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.
Interesting discussion. It seems most do not like Mr. Singer’s article. They biggest problem I’ve seen is the adjectives (believer, skeptic, denier) are missing that which they qualify. A denier of what? A skeptic of what? It seems one can be both by denying a warming of Earth via GHGs, while accepting the premise that there is a GHE from specific gases.
Specific points of contention are missing from the above disparagements, and that will cause resentment. I would hope in the future, name-calling or other labels might be used more judiciously. I had read most of the comments, perhaps a hundred-plus. If I had to pick one, I would choose CodeTech’s comment as the best. Maybe it’s time to be skeptical skeptics. You are working with multiple levels of chaos, well chaos atleast until it’s understood, that interact on a scale that is beyond current comprehension.
I’m thankful for what you folks, and your collegues elsewhere, do every day. I believe there is balance in everything within life. Without ‘your side’, there would be an imbalance. Man is free by birthright. Whatever anyone else says about you is only true if you accept it. Always ask the opposing person to define their words and position; if their standing is untenable, they will crumble; yet the only other outcome would allow you to pick apart their arguement. It’s win/win.
What do you mean by “large”, I need to get a sense of proportion. and how, precisely, do you quantify it in terms of climate temperature. If it’s tiny, then what on earth is the infighting about?
the theoretical greybody temperature and compare it to 
, the actual average global temperature, and the difference is the differential warming due to all causes — the Greenhouse effect and anything else that might be going on. The usual assertion is that it is ballpark of 30-40K for the Earth, but the exact amount is arguable (N&Z hold that it is properly much larger, but they also make egregious errors so their estimates of HOW large it is are themselves no better — in my opinion).
is itself a variable, one that seems to be modulated by solar activity, so all the naive linearized arguments one might try to make about the GHE are probably wrong.
Quantifying it is the one part of Nikolov and Zeller’s paper that isn’t completely wrong. The usual basis is to compute the Earth’s so called “greybody temperature” where a certain formula is used to determine where insolation is balanced by outgoing blackbody radiation, completely ignoring atmosphere and assuming that the Earth is basically a large perfectly (thermally) conducting sphere at a uniform temperature.
N&Z do a better job of computing the baseline temperature, although they then make assumptions and do things that are simply incorrect.
Either way, one take
It’s the “anything else that might be going on” that is a major issue. The GHE isn’t just CO_2 and it isn’t just radiative — the solution to the Earth’s energy balance formula is properly speaking the world’s (literally) largest Navier-Stokes problem, or set of coupled N-S problems (as the ocean is a second one, in some sense) — open, highly nonlinear, and nasty as all hell. The planetary “bond albedo” that is used as an input into
That doesn’t mean, however, that the GHE doesn’t exist and isn’t responsible for the bulk of the warming of the Earth relative to a greybody baseline. It just means that how the total GHE varies as a function of e.g. CO_2 concentration is not anywhere near as simple as the CAGW crowd pretends that it is. Which is why their global climate models, built with the assumption that it IS simple and that solar state can be ignored, suck.
rgb
****
RKS says:
March 1, 2012 at 7:08 am
Back-radiation was never even mentioned as “established physics” when I studied the subject in the 1960′s.
It appears to be a concept cobbled together to enable a correlation between CO2 content and temperature that bog standard classical physics did not.
****
I & others (Robert Brown) have stated that the term “back radiation” is unfortunate & even misleading.
If you took physics in the 60s, then I’d assume you understood the physical effect of heat loss of a “hot” object to cooler surroundings. And applying “insulation” to it would reduce the heat loss & result in hot object’s surface remaining warmer than it was w/o the insulation, & the outer surface of the insulation remaining cooler than the hot object’s surface. If you have such a hot object in the vacuum of space, it will cool (albeit more slowly as convection is more efficient) as it radiates to frigid space. Simply placing a metallic shield (or regular insulation) in that case will act as insulation by blocking the radiation loss. The space station’s habitable areas are a good example. OK?
GHG effects are qualitatively no different. If GHGs (O2 & N2 don’t emit/absorb significantly) are present at the tropopause, where radiation can finally escape freely to space, they will act as a sort of wavelength-dependent Swiss-cheese insulation. Instead of the solid surface below radiating to space (and at a max heat-loss rate), the GHGs act just like the above-mentioned metallic shield in the vacuum of space (except not all IR frequencies, just the characteristic ones). Not the most efficient insulator, but one none-the-less. And thus the surface will not cool as fast, and will end up “warmer” than it would be w/o the GHGs, as its temperature was always dependent on both heat input AND heat loss. Of course when we look at the IR spectrum from orbit above, the overall view is a combo of “surfaces”, much from the tropopause, but also some thru the IR “windows” directly from the surface (which the GHGs do not emit/absorb).
The “back radiation” meme is correct, but unfortunate.
1) There is Electromagnetic “heat- or thermal radiation” from the Earth’s surface.
2) The surface does not lose any heat as this thermal transfer from surface to atmosphere takes place.
3) The GHGs in the atmosphere are sending at least one half of this heat radiation back to the surface causing, at the moment, 33 deg. Celsius (or Kelvin) of warming.
It does nothing of the sort. There is electromagnetic radiation from the Earth’s surface directly to space. In fact, the bulk of the heat loss from the Earth’s surface leaves via this channel. The surface loses heat as this thermal transfer takes place. That’s why it gets cold after the sun sets. That’s why it gets REALLY cold FAST in the nice, dry desert. Finally, I make absolutely no assertion about the GHG’s “sending heat back down to the surface”. That’s as silly a way of viewing it as asserting that the insulation in your attic “sends heat back down” into your house. Slowing heat loss in a radiative channel is not at all the same thing as “sending” heat anywhere.
Your problem is that you object to the silly pictures of the GHE as they are often published, with all sorts of upwelling and downwelling radiation. So do I. They are an heuristic explanation at best for a complex phenomenon. However, the phenomenon itself is directly evident in top of atmosphere IR spectroscopy. Outgoing radiation in the CO_2 band is emitted from the cool top of troposphere, not the warm surface of the earth. Consequently there is less total outgoing flux in these bands. To maintain thermal equilibrium with constant insolation, there has to be more outgoing flux in the non-CO_2 bands. The only way that can happen is for the temperature of the emitter to rise. So it does until equilibrium is reached.
I don’t care how energy is moved around to accomplish this. This is what photographs of TOA IR spectra tell us is happening. Make up your own favorite heuristic to explain it. Just make sure that the heuristic includes that “IR from cold CO_2 at the top of the troposphere”, a.k.a. “the GHE” or it is bullshit.
rgb
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 29, 2012 at 3:51 pm
“To repeat the obvious:
Essenhigh didn’t rule out the human influence, because his reasoning was based on the high throughput (short residence time) of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that is completely irrelevant for how much CO2 is added to or removed from the atmosphere.
Please, think about the difference between your cash flow in/out your bank deposit (that is throughput) and what is on your account at the end of the year, compared to the previous year (the gain or loss). [..]”
This seems to be a distortion of what he actually says, I can repeat my cite, which is quite clear:
R. Essenhigh [Atmospheric Residence Time of Man-Made CO2, 2009]
“[..]With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”
Since you are repeating yourself, I tell you once more, that the isotopic signature is only telling us, that we burn fossil fuel, nothing more. Earlier you mentioned that there is prove, now we are down to very likely, sooner or later you have to either disprove or accept the papers by Essenhigh and Segalstad.
It is possible that there are natural reasons for the recent increase of atmospheric CO2 (see Essenhigh for example), the isotopic signature does not prove anything about the reason of the CO2-rise in the atmosphere.
Henry@Beng
I think the term back radiation makes sense
because if you look here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
you see the radiation specific to a number of GHG’s coming back to us
via the moon
(compare fig. 6 bottom with fig.6 top and fig.7)
So the radiation went from sun-earth-substance (in atmosphere)-moon-earth
An effect that is similar to this, although more related to the optics field,
is also observed when car lights are put on bright in humid, moist and misty conditions:
your light is returned to you!!
Because the gas molecule is very small and behaves more or less like a sphere, (I think) we may assume that ca. 62,5% of a certain amount of light (radiation)in the absorptive region is sent back in a radius of 180 degrees in the direction where it came from. (comments , please!)
Ignoring this GHG cooling effect
which is prevalent at almost every GHG
(for example: CH4 absorbs 2.2.-2.4 um and therefore back radiates there as well)
would be the same as ignoring the GHG warming effect.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Robert Brown says:
March 1, 2012 at 9:56 am
Your problem is that you object to the silly pictures of the GHE as they are often published, with all sorts of upwelling and downwelling radiation. So do I. They are an heuristic explanation at best for a complex phenomenon. However, the phenomenon itself is directly evident in top of atmosphere IR spectroscopy. Outgoing radiation in the CO_2 band is emitted from the cool top of troposphere, not the warm surface of the earth. Consequently there is less total outgoing flux in these bands. To maintain thermal equilibrium with constant insolation, there has to be more outgoing flux in the non-CO_2 bands. The only way that can happen is for the temperature of the emitter to rise. So it does until equilibrium is reached.
Glad to hear Robert that I’m not the only one writing recommendations!
Agree with your description above, for all that outgoing radiation in the CO2 band there is an approximately equal quantity heading towards the Earth though. I noticed that Tallbloke shut you down by requiring an explanation of complex numbers as a posting requirement, I was banned sine die for quoting N&Z!
HenryP says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:13 am
Because the gas molecule is very small and behaves more or less like a sphere, (I think) we may assume that ca. 62,5% of a certain amount of light (radiation)in the absorptive region is sent back in a radius of 180 degrees in the direction where it came from. (comments , please!)
Not a chance! Light in the “absorptive region” is absorbed according to the absorption coefficient at that wavelength, then the excess energy is either transferred to the surrounding molecules via collisions or radiates in all directions (4π sr). Other incident light can be scattered by Rayleigh scattering according to it’s scattering cross-section (about 10^-5 of the light/m), since blue light is more strongly scattered than red the sky is blue.
Werner Brozek says:
February 29, 2012 at 10:44 pm
“…equilibrium should occur in a matter of months.”
This is merely the short time needed to establish oceanic/atmospheric equilibrium. The question is, how long does it take for ultimate sequestration?
At what rate does CO2 in the atmospheric diffuse to the surface? How long does it take added CO2 to stimulate significant new plant growth? At what rate does the ocean absorb, diffuse, and sequester it? How elastic are these reservoirs?
“…I believe Ferdinand Engelbeen has an excellent overall grasp of things.”
I believe Ferdinand has a vastly oversimplified narrative which claims greater confidence in quantities and models than is merited, and relies on spontaneous equilibrium without opposing force gradients to establish it, a happenstance which simply does not occur in nature.
Stable equilibria do not exist without opposing forces which combine with net positive curvature at the equilibrium point. As a consequence, a system in stable equilibrium will always resist external perturbing forces which attempt to shift it from the equilibrium. If the CO2 balance were so precarious as to satisfy Ferdinand’s narrative, it is highly unlikely that the level would have been as stable as indicated by the ice core data. And, the narrative is founded on the fidelity of that ice core record, so there is an unresolved internal conflict in the storyline
anticlimactic says:
March 1, 2012 at 7:29 am
“…when Woods investigated this in the 1920s he found that although almost non-existent there WAS a slight effect of about half a degree.”
If you are talking about R.W. Wood’s experiment in 1909, I think it is important to keep in mind that pressure and Doppler line broadening is what makes the GHE possible. Otherwise, the absorption lines would be infinitesimally narrow, and very little outgoing radiation would be intercepted. So, a static, ground based experiment is not likely representative of the actual system in question.
Robert Brown says:
March 1, 2012 at 9:42 am
What do you mean by “large”, I need to get a sense of proportion. and how, precisely, do you quantify it in terms of climate temperature. If it’s tiny, then what on earth is the infighting about?
Quantifying it is the one part of Nikolov and Zeller’s paper that isn’t completely wrong. The usual basis is to compute the Earth’s so called “greybody temperature” where a certain formula is used to determine where insolation is balanced by outgoing blackbody radiation, completely ignoring atmosphere [attenuation by the atmosphere, not its other attributes-a good approx for Venus-Phil.] and assuming that the Earth is basically a large perfectly (thermally) conducting sphere at a uniform temperature.
N&Z do a better job of computing the baseline temperature, although they then make assumptions and do things that are simply incorrect.
I disagree with the first part but agree about their assumptions, they do as bad a job (arguably worse for Earth), the conventional method calculates the largest possible average temperature for the body assuming only that the GHGs have been removed. N&Z calculate the lowest possible average temperature for an atmosphere-less planet with zero heat capacity which none of the planets come close too (the Moon is closest but no cigar!) Conventional methods are somewhat high for Earth, N&Z are way too low.
the term “denier” is wrong
and has nothing to do with science
paul
HenryP says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:13 am
“Ignoring this GHG cooling effect… would be the same as ignoring the GHG warming effect.”
As I understand it, the idea is that the CO2 acts like a diode in an electrical cicruit. It allows the bulk of sunshine, which peaks at higher wavenumber than the CO2 absorption band(s), to get to the surface. At that surface, that light is absorbed, and re-emitted with the peak in the IR. The CO2 then intercepts a portion of this outgoing radiation, momentarily delaying the exit of that energy from the system, until the surface heats up so that the outgoing flux sans the intercepted equilibrates with the incoming solar flux.
I have, though, come up with an additional kink in the system which I find plausible, and which I believe indicates that addition CO2 could, in fact, produce cooling. Here is the idea:
1) The planet radiates with a Planck distribution.
2) The tails of that distribution extend theoretically to infinity, so some portion will be absorbed by atmospheric gases.
3) Intercepted outgoing radiation will then warm the planet, however infinitesimally, which will beget more surface radiation, which will beget more atmospheric interception, and so on in a self-reinforcing cycle until the surface temperature reaches a point where the outward surface flux plus the outward atmospheric flux equals the incoming solar energy flux.
4) Now, suppose you have two substantial emitters like CO2 and CH4. As the planet warms up, the tails of the radiation distribution reach into both absorption spectra. The CH4, emitting at higher wavenumber, will pull the surface temperature toward the point where it would achieve equilibrium, which is a higher temperature than the CO2-alone equilibrium point.
5) The combined equilibrium point is between the lower level to which the CO2 is pulling it, and the higher level to which the CH4 is pulling it. Add more CO2, and you get pulled more toward the lower level CO2 equilibrium.
cooling in history always started on the maximal CO2 level,
who wants to deny ?
paul
before infrared irradiation wants to get out of earth (through the atmosphere),
it has to get in (through the atmosphere).
who wants to deny ?
paul
Laws of Nature says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:01 am
With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources
As said before, the RT (residence time) is not of the slightest interest here. That only shows how much CO2 is exchanged, but that doesn’t give us any clue what the total CO2 mass in the atmosphere over time is doing. One can have a tenfold increase of the troughput (thus a ten times shorter RT) while the atmospheric CO2 levels increase, decrease or stay level over the years. Thus the short RT does NOT support his conclusion.
Essenhigh in the abstract of the same article says:
Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It is the “adjustment time” which is important, that gives the time needed to reduce an extra amount of CO2 (whatever its source) to 1/e of the original excess. The IPCC 100 years in this is exaggerated, as they include a saturation of the deep oceans, which still is far from happening.
in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors.
Rising ocean temperatures give, according to Henry’s Law, an increase of 16 ppmv/°C in the atmosphere. Rising land temperatures, together with more precipitation, give an unknown decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere. The net result of all natural influences caused by temperature changes is 8 ppmv/°C over the past few million years, except for the past 160 years. The temperature drop from the MWP to the LIA did give the same 8 ppmv/°C. Since the LIA we may have had maximum a 1°C temperature rise or 8 ppmv extra. Not 100+ ppmv extra.
the isotopic signature is only telling us, that we burn fossil fuel, nothing more. Earlier you mentioned that there is prove, now we are down to very likely
My proof was that the two mainpossible natural sources: oceans and vegetation can’t be the source of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Oceans, because the 13C/12C ratio is too high. Vegetation, because there is more growth than decay as proven by the oxygen balance. Both are based on observations. You may not accept that as proof, that is up to you. If my deduction is wrong, please give me a note where I am wrong,
All other possible sources are either too slow or too small. But if you have knowledge of such possible sources with the right fingerprint and releases, I am very interested.
What rests are the human emissions, which are twice what is observed as increase in the atmosphere. That itself is already sufficient proof that humans are the cause of the increase, because nature as a whole is a net sink for the difference:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
But that caused over 600 comments in the past…
“Add more CO2, and you get pulled more toward the lower level CO2 equilibrium.”
Please note again the importance of equilibrium dynamics in all of this. The surface temperature of the planet is set by a complex interaction of all the relevant variables establishing an, at least quasi-, stable equilibrium point. A point where powerful oppositional forces balance out, and resist forces tending to displace the equilibrium.
In the standard GHE explanation, we hear none of this. The temperature of the Earth just happens to be what it is, and so the acolytes believe it can be catastrophically swayed by minor forcing. But, nature just doesn’t work this way. If an equilibrium is not maintained forcefully, then random events will cause it to drift like particles in a beaker (Brownian motion) to arbitrary extremes. Nature is like Jason Borne:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
March 1, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“What rests are the human emissions, which are twice what is observed as increase in the atmosphere. That itself is already sufficient proof that humans are the cause of the increase, because nature as a whole is a net sink for the difference.”
I do SO hate it when you trot out that transparently faulty logic, Ferdinand. I boggles my mind that you cannot see how specious it is.
Bart says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:54 am
The question is, how long does it take for ultimate sequestration?
How long does it take added CO2 to stimulate significant new plant growth?
I would say plants use it right away as long as the other nutrients are there as well. As for the deep ocean, that may take 800 years to reach equilibrium.
Doug Cotton says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Claes Johnson is a Professor in Applied Physics. I can think of no other area within Science that can be more difficult than just that.
The most difficult thing within physics, is to understand when and where you can apply a certain formulae. And this guy is a Professor within Applied Physics.
I did notice Fred S. sending an arrow in the direction of the science of Thermodynamics.
He will regret that, I am afraid. You know, regret it, scientifically.
Bart says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:54 am
I believe Ferdinand has a vastly oversimplified narrative which claims greater confidence in quantities and models than is merited, and relies on spontaneous equilibrium without opposing force gradients to establish it, a happenstance which simply does not occur in nature.
I do think that quantities and observations are very important here, but I have little confidence in models, until proven right. But what does you think that I believe in a spontaneous equilibrium without opposing force gradients? The discussion with LoN shows that the same cause (temperature) gives opposite forcing gradients for oceans and vegetation, which gives a change in steady state level of 8 ppmv/°C. And any extra addition of CO2, be it from volcanoes or humans, need to build up an extra force gradient in the atmosphere (increased ppm’s), or that extra would remain there forever.
At one side the human emissions are the cause of the increase, at the other side, nature (oceans and vegetation) react by an increased uptake which reaches (by coincidence) half the emissions. The height of the uptake in the oceans is the direct result of the partial pressure differences between pCO2(atm) and pCO2(aq), where wind speed is the stirring factor which influences the speed of uptake (diffusion alone is much too slow). Something similar may be at work in plant alveoles…
Werner Brozek says:
March 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm
I would say plants use it right away as long as the other nutrients are there as well. As for the deep ocean, that may take 800 years to reach equilibrium.
Unfortunately not that fast for plants: a 100% increase in CO2 gives a 50% increase in plant (carbon) growth, not 100%. And even that needs time, besides the other constraints. Realitiy is that plants currently take some 1.5 GtC/yr extra and the oceans some 2.5 GtC/yr extra away due to the extra pressure by 100+ ppmv (210 GtC) CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium. That gives a half life time of CO2 of ~40 years.
The deep oceans are far from saturated. Any extra CO2 is mixed into a large mass of carbon. The result coming out indeed some 800 years later. The total mass of CO2 emitted by humans until now, once in equilibrium with the deep oceans, would induce a 1% increase in the atmosphere.
Bart says:
March 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I do SO hate it when you trot out that transparently faulty logic, Ferdinand. I boggles my mind that you cannot see how specious it is.
The same faulty logic that says that:
increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural sources – natural sinks
or
4 GtC/yr = 8 GtC/yr + natural sources – natural sinks
or
natural sources – natural sinks = -4 GtC/yr
With other words: the net contribution of all natural causes together to the increase in the atmosphere is negative…
John Marshall says: March 1, 2012 at 6:46 am
“Sorry Dr Singer but I am one of those you despise…”
John, Fred Singer is a true gentleman – he does not despise you.
______________
Bart says: March 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm
“I do SO hate it when you trot out that transparently faulty logic, Ferdinand. I boggles my mind that you cannot see how specious it is….”
______________
Bart, can you please be more specific? I would like to understand your scientific viewpoint (especially if it agrees with my own prejudices).
______________
To be clear, I like both Fred and Ferdinand – they make me think… … and I think more deeply after I have read their comments.
______________
Bart says: March 1, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Apologies Bart – I just read your earlier post. Good stuff (aka “we agree”).
I think Ferdinand’s “material balance argument” is incorrect because it inherently assumes that the climate-CO2 system is static, but it is dynamic, and the relatively small humanmade fraction of total CO2 flux may not be significant in this huge system, as it continues to chase equilibrium into eternity.
Phil. says:
March 1, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Robert Brown says:
March 1, 2012 at 9:42 am
N&Z do a better job of computing the baseline temperature, although they then make assumptions and do things that are simply incorrect.
I disagree with the first part but agree about their assumptions, they do as bad a job (arguably worse for Earth), the conventional method calculates the largest possible average temperature for the body assuming only that the GHGs have been removed. N&Z calculate the lowest possible average temperature for an atmosphere-less planet with zero heat capacity which none of the planets come close too (the Moon is closest but no cigar!) Conventional methods are somewhat high for Earth, N&Z are way too low.
___________________________________________________________________________
I’m in a very similar place with respect to N & Z.
My thought is that to get the true answer, we would need to deduce what proportion of incoming radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and needs to be radiated back to outer space to maintain an equilibrium temperature, and what proportion is reflected or scattered and returns to outer space without ever having affected the Earth’s temperature.
If the true effective temperature of the Earth (or any planet with a significant atmosphere for that matter) “just happened” to be very close to the temperature at the top of the troposphere then, conceptually at least, that would make perfect sense to me…
Actually proving it of course, would be a whole different matter. Any volunteers? (:-