By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
I have just had the honor of listening to Professor Murry Salby giving a lecture on climate. He had addressed the Numptorium in Holyrood earlier in the day, to the bafflement of the fourteenth-raters who populate Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament. In the evening, among friends, he gave one of the most outstanding talks I have heard.
Professor Salby has also addressed the Parliament of Eunuchs in Westminster. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk.
The Faceless Ones whose trembling, liver-spotted hands guide the European hulk of state unerringly towards the bottom were among the first and most naively enthusiastic true-believers in the New Superstition that is global warming. They could have benefited from a scientific education from the Professor.
His lecture, a simplified version of his earlier talk in Hamburg that was the real reason why spiteful profiteers of doom at Macquarie “University” maliciously canceled his non-refundable ticket home so that he could not attend the kangaroo court that dismissed him, was a first-class exercise in logical deduction.
He had written every word of it, elegantly. He delivered it at a measured pace so that everyone could follow. He unfolded his central case step by step, verifying each step by showing how his theoretical conclusions matched the real-world evidence.
In a normal world with mainstream news media devoted to looking at all subjects from every direction (as Confucius used to put it), Murry Salby’s explosive conclusion that temperature change drives CO2 concentration change and not the other way about would have made headlines. As it is, scarce a word has been published anywhere.
You may well ask what I might have asked: given that the RSS satellite data now show a zero global warming trend for 17 full years, and yet CO2 concentration has been rising almost in a straight line throughout, is it any more justifiable to say that temperature change causes CO2 change than it is to say that CO2 change causes temperature change?
The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.
I had first heard of Murry Salby’s work from Dick Lindzen over a drink at a regional government conference we were addressing in Colombia three years ago. I readily agreed with Dick’s conclusion that if we were causing neither temperature change nor even CO2 concentration change the global warming scare was finished.
I began then to wonder whether the world could now throw off the absurdities of climate extremism and develop a sensible theory of climate.
In pursuit of this possibility, I told Professor Salby I was going to ask two questions. He said I could ask just one. So I asked one question in two parts.
First, I asked whether the rapid, exponential decay in carbon-14 over the six decades following the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests had any bearing on his research. He said that the decay curve for carbon-14 indicated a mean CO2 atmospheric residence time far below the several hundred years assumed in certain quarters. It supports Dick Lindzen’s estimate of a 40-year residence time, not the IPCC’s imagined 50-200 years.
Secondly, I asked whether Professor Salby had studied what drove global temperature change. He said he had not gotten to that part of the story yet.
In the past year, I said, four separate groups haf contacted me to say they were able to reproduce global temperature change to a high correlation coefficient by considering it as a function of – and, accordingly, dependent upon – the time-integral of total solar irradiance.
If these four groups are correct, and if Professor Salby is also correct, one can begin to sketch out a respectable theory of climate.
The time-integral of total solar irradiance determines changes in global mean surface temperature. Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic-ray amplification, which now has considerable support in the literature, may help to explain the mechanism.
In turn, the time integral of absolute global mean temperature determines the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here, the mechanism will owe much to Henry’s Law, which mandates that a warmer ocean can carry less CO2 than a colder ocean. I have never seen an attempt at a quantitative analysis of that relationship in this debate, and should be grateful if any of Anthony’s readers can point me to one.
The increased CO2 concentration as the world warms may well act as a feedback amplifying the warming, and perhaps our own CO2 emissions make a small contribution. But we are not the main cause of warmer weather, and certainly not the sole cause.
For the climate, all the world’s a stage. But, if the theory of climate that is emerging in samizdat lectures such as that of Professor Salby is correct, we are mere bit-part players, who strut and fret our hour upon the stage and then are heard no more.
The shrieking hype with which the mainstream news media bigged up Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, ruthlessly exploiting lost lives in their increasingly desperate search for evidence – any evidence – as ex-post-facto justification for their decades of fawning, head-banging acquiescence in the greatest fraud in history shows that they have begun to realize that their attempt at politicizing science itself is failing.
Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.
I asked Professor Salby whether there was enough information in the temperature record to allow him to predict the future evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. He said he could not do that.
However, one of the groups working on the dependence of global temperature change on the time-integral of total solar irradiance makes a startling prediction: that we are in for a drop of half a Celsius degree in the next five years.
When I made a glancing reference to that research in an earlier posting, the propagandist John Abraham sneeringly offered me a $1000 bet that the fall in global temperature would not happen.
I did not respond to this characteristically jejune offer. A theory of climate is a hypothesis yet to be verified by observation, experiment and measurement. It is not yet a theorem definitively demonstrated. Explaining the difference to climate communists is likely to prove impossible. To them the Party Line, whatever it is, must be right even if it be wrong.
The group that dares to say it expects an imminent fall in global mean surface temperature does so with great courage, and in the Einsteinian spirit of describing at the outset a test by which its hypothesis may be verified.
Whether that group proves right or wrong, its approach is as consistent with the scientific method as the offering of childish bets is inconsistent with it. In science, all bets are off. As al-Haytham used to say, check and check and check again. He was not talking about checks in settlement of silly wagers.
In due course Professor Salby will publish in the reviewed literature his research on the time-integral of temperature as the driver of CO2 concentration change. So, too, I hope, will the groups working on the time-integral of total solar irradiance as the driver of temperature change.
In the meantime, I hope that those who predict a sharp, near-term fall in global temperature are wrong. Cold is a far bigger killer than warmth. Not that the climate communists of the mainstream media will ever tell you that.
“Greenhouses don’t get hotter than the solar flux.”
“That doesn’t even make any sense. Solar temporal flux is in Watts. Heat is measured in Joules. A Watt is a Joule per second. This is like saying a mountain can’t be higher than 60 miles an hour.”
Solar flux is also called insolation and it translates to a temperature it can induce on a surface if you account for absorptivity and emissivity. Real greenhouses should replicate the radiant trapping postulate to produce a higher temperature than the insolation, but they don’t. “Wood’s Box” style experiments should be able to show it but they don’t either. The reason is that any subsequent emission of energy after the solar insolation induces temperature, is radiation of the local temperature, and therefore can’t induce higher temperature in itself.
Anomalatys, let them have their belief in:
All the better. And if you notice the next jump is always to peas or mom’s dollars or some other arcane bait-and-switch diatribe trying to convince you that they can literally create that excess of energy. So be it. Notice they draw no difference from temperature and flux, unless it is then to their wording advantage.
But deep down they both know there is a difference between temperature, thermal capacity and the input spectrums which are all involved in this particular discussion. So why don’t they just say it? Because if they ever laid out the real answer then, poof, there is no longer talk of 396 W/m² upward and 333 W/m² of back radiation but just 63 W/m² upward and most of that is some 40 W/m² that leaves from the surface without interaction at all. What is left? In that case (my figures are slightly different) only 23 W/m² is in question that is absorbed by the atmosphere and of that 23 W/m² half goes up and out, half (12.5W/m²) is actually all we are speaking of and need to address. So you will never hear the factual from them, all of their justification vanishes (well, but for a tiny bit). Now if CO2 doubles how much does that 12.5 W/m² increase? You should get the gist.
The only thing that could change in the surface temperature from a change within the atmosphere itself is if the LW throughput changed, the LW optical thickness of the atmosphere itself but a Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi has gone to great length to analyze this aspect and some 100,000 radiosondes over all seasons all bands, all-sky and clear-sky accounted for shows this has changed zero over the fifty years from 1958-2008 (?). They will not fairly consider his work either. All this means is the small increase has come from elsewhere, not from co2. But that won’t be considered either.
It’s a sick game and all of humanity is going to pay for it, many with their lives.
Anomalatys says:
November 14, 2013 at 7:35 pm
“Solar flux is also called insolation and it translates to a temperature it can induce on a surface if you account for absorptivity and emissivity.”
And, that temperature is the temperature of the Sun. Which is… Hot.
It’s like in the circuit example. The voltage the capacitor can reach is the source voltage, not the voltage delivered by the resistor. The resistor is not a voltage source. It doesn’t provide power of any kind. It merely conducts it from the source to the ground.
Solar temporal flux is a measure of energy units per unit of time. They keep piling in. And, they will accumulate over time to whatever level is needed to equilibrate the rate at which energy units are leaving with the rate at which they are coming in.
Just like the dam example. The water keeps coming in. It will keep rising until it can overflow the dam. Not until it reaches the level of water produced by the dam. The dam doesn’t produce any water. It simply impedes it.
I can’t make it simpler than that. I expect you will continue to disagree. Sorry I couldn’t be of more help.
“And, that temperature is the temperature of the Sun. Which is… Hot”
Insolation at the Earth is not the temperature of the Sun, it is just related to the local flux. The local flux at the Earth if fully absorbed could produce +121C. To get higher than this, the flux has to be magnified, to undo 1/r^2 dilution. Local flux is what induces the temperature of the surface, factoring of course for albedo and emissivity. Subsequent radiation from that heated surface can’t cause more heating.
In your circuit example, the translation over to thermodynamics places mass as resistance and thermal capacity (Cp) as capacitance. Changing the mass/Cp only changes the time constant, not the final temperature, given the forcing (insolation).
“They keep piling in.”
They get absorbed at a cooler surface and induce heating. The temperature they can induce is only given by their flux. They can’t produce higher temperature than their flux. That’s why their flux needs to be magnified to higher flux in order to produce a higher temperature. Subsequent radiation from the heated surface is radiation of the local temperature, and can’t cause heat to flow back into itself (raise its own temperature).
“The water keeps coming in. It will keep rising until it can overflow the dam.”
Photons aren’t like water. They’re not matter. They pass through each other. They don’t cause each other to overflow or push each other around. They just pass through each other.
Yes, well, what would be good is an actual demonstration that the “radiant postulate” can induce a higher temperature on a surface than the insolation should produce. Any time this has been checked for, it isn’t seen. The reason must be because subsequent emission is of the local temperature, and heat can’t flow into itself which is what would be required to get a higher temperature.
Anomalatys says:
November 14, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Again, it has never been demonstrated that a surface can get hotter than its insolation due to backradiation/trapping etc.
Yes it has on many occasions.
Anomalatys says:
November 14, 2013 at 7:32 pm
“The surface temperature is greater than that due to the solar insolation.”
It isn’t actually. Insolation can be as high as 121C on a surface and it has never been demonstrated that backradiation causes a positive feedback to produce a temperature higher than this.
Such a high temperature due solely to insolation would only be possible at local noon on the equator in a desert atmosphere with no cloud!
If there were such positive feedback it would runaway, and be easy to observe. It hasn’t been.
It would not be runaway, do the math!
Oh, you might need these number to make sense of what I just posted:
Here’s a breakdown of some BB wavelength bands in the LW realm at 288.15 K:
0 – 14 μm = 190.4 W/m² (48.7%)
14 – 17 μm = 52.3 W/m² (13.3%) CO2 (some H2O overlap)
17 – 20 μm = 37.5 W/m² (9.6%)
20 – 1000 μm = 110.7 W/m² (28.3%)
1000 up just ignore
These sums to 390.9 W/m²
Also 0 – 5 μm is 3.8 W/m² (about 1%)
Since the window radiation from both the surface and cloud tops is somewhere between 70 W/m² and 82 W/m² (I’ve seen both used, and in between) then you can combine the info above to get a good grip on just how much influence CO2 has in the atmosphere.
Roughly you have at 288K the 14-17 band becomes 52.3/311 or 16.8% after removing the window radiation and all other is in the other GHGs, primarily H2O, or one sixth influence at most.
Rerunning that at 255K at a bit under 240 W/m² gives:
0 – 14 μm = 95.3 W/m² (39.7%)
14 – 17 μm = 33.8 W/m² (14.1%) CO2 (some H2O overlap)
17 – 20 μm = 25.8 W/m² (10.8%)
20 – 1000 μm = 84.9 W/m² (35.4%)
Also 0 – 5 μm is about 1 W/m² (0.4%)
Roughly here you have at 255K the 14-17 band becomes 33.8/160 or 21.1% after removing the window radiation and all other is in the other GHGs, primarily H2O, or about one fifth influence at most.
From those you can get water vapors influence as the sum must be one, we have already removed the window radiation from those calculations.
wayne says
14 – 17 μm = 33.8 W/m² (14.1%) CO2 (some H2O overlap)
henry says
first of all, the problem you have there is that the overlap is considerable + CO2 is 0.04% whereas H2O water (vapour) is already 0.5%
I looked at this problem before and there is no way to disentangle this. This is why I earlier stated that the graph joeldshore quoted is misleading.
he also has not answered my question that I posed to him, which tells you something?
“Again, it has never been demonstrated that a surface can get hotter than its insolation due to backradiation/trapping etc.
“-Yes it has on many occasions.”
It has never been observed inside a real greenhouse or other apparatus’ to check for it. It isn’t observed on the surface of the Earth either.
“Such a high temperature due solely to insolation would only be possible at local noon on the equator in a desert atmosphere with no cloud!”
Sure. For any other location you just factor for projection angle and extinction, etc. It has never been demonstrated that a higher temperature than the insolation can be induced via the radiative postulate.
“It would not be runaway, do the math!”
If the radiative postulate worked, then in a box/greenhouse designed to exploit it, as the interior got hotter, more backradiation would cause more heating, which would make it hotter, etc etc. This hasn’t been demonstrated. Any subsequent thermal emission after the forcing insolation has induced heating (higher temperature) is emission of the local temperature, and so, that heat can’t transfer back into itself. It doesn’t build up like water either…it is photons, they pass through each other.
Bart, so what is the absolute maximum theoretical temperature of the interior of any totally insulated box with any size entry hole, you choose, illuminated with parallel un-magnified solar radiation above the atmosphere and eventually the input flux would equal the output flux out of the hole? 5770K or 394K? You do realize we are basically speaking of a blackbody here in it’s purest form? Do the interior standing waves take on the spectrum of the sun or do the standing waves take on the spectrum of whatever the per area flux is into that entry hole? That is, does sunlight eventually come out even though only 1361 W/m² is going in?
Seems you say that sunlight will come out of the hole. (if you could ever keep it from vaporizing in that case)
I’ll go with Anomalatys again, 394K, don’t know him and this is the first post I have seen him on but he keeps laying it out pretty straight. Seems I hit one thing I might question him on later but it was so minor I’ve already forgotten exactly what is was, will re-read (oh boy) these comments again later.
Anomalatys says:
November 14, 2013 at 8:12 pm
“The local flux at the Earth if fully absorbed could produce +121C.”
Careful, now. It could produce +121C at the effective radiating surface. That does not bound what it can produce below that surface.
The relationship sigma*T^4 = incoming flux is not a limit on temperature, per se. It is an equilibrium condition. When it holds, there is no accumulation or dissipation of additional heat energy. It says nothing about the amount of heat energy stored. To get that, you must translate the temperature into heat via the heat capacity relationship. And, the heat capacity of the planet with GHGs is greater than it is without them.
Furthermore, while it is the equilibrium temperature of the effective radiating surface, it is not in general the equlibrium temperature of things below that surface. When the output spectrum of the effective radiation surface has notches carved out where the GHGs are absorbing outward bound radiation, then the surface temperature is assuredly greater.
The real questions which need to be resolved are, does additional GHG of a particular variety actually carve out significantly more of that outgoing spectrum? Does it do so, yet induce greater outward flux in the rest of the spectrum which balances it out? Or, does it induce greater rejection of inbound radiation to balance it out, or at least attenuate its effect substantially?
wayne says:
November 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm
‘Anomalatys, let them have their belief in:
Phil.: “it does emit more energy than supplied”’
That does look like an unfortunate statement, at least shorn of context (I don’t care to look to see – I am not responsible for Phil).
It is also true that a cold body cannot heat a warmer one. Don’t let anyone tell you it can. Anyone who says that does not understand what is going on.
But, that is not what is happening with the GHE. It is just like the circuit example, or the dam example. The body will continue accumulating energy until the outbound flux equilibrates with the inbound flux. The limit to which it does so can be determined by passive elements within the system.
“Careful, now. It could produce +121C at the effective radiating surface. That does not bound what it can produce below that surface.”
Below the surface, assuming the light undergoes extinction, then it would do less. It could only do more if the surface had low emissivity. On Earth, the bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the average of the atmosphere column because of the lapse rate. The bottom of the atmosphere however, the ground surface, is never made to be higher than the insolation. The concept of “under the surface” doesn’t translate to higher temperature. And real greenhouses and other apparatus’ designed to check for “radiant trapping causing higher temperature than the insolation” don’t demonstrate that postulate.
“the heat capacity of the planet with GHGs is greater than it is without them.”
Heat capacity doesn’t affect final temperature, it only affects the time-lag to the forcing function. Inside greenhouses where “secondary” radiation is trapped, the temperature doesn’t exceed that of the insolation.
“When the output spectrum of the effective radiation surface has notches carved out where the GHGs are absorbing outward bound radiation, then the surface temperature is assuredly greater.”
That is simply an absorption spectrum caused by a cool gas in front of a warmer background. The existence of the absorption spectrum doesn’t mean the warmer source has gotten warmer because of it. The atmosphere can warm from absorption of surface energy, of course, but this does not in return warm the surface.
“It is just like the circuit example, or the dam example.”
Those have been incorrect analogies. Photons don’t behave like water (matter), and mass and thermal capacity don’t change the final temperature, they just change the time lag.
“The body will continue accumulating energy until the outbound flux equilibrates with the inbound flux. The limit to which it does so can be determined by passive elements within the system.”
Yes and so the radiant postulate says that a higher-than-insolation temperature should be achievable, but this hasn’t been demonstrated. The error is perhaps in thinking of photons like you would matter. They don’t behave like matter…they don’t push up and up and up against each other. Once the solar insolation gets absorbed at the surface and induces a temperature, subsequent radiation from that heated surface will have a spectrum corresponding to its local temperature. This can’t transfer back into itself to induce higher temperature yet. You need heat flow to induce temperature to change – the radiant heat from the surface can’t flow back into itself, because it has no thermal gradient to itself. The photons just oscillate around passing through each other, not minding much.
can we all get back to basics
which is to get away from analogies and equations applied outside observational and relevant boundaries.
We know that a GH effect does exist, hence a winter night with clouds is warmer than a winter night without clouds. OTOH, more clouds on a summer’s day deflect more heat away. So the question always is: what is the net effect.
I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. However, if you are interested you can read some of my musings here:
I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima.
You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima
0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.
That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
Now, some of you may still argue, as wayne does, that within that 0.006 K/annum there might be some AGW component.
Indeed I did find that in Las Vegas (USA)minima rose faster. However, I also found the opposite happening in Tandil (ARG) where they cut the trees. So, within that 0.006 there can be a small factor, not caused by AGW but rather by increasing vegetation. That earth’s vegetation is increasing was proven by me to Ferdinand earlier up this thread. So,increased vegetation is trapping some heat. But it is not much. And it will not be enough to stop the cold that is coming. That is another chapter.
“We know that a GH effect does exist, hence a winter night with clouds is warmer than a winter night without clouds.”
Slowed cooling from clouds is not the story of the radiant postulate, though. But yes, should get back to CO2 sources and sinks and 90 phase lags etc. 🙂
Anomalatys says:
November 14, 2013 at 8:20 pm
“Again, it has never been demonstrated that a surface can get hotter than its insolation due to backradiation/trapping etc.
“-Yes it has on many occasions.”
It has never been observed inside a real greenhouse or other apparatus’ to check for it. It isn’t observed on the surface of the Earth either.
Of course it has, if what you say were true then the outgoing flux at the top of the atmosphere would be equal to the flux leaving the surface.
If the radiative postulate worked, then in a box/greenhouse designed to exploit it, as the interior got hotter, more backradiation would cause more heating, which would make it hotter, etc etc. This hasn’t been demonstrated.
As I said: do the math, it’s a convergent series!
“Of course it has, if what you say were true then the outgoing flux at the top of the atmosphere would be equal to the flux leaving the surface.”
That is *not an observation that the surface is driven to higher temperature than the insolation. That postulate has never been observed in an experiment to test for it, not does it occur at the surface of the Earth,
Bart you say “that is not what is happening with the GHE” and I agree, that, the GHE, has to do with the isotrophic nature of all gaseous radiation, gas molecules have no memory of orientation. That downwelling portion of that radation IS what retricts what can leave making us warmer. And if you lay shells of gaseous total opacity upon other layers of like total opaque layers of even partial spectum lines and bands you can raise the temperature deep at the surface higher than the flux at the outer shell dictates, I realize that, but it takes multiple layers and the opacity is the key to doing such and our atmosphere fits that case.
I’ll step back into the background. Interesting discussion.
This should go back to the original OP discussion. Apologies. However, one thing:
“gas molecules have no memory of orientation. That downwelling portion of that radiation ”
Consider though that if these molecules are emitting, then they have higher emissivity than oxygen and nitrogen. If O2 and N2 (99% of atmo) have next to no emissivity, then naturally the atmosphere can hold a higher temperature than it “should”. If adding certain molecules means that the atmosphere begins emitting more, then that gives a way for the atmosphere to shed energy because half that emission escapes, which is therefore a net loss that wouldn’t have existed before.
@Anamalotys
Quote from Wikipedia (on the interpretation of the greenhouse effect);
“The Earth’s surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons, absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth.”
I think clouds are more water vapor than water? Water vapor is a gas.
Bart says:
November 14, 2013 at 8:42 pm
wayne says:
November 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm
‘Anomalatys, let them have their belief in:
Phil.: “it does emit more energy than supplied”’
That does look like an unfortunate statement, at least shorn of context
Indeed, the hotter the wire the more it emits!
joeldshore:
re your post at November 14, 2013 at 6:53 pm.
I defended my late friend, Zbigniew Jaworowski, because I have great respect for the honoured dead.
I will not waste my time providing you with his citation list (which you could research) because I have no respect for the brain dead.
Richard
Indeed, he seems to be part of the rarefied group of scientist who regarded their job to be neutral, objective investigation. Thanks for your (and Gail’s) comments defending his legacy.
I’ve been trying to see what information can be extracted from the phase relationship of SST and CO2. It’s a provisional rather than a conclusion but any informed comments / criticism would be welcome.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=625
richardscourtney says:
I see…So, I could say, for example, that Stephen Schneider is widely acknowledged to be the greatest physical scientist of the 20th century, and perhaps any century. And, you can’t disagree because he is dead (and he certainly won honors in his life).
So, in other words, you are unwilling to provide evidence to back up your completely unsubstantitated claims. You presumably want us to believe what you wrote on the basis of your stellar record of accuracy.
Anomalatys: It is useless arguing with a Postma clone like you. You guys are just making up physical laws to suit your purposes. Your laws are nothing but nonsense and you will never be able to provide a reference to them in any physics textbook.
REPLY: I’m with Joel on this one. In fact I’ll wager that it IS Joe Postma since this drivel is coming from a ridiculously named email located in Calgary where Postma lives. Joe has been caught sock puppeting his drivel here before. – Anthony
[SNIP – It turns out “Anomalatys” IS Joe Postma. This is confirmed by cross referencing IP addresses. The IP addresses used by “Anomalatys” cross reference and match IP adresses used by Joe Postma previously on WUWT. Joe you’ve been banned here prior for bad behavior and thread bombing with your dreck, and your lie is exposed. Now get the hell off my blog once and for all and take your defective theories with you. – Anthony Watts]
Lots has gone on here since I last looked.
I’ve reviewed the various comments about my propositions but as far as I can see the objections boil down to these categories:
Objections based on not properly reading what I said.
Objections based on aspects of physics that are ancillary to the main point.
Introduction of unnecessary complexity which has no effect on the net out turn in the real world.
No point going into more detail here. I’ll just wait and see how future data turns out.
Anomalatys said:
“What would be good is an actual demonstration that the “radiant postulate” can induce a higher temperature on a surface than the insolation should produce. Any time this has been checked for, it isn’t seen. The reason must be because subsequent emission is of the local temperature, and heat can’t flow into itself which is what would be required to get a higher temperature.”
Don’t know who Anomalatys is but he seems to get the basic idea.
The thing is that via the Gas Laws mass and gravity acting with a given level of insolation determines both the height that an atmosphere can attain and the surface temperature required to maintain that height over and above the surface temperature needed for radiative balance with space.
There cannot be anything in nature (including the addition of GHGs) that upsets that balance otherwise atmospheres would more often be lost and would be much rarer in the universe.
The problem lies in explaining that to anyone fixated on the radiative theory of gases.
It must be the case that the net radiative flux at any point within an atmosphere is a consequence of the mechanical processes within the atmosphere and is not causative of anything. The phrase
’emission is of the local temperature’ is good enough for me and similar to words I have used before.
Stephen Wilde says:
I’ve reviewed the various comments about my propositions but as far as I can see the objections boil down to these categories:….
You may be forgetting a category of reaction that does not leave a comment : you are beyond help 😉
In relation to AIRS , I thank you for posting the map but I think your comments are a case of reading into it what you want to see.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/
suggesting the the Med is playing significant role is that is far fetched. Also Australia is clearly having an effect on it’s own that is far stronger then just being “down wind” of something else.
Greg Goodman says:
November 15, 2013 at 3:13 am
I’ve been trying to see what information can be extracted from the phase relationship of SST and CO2.
Have you had a look at the calculations of Pieter Tans:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf from sheet 11 on…