Dr. Roy Spencer has made a challenge to the Slayers/Principia folks who keep insisting the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist at all. For example, see the front page claim at right from the Principia web page where they claim the greenhouse effect is “bogus”.
My view has always been that it exists. and has been effectively modeled as well as observed/measured (up to a point, so far I don’t know of a full scale measurement being done for the entire vertical column of the atmosphere), but likely isn’t the catastrophic issue portrayed by alarmists due to climate sensitivity likely being low.
Dr. Spencer’s challenge is quite simple and rooted in science; to prove their case, he simply wants them to make a simple model like this one below to demonstrate the absence of a greenhouse effect, while at the same time handling the measured energy budget of the Earth.
So far, he’s attracted lots of blowback rhetoric, but no serious takers. I doubt there will be.
Dr. Spencer sums it up pretty well as to why a cogent rebuttal is not likely:
If and when they answer my challenge to provide a quantitative model of surface temperature change, I might change my mind. But they must first provide a time-dependent model like that above which involves energy gain and energy loss terms, which is the only way to compute the temperature of something from theory. Those energy gain and loss terms must be consistent with experimental observations, and (of course) the physical units of the terms must all be consistent.
But I don’t see how they can ever do that, because they will ignore the hundreds of watts of downward emitted IR radiation from the sky, an energy flux which is routinely observed with a variety of instrumentation, and explained with well-established theories of radiative transfer and laboratory evidence of the infrared absorption characteristics of various gases.
And later in comments:
All they have to do is provide an energy budget equation that produces the observed average surface temperature of the Earth, and support the values for the energy fluxes with observational evidence. They have not done this. In fact, they cannot do it because they would need to find an extra 300+ W/m2 of energy somewhere, otherwise they cannot explain observed surface temperatures.
As he says its “put up or shut up” time. Read it all here:
Time for the Slayers to Put Up or Shut Up
I doubt the Slayers/Principia folks will learn anything from Dr. Spencer’s challenge, as they’ve reached almost a cult like status in this belief, and once it reaches that status, minds start closing to the possibility of the central idea being wrong. Most of the belief is predicated on a simple misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere (a misnomer) actually operates, slowing the transfer of Long Wave Infrared from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere. You’ll see the “a colder object can’t heat a warmer object” argument being bandied about as proof of their belief, but it is a strawman argument that doesn’t represent what actually goes on in the GHG slowing of LWIR transfer to TOA.
In fairness, I’ll borrow a phrase from a skeptic movie title: “Not evil, just wrong“.
These folks mean well, but they’ve latched onto an idea that just doesn’t work. Some of the main players, such as Doug Cotton and John O’Sullivan have gotten so entrenched and angry that they have made persona non gratas of themselves here and at some other blogs.
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
Like Dr. Spencer, if and when they are able to provide a simple working model of the atmospheric energy balance that matches their theory with observations, I’ll be happy to take another look at the idea here.
In the meantime, it’s just a Sisyphus style table pounding time sink, and one has to know when to step away from the argument until such time something of substance is presented.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Atmospheric warming by CO2 was calculated by the activist Stephen H. Schneider
of Columbia with the groundbreaking value of 3.7 W/m2 per doubling of CO2-content,
the climate sensitivity. Today, all warming values rest on his calculations.
Afterwards, his sensitivity calculations were scrutinized by 4 real atmospheric physicists,
G. Gerlich, Dlugi, G. Kramm and R. Tscheuschner. They all rebutted his calculations
as faulty, wrong, misleading. The following next step in real climate science would have
been a rebuttal of their rebuttal by following their arguments and identifying their
mistakes. Until today, this step is still outstanding…. and instead of it, CO2-warmism
makes up its own interpretation…and still carries on with the wrong Schneider model
of climate sensitivity. There are plenty of self-incencing people …. but to get
to the real bottom of the CO2-matter, the rebuttal of the aforementioned rebuttal has
to be presented first instead of continuing based on the Schneider activism. JS
[Science Officer] “Captain … sensors are indicating 400 ppm CO2 !”
[Navigation Officer] “Captain … We have crossed the Critical Desalinization Point !”
[Medical Officer] “HealthBay … emergency discharge of O2, N, and smartly.”
[HealthBay] “Aye sir …. emerging discharging of O2, now, proceeding smartingly.”
[Weapons Officer] “Say … anybody got-a Bic so I can flame up me fag ?”
[Capitan] “Here … [tosses his Bic to the Nav-O] use mine. What was THAT … emergency discharge of O2 ? NO NO WAIT …”
Wooooouuuuuuuuusssssshhhhhhhhhhhh
[Narrator] And for the briefest of brief moments the Good Ship Lucifer became the brightest of bright stars in the Heavens [as the orchestra plays ‘God Shave The Queen’ to the thunderous applause from the Peanut Gallery].
😀
pochas says:
May 11, 2013 at 11:15 am
Here’s the comment I just posted over at Roy Spencer’s blog.
…
The second thing that thermodynamics says is that a spontaneous process operating in a closed system must result in increased entropy. Entropy will reach its maximum when the universe is all at the same temperature, cold and dead.
To reach this, the earth must radiate to space and any spontaneous process operating on the earth must act to assist this. This requires that the spontaneous process of moist convection must act to cool the earth, therefore, any representation that the water cycle warms the earth is an egregious error, feedbacks from moist convection are necessarily negative (as Roy has clearly shown) and overall climate sensitivities are lower than the Planck sensitivity.
Bringing in entropy is important, another pointer to the failure and non-physicality of the AGW narrative. Spontaneous convection processes involve nonlinear/nonequilibrium pattern dynamics, and these have been described by Matthias Bertram as “exporting entropy”. Here is an excerpt from his PhD thesis:
“The concepts of self-organization and dissipative structures go back to Schrodinger and Prigogine [1–3]. The spontaneous formation of spatio-temporal patterns can occur when a stationary state far from thermodynamic equilibrium is maintained through the dissipation of energy that is continuously fed into the system. While for closed systems the second law of thermodynamics requires relaxation to a state of maximal entropy, open systems are able to interchange matter and energy with their environment. By taking up energy of higher value (low entropy) and delivering energy of lower value (high entropy) they are able to export entropy, and thus to spontaneously develop structures characterized by a higher degree of order than present in the environment.”
This concept of “exporting entropy” directly relates to your entropy argument vis-a-vis the Thermodynamics laws. This Bertram quote is mentioned on a previous WUWT thread
I have always felt that the climate questions cant really be answered without bringing nonlinear / chaotic dynamics into the equation – it would seem that there is a “nonlinear thermodynamic” argument here of some significance.
I am troubled by the hostility to the “slayers” – it the difference between a weak CO2 greenhouse effect and zero effect one that we are able to resolve and prove as settled science? No. The “slayers” position is originally that of Ferenc Miskolczi, as set out in his original paper It is further developed in this new Miskolczi model.
The core of this model is basically the Willis Essenbach model of tropical cloud convection and thunderstorms shedding excess heat. Miskolczi’s mathematical formulation of an atmosphere optical depth auto-adjusting to maintain radiation equilibrium is really just “anticipating Willis”.
If Roy Spencer is asking for a model, here is that model. What Roy Spencer should do if he disagrees with the “Slayers” is refute the original Miskolczi paper point by point. I doubt that this would be easy for him or anyone.
Here is a key quote from Miskolczi 2007:
The purpose of this study was to develop relevant theoretical equations for greenhouse studies in bounded semi-transparent planetary atmospheres in radiative equilibrium. In our terms the local radiative equilibrium is a unique instantaneous state of the atmosphere where the upward atmospheric radiation is balanced by the short wave atmospheric absorption and the net exchange of thermal fluxes of non-radiative origin at the boundary. In general, the thermal structure of the atmosphere assures that the absorbed surface upward radiation is equal to the downward atmospheric radiation. It seems that the Earth’s atmosphere maintains the balance between the absorbed short wave and emitted long wave radiation by keeping the total flux optical depth close to the theoretical equilibrium values.
On local scale the regulatory role of the water vapor is apparent. On global scale, however, there can not be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, can not work.
I don’t know the “slayers” but I expect that “delta” comes into it, where delta = accepted uncertainty. For example, I state pi = 355/113. Pedants may reply that this equals 3.1415929 and not 3.1415926, but it remains that all of man’s creations have been built to pi values less precise than 355/113, so what’s the difference? I am a “slayer” on 355/113, because the delta of 0.0000003 is simply beneath the threshold of notice. I expect most or all “slayers” similarly hold that future increases of CO2 confer heat increases beneath the threshold of notice. It’s just a scalar question: how much more heat is retained by 1000ppm than 400ppm? The slayers say close to zero, skeptics say 1C-2C, alarmists say 5C-10C. No need to be upset about the slayers, they may even have charming secret handshakes!
It seems to me that there is much ado about nothing with respect to the greenhouse effecf. The actual effect is obviously the product of interaction between the substances making up the atmosphere and the combined effect of their physical properties. It seems pointless to argue over details when, in any event, simple observation shows that the AGW meme is unsustainable. And doing so only opens the door for alarmists to challenge that simple fact.
Dodgy Geezer, you pegged it when you said that regardless of details, the message is still and always that human forcings are too small to measure or to have causation definitively attributed to them. That fundamental truth will not change as a result of differences of findins or opinion over such details as radiative or adiabatic effects, because it is quite apparent that such differences are immaterial to the total picture.
I think our message should be that while there may be differences of opiniion regarding some details, these difference DO NOT change the very solid and observationally demonstrable conclusions that (1) man’s activities DO NOT discernibly affect climate, and (2) even if it could be established that they do, no harm is done.
Whenever skeptics are questioned, the common response should be that regardless of details, AGW is nugatory and must not be the basis of political and exconomic policy decisions. None of those details can disprove this immutable fact, and I don’t really see anyone arguing that they can, so why make an issue of them? We already know the Earth isn’t flat, and debating the exact degree of its oblateness won’t change that basic fact. Such discussions are necessary to refine the science, but it should be made clear that they are a sidebar to the basic message. Otherwise, they’re just an opening for people whose agenda must be resisted and stopped at all cost.
In July 2010, Dr Roy (his chosen nom de plume) wrote an article […]
Err.. yea. He’s not real. Probably some CIA code name. (Anthony can you allow this one?) … JAO … you are a complete DICK!
A couple of articles well-backed from the area of statistical thermodynamics would be an excellent (and well-reusable) addition to the “colder warming warm” discussion.
That is: illustrations of ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ boxes at the individual (and very small number!) of atom level where the atoms leave trailing indicating velocity. Putting the boxes together. Calculating and demonstrating the -net- energy flow.
And then showing the instantaneous effect of an atom leaving the ‘cold’ zone for the ‘hot’ zone. (“Cold” warming “hot”).
This is just not an area of scientific debate. If I recall correctly there are even a couple conclusive direct experiments of the type I’ve outlined that have been performed.
Hoser says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Thank you – a far more detailed presentation of the point that was attempting to make on missing energy flows. The missing flows and reservoirs mean that the formula developed is also incomplete and probably incorrect. So if the results of plugging in values to the formula gives the expected outcome, then the formula, the variables and the values plugged into them are almost certainly also incorrect.
But note – under the new rules your point will not be discussed as you have to develop a fully documented mathematical model of your own not just point out that there appears to be an error/omission in the one proposed. This is my concern about inadvertent shutting down of debate.
I am sure it is really irritating for Anthony et al to see the same points made repeatedly (and often by the same person); but care needs to be taken not to throw baby out with the bathwater.
@plain Richard – I note that you snipped my post just before I say: “The refutation would of course not be an appeal to authority but would provide a brief refutation with references to reported empirical experiments that failed to falsify the refutation.” I believe that removes much of SKS as a source. 🙂
Well it would be ridiculous to deny that there IS radiative heating, obviously without it the energy from the sun wouldn’t heat the atmosphere, and those nifty parabolic IR heaters you get at Costco wouldn’t work either.
The problem is that once that energy is converted to thermal, some people still think that vast quantities of radiative energy is still at play. In fact, the CO2 model of ping-pong ball style radiative downwelling and whatever, while it can be shown to actually occur, is too minor of a player to even worry about.
And I also agree with Dodgy Geezer, most people that I know who say “there is no greenhouse at all” are using that as shorthand for “the effect is not significant enough to cause catastrophe”, or even measurable in a meaningful sense. (Although, yes, there are some who really think it’s zero).
Once the energy from the sun is measurable as “heat” in the atmosphere or upper ocean layers, the major mechanism moving it around is convective, not radiative. It isn’t until that heat is transported far enough upward to radiate back into space that radiative effects have impact. It really only takes a small amount of logic to comprehend that there is no radiative imbalance, since eventually incoming and outgoing radiation balance out no matter what. If it was even POSSIBLE for this to not be the case we would have no life on this planet, since there have been numerous excursions into CO2 abundance and starvation.
The major climate driver is water and water vapor. Water vapor stores and moves an immense amount of heat. We don’t actually see this because it is invisible, only appearing once clouds form, but it’s there.
“What Roy Spencer should do if he disagrees with the “Slayers” is refute the original Miskolczi paper point by point. I doubt that this would be easy for him or anyone.”
It was refuted a few days after it was published at the ClimateAudit forum.
(In section 3.1 the special power-law case of the Virial theorem is applied to a situation in which it doesn’t apply.)
But it makes no difference. You can lay down as many challenges as you like. Refute arguments, explain physics, offer thought experiments to try to get it through. This stuff will never die.
Personally, I don’t mind the occasional slayer thread – it can be entertaining. The thing that bugs me is when they clutter up every other thread, on unrelated topics, so you can’t discuss anything else without getting distracted and sidetracked by their endless obsessive nonsense.
They’ll be back.
“Back radiation” like “back conduction” as non-forced transfer of heat energy from cold to warm, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and as such is not real physics, only imagined physics without real origin. It is truely amazing to see flocks of climate scientists including skeptics believing that the Kiehl-Trenberth heat energy flow describes actual physics. DLR as heat transfer from a cold atmosphere to a warm Earth surface, is fiction and it is not evidenced by instruments reporting readings based on the same fiction. Those who believe that the 2nd law can be circumvented are simply fooling themselves.
Absence of “back radiation” and “back conduction” does not mean that the rate of heat transfer by radiation or conduction does not depend on the medium of transfer and the temperature gradient. In particular, the presence of IR absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere may influence the heat transfer from the Earth surface to outer space, just like insulation can affect the inside temperature of a house. But there is substantial evidence that the effect of doubled CO2 is too small to ever be observed, and there is no evidence to the opposite.
REPLY:Ah there’s that silliness again. I find it amazing that flocks of people such as yourself describe the issue as “bogus” on your main web page, but then come here and claim it exists yet too small to be observed, or that instruments have it all wrong without offering anything of substance to back that up. You probably ought to talk amongst yourselves and get your story straight.
– Anthony
The diagram is confusing. It does look like convection is conveying energy away from the top of the atmosphere.
Convection moves heat around within the atmosphere and oceans. Ultimately the only way energy leaves the planet and its atmosphere is by radiation.
Anyway, Dr. Spencer’s challenge is to explain the temperature of the surface. Convection certainly removes heat from the surface. The trouble is that the heat moves both vertically and, importantly, horizontally poleward in the atmosphere and the ocean. The diagram also ignores the heat loss due to evaporation which is very important in the tropics. So I sneer derisively at the figure of 97 W/m2 for convection in the diagram. Two significant digits, yeah give me a break.
On the other hand, if you doubt the greenhouse effect, I have a simpler challenge for you. Explain to me how an IR thermometer works. Then explain why it doesn’t read absolute zero when you point it skyward on a cloudless night.
I, for sure, don’t think we can easily quantify the greenhouse effect. If we want to look at the earth without an atmosphere, we can look at the moon. The subsurface temperature of the moon is approx. 23 deg. C at the equator. http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature (the subsurface temperature of the moon was actually measured in boreholes by more than one Apollo mission link
The average ocean surface temperature at the equator doesn’t exceed 30 deg. C. So you could argue that the greenhouse effect is responsible for maybe 7 deg. of warming not the 30 deg. that I have sometimes seen quoted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature
The point of this rant is that we are too clueless about the climate to say the things we are saying with the conviction with which we are saying them. That applies to all sides of the debate. Global warming alarmists have damaged the credibility of the environmental movement. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=788 As Freeman Dyson says:
By the same token, folks who can’t master basic physics don’t help the skeptical side.
[snip – BBBzzzzzttt! oh no not that crap again, we aren’t talking about Venus. The issue is Earth. Also, fake email address, policy violation – Anthony]
““Back radiation” like “back conduction” as non-forced transfer of heat energy from cold to warm, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics”
No it doesn’t.
“It is truely amazing to see flocks of climate scientists including skeptics believing that the Kiehl-Trenberth heat energy flow describes actual physics.”
If you think everyone around you is mad…
But that of course is the challenge. If you think Kiehl-Trenberth is wrong, provide your own alternative. A quantitative numerical model that we can test, and that avoids all the semantic confusion of terminology.
“My view has always been that it exists. and has been effectively modeled as well as observed/measured (up to a point, so far I don’t know of a full scale measurement being done for the entire vertical column of the atmosphere), but likely isn’t the catastrophic issue portrayed by alarmists due to climate sensitivity likely being low.”
Absolutely agree !!! So nicely put to explain the skeptical position.
I think that this passage clearly shows that there is a difference between “skeptics” & those who might be labeled with the “d” word. To lump all skeptics with the later is to not understand the skeptic position & is a dis-service to a serious discuss of the matter.
At his blog Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM
“But how exactly did you come up with that temperature [-18 ºC], and from what altitude? ”
This is the radiating temperature of the earth as seen from space, including an albedo of 0.7.
T = (0.7 * 1365/( 4 * 5.67E-8))^0.25 = 255 ºK = -18 ºC
Well I’ve had my fun today and reached my GHG tipping point for silliness. Since the Principia folks don’t allow comments over at their website (lest somebody refute the Cottonian nonsense on display) I feel I’ve been more than fair in obliging comments here. I simply have better things to do today, like mow the lawn and do household chores. When/if they have something relevant in a sans GHG model that doesn’t rely on thermodynamic sophistry, we’ll consider having a look again.