By S. Fred Singer
Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres. This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists — also divided into three parts. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.
In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.
In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are.
They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.
Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many skeptics go along with the general conclusion of the warmistas but simply claim that the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with deniers in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.
I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier. The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels. At any rate, this is the conclusion of the most recent IPCC report, the fourth in a series, published in 2007. Since I am an Expert Reviewer of IPCC, I’ve had an opportunity to review part of the 5th Assessment Report, due in 2013. Without revealing deep secrets, I can say that the AR5 uses essentially the same argument and evidence as AR4 — so let me discuss this “evidence” in some detail.
Read the full essay here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html#ixzz1nn0SciyO
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Henry;
I don’t think the concept applies. Each CO2 molecule is either activated by incoming IR at a particular instant, or has radiated or themally passed on the energy “load”. It is a transmitter, in other words. So is H2O, which is much more abundant. In any case, the sun warms the ground, the ground warms the air and radiates somewhat to space through the “window”, and the air radiates to space from various altitudes at various frequencies. All in all, the presence of GHGs facilitates transmission.
If there is any incremental warming of the surface, it would be only a result of “overlap” of incoming solar and a small portion of the energy it emitted towards the atmosphere being redirected by GHGs. Balancing that is the hastening of thermal energy into space by heightened OLR emission by the GHGs, after picking it up conductively from the non-GHGs. Spenser’s satellite findings that OLR varies directly and immediately with temperature means that some such mechanism is operating very efficiently. This is in contradiction to the “pure” GHG-GW models and theories. Monckton and others make much of this; the observed OLR rises with GHGs, in direct contradiction to the model results.
Edit:”Monckton and others make much of this: the observed OLR rises with temperature, in direct contradiction to the model results.”
This is thermostatic behavior, not “blanket” behavior.
Henry@Brian
Don’t worry about the Gh effect caused by GHG’s. It does not feature as a cause for global warming
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
We all know that./
Please see this paper here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
The direction of the radiation was: sun-earth (day)-moon(unlit by sun) -earth (night). Note that earth does not emit 0 – 2 um during the night. For CO2, follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom and see it all come to us via the moon in fig 7.
the question we had is by what mechanism – exactly – we are able to see radiation specific to the absorptive regions of CO2, H2O and others bouncing back to us via the moon.(fig 6 top, fig 7. )
I am saying it must be like this (the same as the GH principle):
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
I would very much appreciate if you can give me your opinion on this.
I haven’t absorbed all the detail, and don’t consider myself necessarily qualified to judge the lunar reflection info.
But I have questions in my mind about the H2O vapour reflectivity, etc. That doesn’t sound right to me.
And this:
seems to me absolutely incorrect. Don’t make the Myrrh-mistake of identifying heat with IR. ALL light which is absorbed becomes heat. What else can it do? Heat is the bottom state for all entropy increase.
Here’s an African sun experiment for you. Find some glass rated to be IR opaque, and some mylar or plexiglass (?) which passes IR and visible light equally. Stand with your back to the sun for 10 minutes with someone holding one sheet in the way, then repeat with the other. Write down your guess afterwards which was which, without getting feedback until you’ve repeated the experiment about 10X. (Yeah, I know that will take almost 7 hrs. But it’s for science!) See if you’re right much more than 5X.
In any case, I assure you that you will feel considerable heat through the IR-blocking glass!!
Correction: almost 4 hrs. (I downgraded the count from 20X to 10X and forgot to adjust the time. 😉 )
Well, Brian, I have such a mirror coated sliding door. I just measured the temperature on the first sunlit tile before I opened the door. It was 27 degrees C. I then opened the door. After 5 minutes I measured on the same tile, at the same spot (in the middle). It was 30 degrees C. After 10 minutes it was again 30 degrees C. And again 30 after 15 minutes.There was no wind. I used an infra red temperature gauge.
You say:
ALL light which is absorbed becomes heat. What else can it do?
What else can it do? The beam of sunshine is constantly flowing but the tile did not heat up higher than 30 after I had opened the door. My conclusion from this test is that it only goes to 30 because after that it changes wavelength or it deflects (same warming) sun rays back in the direction where it came from.
What do you think?
?? I didn’t say anything about mirrors. The mirroring just cuts the overall intensity. I was talking about IR-opaque and IR-transparent panes.
The 30° ceiling is evidently the temperature at which the tiles can re-radiate as much energy as they are receiving. That’s 303K, vs 300K. The energy out varies as the 4th power, so (303/300)^4 = 1.0406; the floor gets 4% more energy with the door open. That’s how much the mirroring was blocking.
BrianH says:
The 30° ceiling is evidently the temperature at which the tiles can re-radiate as much energy as they are receiving
Henry says
Well I do like that because that is what I have been saying=
assuming the tile is a CO2 molecule:
You cannot put continuous (sun) energy on the CO2 molecule (either 2 um or 4 um) and think that it will continue to “pass on” the heat to neighbouring molecules. This is what Phil. was claiming.
What is in fact happening is that that radiation is then being re-radiated,in all directions, including back to the sun,
which is why we can measure it, coming back from the moon.
Strangely enough.
Brian says;
the floor gets 4% more energy with the door open. That’s how much the mirroring was blocking.
Henry says
I am still thinking about that. I am inclined to think the difference of 3/30 = 10%
I must tell you Brian, you are great.You helped me seeing things clearly.
HenryP says:
March 28, 2012 at 8:45 am
BrianH says:
The 30° ceiling is evidently the temperature at which the tiles can re-radiate as much energy as they are receiving
Henry says
Well I do like that because that is what I have been saying=
assuming the tile is a CO2 molecule:
You cannot put continuous (sun) energy on the CO2 molecule (either 2 um or 4 um) and think that it will continue to “pass on” the heat to neighbouring molecules. This is what Phil. was claiming.
Of course you can because during the lifetime of the excited CO2 molecule it is colliding with thousands of air molecules which remove some of the excess energy. Near the surface such collisional deactivation is a major factor.
What is in fact happening is that that radiation is then being re-radiated,in all directions, including back to the sun,
which is why we can measure it, coming back from the moon.
Strangely enough.
That isn’t what the paper you referenced describes.
Brian says;
the floor gets 4% more energy with the door open. That’s how much the mirroring was blocking.
Henry says
I am still thinking about that. I am inclined to think the difference of 3/30 = 10%
You apparently don’t understand absolute temperature or that emission depends on T^4.
I must tell you Brian, you are great.You helped me seeing things clearly.
Unfortunately not!
Phil. says
Of course you can because during the lifetime of the excited CO2 molecule it is colliding with thousands of air molecules which remove some of the excess energy. Near the surface such collisional deactivation is a major factor.
Henry@Phil.
There is no radiation continuously absorbed and passed on to neighbouring molecules as heat as proven in my experiment with the tile and numerous other experiments. Never mind the facts that air is much less dense than tiles and that on a cloudless day the atmosphere is 99% transparent to radiation. Where there is absorption inside the molecule, radiation is only being absorbed until saturation point and then, as Brian and myself observed, it is being re-radiated. That means in the case of a gas, at the absorptive regions, at least 50% is being back radiated in a radius of 180 degrees where it came from. That also means that some of the 2 and 4 um from the sun that hits on the CO2 during the day, is going back to the sun and even to the moon. Which is why we could measure that radiation coming back from the moon.
If it were not so then the definition of the GH effect would make no sense. That the GH effect exists is easily to prove here (in South Africa). During a cloudy night in winter it is much warmer than during a cloudless night.
I have given you the example to look at, of the ozone at 10-11 microns.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Unfortunately it is you who does not understand or who does want to understand.
HenryP says:
March 30, 2012 at 4:40 am
Phil. says
“Of course you can because during the lifetime of the excited CO2 molecule it is colliding with thousands of air molecules which remove some of the excess energy. Near the surface such collisional deactivation is a major factor.”
Henry@Phil.
There is no radiation continuously absorbed and passed on to neighbouring molecules as heat as proven in my experiment with the tile and numerous other experiments.
Your experiments prove no such thing.
Never mind the facts that air is much less dense than tiles and that on a cloudless day the atmosphere is 99% transparent to radiation.
More like 75% of upward Longwave is transmitted.
Where there is absorption inside the molecule, radiation is only being absorbed until saturation point and then, as Brian and myself observed, it is being re-radiated.
Not true
That means in the case of a gas, at the absorptive regions, at least 50% is being back radiated in a radius of 180 degrees where it came from. That also means that some of the 2 and 4 um from the sun that hits on the CO2 during the day, is going back to the sun and even to the moon. Which is why we could measure that radiation coming back from the moon.
No as is clearly explained in Turnbull et al. which you cited light is reflected back from the Earth’s surface and clouds and some of that light is absorbed by the over-lying gases. Their figure 6 to which you have referred is a model synthesis of the Earth’s reflectance spectrum from high cloud, low cloud, ground and overlying absorption.
If it were not so then the definition of the GH effect would make no sense. That the GH effect exists is easily to prove here (in South Africa). During a cloudy night in winter it is much warmer than during a cloudless night.
I have given you the example to look at, of the ozone at 10-11 microns.
Yes I recall that, in that figure the absorption at the location of the fairly weak O3 band at 10-11μm is about 50% rather than the ~10% that there would be in the absence of O3. Reflection has nothing to do with it.
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Phil;. says;“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Henry@Phil.
your remarks in your previous post
all of them
make no sense
other than to confuse
and sow division:
better go back to my original paper
which holds true:
more carbon dioxide is better
life as we know it depends on it
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
HenryP says:
March 30, 2012 at 11:55 am
Phil;. says;“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Henry@Phil.
your remarks in your previous post
all of them
make no sense
other than to confuse
and sow division:
Not to you maybe, but they are the correct science as opposed to the non-science you post.
You’re the one proposing a unique and incorrect theory of saturated molecules reflecting incoming radiation which is totally at variance with the existing science, who’s sowing division?
Phil. says
You’re the one proposing a unique and incorrect theory of saturated molecules reflecting incoming radiation which is totally at variance with the existing science
Henry@Phil..
You keep hanging on to the past as if everything they did, including for example, MANY people like you, who are blaming man for global warming, were correct. As if people like Galileo, Newton or Einstein kept looking behind their backs to make sure “their” science fitted in with the general accepted science of the day.
Go home Mr. Phil. Do your own testing, like I did,
@22 weather stations
x 12 months
x 30 days
x 37 years (in the past)
x 5 variables; maxima, means (= daily averages), minima, (
average daily) humidity, total monthly precipitation
= 1456200 data
and come back to me on the results that you got on that.
Not really that difficult.
It just takes time.
A LOT.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Time to go to sleep for me.
HenryP says:
March 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Phil. says
“You’re the one proposing a unique and incorrect theory of saturated molecules reflecting incoming radiation which is totally at variance with the existing science”
Henry@Phil..
You keep hanging on to the past as if everything they did, including for example, MANY people like you, who are blaming man for global warming, were correct. As if people like Galileo, Newton or Einstein kept looking behind their backs to make sure “their” science fitted in with the general accepted science of the day.
To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, You Henry are no Galileo, Newton or Einstein!
Go home Mr. Phil. Do your own testing, like I did,
I have done on many occasions, using spectrometry, which is what we’re talking about, not global warming, the experiments you describe have no relevance to the mechanism of the interaction of radiation with gas molecules. and you idea that a saturated molecule becomes transformed into a ‘small mirror’ is pure fantasy.
Phil. says:
and you (sic) idea that a saturated molecule becomes transformed into a ‘small mirror’ is pure fantasy
Henry says
Please do explain to me and Brian why the tile heated from 27 to 30 and did not get warmer than 30 degrees C after I had opened the door?
Phil. says:
have done on many occasions, using spectrometry
and you idea that a saturated molecule becomes transformed into a ‘small mirror’ is pure fantasy
Henry says:
Well, I suggest you do it again. Perhaps try some liquid that absorbs at a wavelength in the visible? Then you will be able to see where the “absorbed” light goes to, won’t you? IT IS BEING RE-RADIATED.
Henry@all
For all those that are still following this thread:
Please note that Phil.dot does not have any answers to my questions raised in my previous post.
He couldn’t find what I say in his books, so (he thinks) it cannot be true.
Poor Phil.
As I said before: They should have stuck with the word ‘extinction” rather than introducing the word “absorption” which only sowed confusion ever since.
extinction means: here it stops, the radiation goes elsewhere. It is not going “through”
the term “absorption” implies that the radiation is continuously being “absorbed” by the substance which is of course inpossible, if the supply of radiation does not stop.. …
HenryP says:
April 4, 2012 at 8:21 am
Henry@all
For all those that are still following this thread:
Please note that Phil.dot does not have any answers to my questions raised in my previous post.
He couldn’t find what I say in his books, so (he thinks) it cannot be true.
Mind reading again Henry, I only come here occasionally, your education isn’t my prime focus.
Poor Phil.
As I said before: They should have stuck with the word ‘extinction” rather than introducing the word “absorption” which only sowed confusion ever since.
It was wrong when you said it the first time and it’s still wrong.
Regarding your questions, we’re discussing absorption by gases, not solids or liquids, different physical chemistry entirely. Using visible light involves electronic transitions so again different phys. chem. I did do some work on Laser Induced Fluorescence of OH once and the collisional quenching in that case accounted for ~99.9% of the absorbed flux with the remaining 0.1% being the fluorescent signal.
extinction means: here it stops, the radiation goes elsewhere. It is not going “through”
the term “absorption” implies that the radiation is continuously being “absorbed” by the substance which is of course inpossible, if the supply of radiation does not stop.. …
Which is why ‘absorption’ is the correct term, the absorbed light being transferred to the buffer gas in the form of heat and thence to the surroundings.
Phil. says: we’re discussing absorption by gases, not solids or liquids,
Henry@Phil.
In as far as a substance is concerned it all comes down to molecules, whether it is gas, liquid or solid. Either the substance is transparent to radiation or it absorbs.Think of Roentgen. X-rays.
As we observed with the test on the tile, the radiation is absorbed immediately until it reaches a saturation point after which the molecule starts re-radiating. We all note again that you did not answer the question that we asked you before:
Please do explain to me and Brian why the tile heated from 27 to 30 and did not get warmer than 30 degrees C after I had opened the mirror coated door?
Phil. says
Which is why ‘absorption’ is the correct term, the absorbed light being transferred to the buffer gas in the form of heat and thence to the surroundings.
Henry says:
As I said,the molecule can only be filled up until saturation. Then it starts re-radiating. That is why we are able to measure all radiation specific to the absorptive regions of GH gases coming back via the moon.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
The newly found UV absorptions of CO2 can also be used to determine if there is CO2 on other planets, e.g.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
This means, as concluded in the above report, that CO2 at high altitude behaves similar to Ozone in the UV range, shielding us. Similarly it also shields us from (some) IR radiation in the 2 and 4 um region, at all levels where the sun’s rays hit on the CO2 molecules.
This back radiation of the GH gases is what is keeping us cool, as it cuts out almost 20-25% of all incoming light!!
HenryP says:
April 4, 2012 at 11:28 pm
Phil. says: we’re discussing absorption by gases, not solids or liquids,
Henry@Phil.
In as far as a substance is concerned it all comes down to molecules, whether it is gas, liquid or solid. Either the substance is transparent to radiation or it absorbs.Think of Roentgen. X-rays.
Not true the absorption of the three phases is quite different.
See for example water:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_absorption_spectrum.png
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC
Your tile experiment is therefore irrelevant and furthermore is so poorly described that it defies explanation.
Henry says:
As I said,the molecule can only be filled up until saturation. Then it starts re-radiating.
And as I said that is an incorrect idea of what happens, as soon as a molecule absorbs a photon it’s able to lose energy via collision or emission.
That is why we are able to measure all radiation specific to the absorptive regions of GH gases coming back via the moon.
No it’s not as has been explained to you before, you have completely misread that paper.