentally mislabeled) “uncertainty”.
Moreover, it fosters suspicion, undermining trust.
Bart has rediscovered the windmill about which Milanovic has lucidly & sternly warned us.
Sincerely.
RE: davidmhoffer: (September 12, 2011 at 11:)
“On average, just as many photons are emitted “downward” as are emitted “upward”. So…how would clouds make any difference at all then?”
From the point of view of the cloud, there are five emissive/absorptive possibilities:
1.) Energy lost by radiation to a higher altitude.
2.) Energy gained by absorption of emissions from higher altitudes.
3.) Energy retained by internal re-absorption of internal emissions.
4.) Energy lost by radiation to a lower altitude.
5.) Energy gained by absorption of emissions from lower altitudes
if a fly, just *above* the cloud, were to see more IR photons coming up out of the cloud below than those coming back down from higher altitudes above, then we can assume that the cloud, and by implication the Earth, is losing energy to outer space in this frequency range. Cloud tops provide an equivalent surface that can radiate to outer space when there are no higher clouds above–the cooler temperature signature of IR radiation from cloud tops is often cited as the mechanism for IR satellite imagery.
The Earth could not keep cool unless it could radiate more energy in the IR band than it was receiving from the sun. However, since the Earth is so far away from the sun, solar IR is minimal, and the Earth can expel all the white-hot energy received from the sun by terrestrial thermal radiation.
The graph that you referenced shows the comparison between solar energy received and the terrestrial energy transmitted. I believe that transmission index shown (blue) is only for heat radiated from the surface. In tropical clear air conditions, MODTRAN seems to indicate that twice as much energy is also being radiated from the upper troposphere. Presumably this energy reached that area by off-line average convective activity.
Spector;
Your five points are idnetical to mine save for 3) which nets to zero and hence is meaningless anyway. From there however, you are getting yourself into trouble:
“The Earth could not keep cool unless it could radiate more energy in the IR band than it was receiving from the sun. However, since the Earth is so far away from the sun, solar IR is minimal,”
Wrong. Wrong. OH SO WRONG!
How much IR the earth gets from the sun means diddly squat. How much TOTAL ENERGY ACROSS ALL BANDS earth gets from the sun is the first thing you need to measure. In order for the earth temperature to be stable (in equilibrium), the amount of energy lost to space must equal the amount of energy absorbed from the sun. It matters not one whit what band the absorption is in, nor what band the radiance to space is in.
Most of the energy absorbed by earth from the sun is SW (short wave). Most of the energy radiated from earth to space is LW (long wave, which includes IR). What wavelength the energy rode in on and what wavelength it rode out on are two different things.
This is what happense when they teach students how to use calculators before they teach them how to do math. MODTRAN is just a fancy calculator.
Robert of Ottawa says:
September 11, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Robert,
My point is that clouds are not a source of energy (force). The rates of evaporation, condensation, and convection are controlling the rate of energy lost to space, and like current flow, clouds should be consider as resistors. The “blocking actions” you suggested are high resistances: but remember, clouds do not blanket the earth and when there are no clouds, there is very little resistance. Think about parallel resistances. Click on my name.
davidmhoffer
Thanks so very much for verbally illustrating this complex set of ‘claims’!!! I do understand your logic and the illustration without the scatterplot! I also thank you from the ‘laypeople’ here who do dilligence at reading and attempting to understand what is being presented. I also thank you for forgoing any character assination of Dessler, I think we can all see the BIG POLITICS of this ‘science”.. We do need a ‘nailgun’ instead of a ‘hammer’ to seal this hydra into the coffin’.
I do also see your summary of the three positions as you present. them.
We the People are out here in droves, watching everything.
i do have one other question, if it is too ignorant don’t bother responding.
Your example cloud hanging from the surface of the earth to the top of the atmosphere emits photons (energy) everywhere! totally unknown vectors of emmision. A blob! Assume the middle of the night. At the top energy escapes into space. Does this escape not induce a potential difference and a flow of eneregy (photons?) from bottom to top?
Thank you for your time and information! You and Willis and Anthony and Lucy and the scientists here “Make my Day” I have conviced otheres to read! I love the Weather!
david!
CO2 => Feedbacks => Spencer => Illis PART TWO
Keith said ‘Well said”.
Nope PERFECTLY said! I missed the meaning of the math the first readthrough
Illis > I’m looking forward to it!
eric