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.
rgb as an esteemed professor said that rising air cooled but the heat content stayed the same.
In light of that I have doubts about the sincerity and expertise of him and many others who contribute here.
Ah, so we opted for the narcissistic/grandiose trajectory, did we? Did you even bother to read my post to you discussing jars of air and adiabatic processes? Do you have any idea what the laws of thermodynamics even are? Have you ever even looked at — let alone understood — a PV diagram for an ideal gas, with e.g. isothermal and adiabatic trajectories plotted on it? Given that the answer to all of these questions is “no”, do you really think that you know what you’re talking about and that I, who teach students how to do all of these things, do not?
I know, I know, rhetorical question. Sadly, you are now filed in the Joe Postma bin of climate crazy in my personal rolodex. I’m sure that if you visit PSI, you can find lots of people there who are more than willing to give your “theory” praise. In the meantime, I’ve gotta say that you are an embarrassment on WUWT and will remain so until you actually take the time to learn some physics, if you CAN learn some physics. Not everybody can. For one thing, you have to know some calculus and be halfway decent at all the rest of at least high school if not first year University math to even get started.
rgb
I am wondering now about the issue of stratification, due to the fact that, in a given volume of gas at altitude, the lower molecules are traveling at a faster rate than the higher ones, and will soon outpace them. So, there really is no static volume achievable as assumed in the ideal gas law. Not sure what implications that may have, if any, but I think I will think on it. For now, I must leave for a weekend activity. Until we all meet again…
rgbatduke says:
November 15, 2013 at 2:50 pm
It was you that seemed to not know the difference between heat and energy.
What does happen to kinetic energy when a parcel of air rises against gravity ?
It looks like my post distancing myself from Joe Postma and the slayer group is tied up in moderation.
“…the lower molecules are traveling at a faster rate than the higher ones, and will soon outpace them.”
Of course, that is assuming they are all in circular orbit traveling in the same direction, which is not a particularly good assumption. Lots of things to consider here…
A _very_ rough plot of the residual of SST dCO2 regression compared to AO is interesting.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=626
Mt. Agung is perfectly shown , much of what is usually attributed to Mt P happens _before_ the eruption, something I’ve pointed out before. Though there is a clear and significant dip remaining that fits Mt. P
After 2000 it’s a little less tidy so maybe the early AO correlation is just coincidental.
Regressing three wiggles with about the same granularity onto a fourth could produce some matching arbitrarily. Caveat emptor.
Bart, re. sinc fn and ‘averaging’ filters , see this article:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
RGB: “I know, I know, rhetorical question. Sadly, you are now filed in the Joe Postma bin of climate crazy in my personal rolodex. I’m sure that if you visit PSI, you can find lots of people there who are more than willing to give your “theory” praise.”
Ah you notice a hit of PSI in there too? 😉
Since a certain contributor here may be unwelcome I would like to make my position clear.
I declined an invitation to join the unfavoured group on the following grounds:
i) I accept that there is a greenhouse effect but aver that it is related primarily to atmospheric mass and not just GHGs.
ii) I accept that GHGs affect global air circulation but not surface temperature so there is a climate effect but not measurable compared to solar and oceanic effects.
If I am to change my position someone needs to demonstrate to me that GHGs can affect surface temperature despite their ability to rise in the atmosphere when they absorb radiative energy (thereby cooling as a result of the gravitationally induced lapse rate) and despite their ability to radiate directly to space which is something that radiatively inert gases cannot do.
And I would like someone to explain how a GHG warmed surface could fail to radiate more energy to space than is coming in from space when our atmosphere has a high degree of transparency.
Whatever the level of atmospheric transparency such an ability would introduce a permanent imbalance with energy coming in such that a new thermal equilibrium could never be attained. Internal energy would keep building up until the atmosphere were lost but Venus and Mars each have about 95% CO2 and manage to retain atmospheres.
The idea that the atmosphere from tropopause upward cools to offset the warming of the surface and troposphere does not sound plausible in view of their huge density differences and in any event how would a colder atmosphere from tropopause up significantly reduce radiation from the surface to space?
If anything, the colder stratosphere would raise tropopause height which would increase radiation to space.
The radiative theory simply does not make sense to me from a meteorological point of view.
Answers invited from rgb, joel, greg or phil.
Stephen Wilde:
I am struggling with the best way to explain to you your confusion. Basically, it comes down to this: A surface at a certain temperature will radiate energy at a certain rate by virtue of that temperature, no matter what else is happening. This might seem counterintuitive, but the point is that the fact that convection is occurring does not affect the rate it radiates at a given temperature…What the convection does affect is what steady-state temperature it is at.
So, in other words, if we used a magic wand to turn off convection (while keeping everything else. like radiative properties constant), then the Earth’s surface would warm to a higher temperature. So, yes, convection has reduced the amount of radiation that the surface emits, but not by changing the laws of physics: It has done so by making the surface cooler than it otherwise would have been and hence it emits less.
You are essentially trying to double-count this effect. I.e., convection has already reduced the surface temperature and hence the emission, but now you want to argue that it reduces that emission even more by changing the laws of physics that govern radiative emission. Sorry, it just does not work that way.
There are other confusions in there too. For example, it doesn’t take any energy (in the sense of using it up or it needing to be constantly supplied) to hold up the atmosphere. If the atmosphere were to undergo gravitational collapse then energy would be released, but our atmosphere is, in the global average, basically in a steady-state condition of neither gravitationally collapsing or expanding.
Stephen Wilde says:
There are a lot of confusions in this. For one, the molecules rapidly thermalize by collisions with other molecules, so it is wrong to think of the specific GHGs that absorbed the radiative energy as rising; a whole parcel of air is what rises. Okay, that was a minor quibble.
The more important issues: When a gas cools by adiabatic expansion, that is a zero sum game: That energy is not lost to the Earth-atmosphere system as a whole. Where some gas rise, other falls, and where some expand, others get compressed. The only way energy is lost to the Earth-atmosphere system in any significant amount is via radiation.
Next issue: Yes, GHGs can radiate unlike inert gases, but they also absorb more. So, they radiate more and they absorb more. So, you have the Earth radiating as nearly a blackbody at an average temperature of 288 K and then you have some of that radiation being absorbed by greenhouse gases, thermalized, and subsequently, those gases emitting radiation by virtue of their temperature. However, because of the lapse rate and the fact that emission is an increasing function of temperature, the gases do not emit as much energy into space as the terrestrial radiation that they absorb. This isn’t just theory. It is empirical fact: http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
Actually, you have it exactly backwards. This is basically the point we have been making to you for years. If the atmosphere were transparent to terrestrial radiation, then at its current surface temperature, it would be emitting too much energy and it would rapidly cool. The reason that this does not happen is exactly because it is not highly transparent to terrestrial radiation. (Of course, everything is relative; it is highly transparent relative to Venus’s atmosphere, but it is opaque enough that its surface temperature is about 33 K higher than it could possibly be if the atmosphere were transparent.)
There are very basic things that you seem confused about here: There is no reason that the warming has to be “offset”. The Earth-atmosphere system is not an isolated system, so conservation of energy does not mean that the total energy in the system does not change. The Earth system is receiving gobs of energy from the sun and emitting gobs of energy to space. What conservation of energy says is only that the Earth system will rapidly cool if it emits significantly more than it receives and that it will rapidly warm if it receives more than it emits, so that it will constantly be driven to the state where it is in balance, emitting about the same amount as it receives from the sun.
The reasons for the predicted (and observed) cooling of the stratosphere as greenhouse gases increase has nothing to do with offsetting energy.
Well, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, which leads me to believe that the reason it doesn’t make sense to you is that you simply have a mental block that prevents you from learning what people like myself, rgb, and others are trying to teach you. It is a slightly less extreme case as the block that P*stma has (assuming that he is honestly confused and not purposely trying to deceive) but it is a huge block nonetheless. It is not like we have never told you these things before, but they never seem to sink in. And, I guess they won’t until you accept the hard fact that people who you think are unable to comprehend things that you are able to are actually comprehending them at a much higher level than you are…and that you can learn from them.
Stephen 2:55pm: “What does happen to kinetic energy when a parcel of air rises against gravity ?”
Why not look it up yourself and fill us in completely with limited math? I recommend Bohren 1998 starting p. 106. The specific enthalpy of the parcel decreases as it rises because of the gravitational work it does.
Hint: Stephen seeking the truth shouldn’t write KE decreases while PE increases due to that pesky p*V term defining the conserved gas enthalpy (in ~isobaric process).
Stephen Wilde says:
What rgb said was this:
I would quibble about using “heat content” because I think that is an ambiguous phrase. (Is it energy content or is it heat, which represents a transfer of energy? Actually, I do see online where it is a term sometimes used for “enthalpy”, although unless I am mistaken, the enthalpy of an ideal gas should be proportional to its temperature.)
But, I agree with his basic point that in cooling there was no heat exchanged to the surrounding air (as he notes, by the very definition of “adiabatic”). The gas has lost thermal energy (which is “kinetic energy” on the microscopic scale, although people often prefer to distinguish between the random high-entropy kinetic energy of molecules and the low-entropy kinetic energy of bulk motions). However, it has done so because, in expanding, the parcel has done work on the surrounding gas. There has not been heat transfer.
And, rgb’s larger point is that you have this consistent misunderstanding that a parcel of gas cools as it rises because of the exchange of kinetic and potential energy. And, that viewpoint is simply wrong because it neglects buoyancy, work done on the gas by the surrounding gas by the buoyant force, a force that arises by virtue of the fact that pressure in a fluid increases with depth. I know Hans Jelbring (sp?) believes he has a simple derivation of the adiabatic lapse rate and that it holds even in equilibrium…but he is wrong. The adiabatic lapse rate is derived by considering a neutrally-buoyant parcel of air, so the work done by gravity and the work done by buoyancy cancel.
The adiabatic lapse rate arises because of the expansion of the air parcel as it rises (and hence the pressure on it falls) and what it represents is not a required rate at which the temperature must decline with altitude but the maximum rate that it can decline with altitude (because rates steeper than this are unstable to convection). In other words, the adiabatic lapse rate represents a stability limit on the actual lapse rate. [I am leaving aside for the moment Nick Stoke’s arguments about why in a non-equilibrium system, there might be tendencies for there to be “heat pump” effect that will sometimes push stable lapse rates toward the adiabatic lapse rate.]
The fact that the adiabatic lapse rate is not zero is what allows the radiative greenhouse effect to persist even in the presence of convection. I.e., it is what prevents convection from being able to to take heat away from the surface effectively enough to defeat the greenhouse effect. [This fact was already well-known, but was demonstrated again by Nikolov and Zeller when they put in convection into the “Steel Greenhouse” model incorrectly and, by their own description, drove the lapse rate to zero and saw the radiative greenhouse effect in the model disappear.
The real physics of how this all works is, frankly, quite fascinating. You ought to be focusing your efforts on trying to understand it rather than trying to defeat it with incorrect physics.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 15, 2013 at 1:20 pm
The gas constant varies depending in the molecular weight of the constituent gases and not radiative characteristics. Rspecific for non ideal gases is a different number to R for ideal gases.
Rspecific is the mass based constant whereas R is the molar quantity which is a universal constant and has the same value for all gases (whether they are ideal or not). Rspecific only depends on the molecular mass it has nothing to do with ideality or otherwise! Rspecific for CO2 is 188.9 J/K.kg regardless of whether it’s under ideal conditions or not.
Phil confirmed that when I was trying to ascertain whether the gas constant could deal with radiative capability as well as mass.
What I confirmed is what I have written above.
henry@Stephen Fisher
I think you are making things too difficult; it is really very simple./
1) we know it is globally cooling http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
those who have looked in depth at all the data available have realized it will continue to cool, on average, globally, at least for the next 3 decades.
2) it is cooling from the top to the bottom, not from the bottom to the top.
this is clear from observing the drop in maximum temperatures and anyone can check this at the weather station nearest to you.
3)As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
So there is your whole theory, without any stupid equations and analogies. It is so simple that anyone can understand it. To prove this theory you only have to look at something like the height of the river Nile, where historic records clearly show that there is more flooding in a cooling period and less flooding in a warming period.
Have a great weekend you all.
I appreciate the effort put in by Joel to deal with my ‘confusion’ but amongst other things he said:
“it doesn’t take any energy (in the sense of using it up or it needing to be constantly supplied) to hold up the atmosphere. ”
which I really cannot agree with.
If one reduces insolation the atmosphere will contract towards the surface becoming denser and if one increases insolation it will rise further off the surface becoming less dense.
The maintenance of an atmosphere requires a constant supply of energy flowing through.
Included in Joel’s comments are a number of assertions that I agree with but he doesn’t seem to see the necessary implications.
Other points I continue to disagree with but will consider them further.
I am very doubtful about the proposition that KE is not replaced by PE as one rises up through an atmosphere. After all, a molecule at top of atmosphere carries nearly all PE and little KE whereas the opposite applies at the surface.
Anyway, I see little point going further into detail but I will give some thought as to whether I have a mental block rather than the radiative theorists having a mental block.
I agree with HenryP that at base my theory is extremely simple but I have gone into more and more detail to try and understand why some cannot see that simplicity.
Joel said:
“You are essentially trying to double-count this effect. I.e., convection has already reduced the surface temperature and hence the emission, but now you want to argue that it reduces that emission even more by changing the laws of physics that govern radiative emission. ”
There was an initial cooling effect on surface temperature at the first uplift of the atmosphere but that resulted in the rise in surface temperature of 33K or whatever. The energy that the atmosphere gained was delayed in its exit to space and the surface rose to the higher equilibrium temperature.
Note that only mass is involved and not radiative characteristics. It was driven by conduction and convection.
After that initial creation of the atmosphere any convection within the atmosphere does not further reduce the surface temperature because from the very first uplift of a parcel of air within the established atmosphere that uplift was countered by an equal descent elsewhere. Uplift cools a surface but descent warms a surface
Since radiative theory does not appear to recognise the surface warming effect of the descending parcel it needs to propose DWIR from radiative molecules to keep the surface 33K warmer when convection within the established atmosphere tries to cool the surface.
Then it follows that if one increases DWIR from an increase in radiative molecules that 33K should increase which I think is wrong because it wasn’t DWIR that caused the surplus 33K in the first place.
Instead if one introduces GHGs the atmosphere just rises higher and the global air circulation changes to keep the surplus at 33K because there is no change in insolation to both maintain the higher atmosphere and still achieve radiative balance with space.
So in my view it must be radiative physics that is double counting by overlooking the surface warming effect of descending air and the proponents of it have the mental block because radiative theory has no other means than DWIR to keep the surface warm when convection occurs.
The surface warming was mechanical and not radiative all along.
Greg Goodman says:
November 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Yes, even just the dCO2 vs SST is pretty clear, as MacRae and others have noted:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
The influence of the NAO/AMO on the CO2 sink capacity of the North Atlantic subtropical gyre was discussed in:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
chapter 4.2.
There are more interesting observations there, will work that out soon.
Stephen Wilde says:
Not much time today to address these, but let me just say this: The correct understanding that I have described obeys energy conservation. Your musings of how things work does not. It might sound good to make the claim that the descending air keeps the surface 33 K warmer than it would otherwise be irregardless of greenhouse gases but it is not wrong: It does not obey the physical laws we know, in this case energy conservation (along with the known radiative laws).
Energy conservation, i.e., radiative balance of the Earth system, constrains the temperature at the (average) altitude from which the radiation can successfully escape to space without being absorbed again. In the absence of greenhouse gases, this level is the surface. So even if you believe that the lapse rate would still be close to the adiabatic lapse rate in the absence of greenhouse gases, that just means the average surface temperature would be 255 K (or less if the distribution were sufficiently uneven since it is T^4 that is constrained) and then it would cool from there as you go up. It could not be higher at the surface without some additional input of energy…and by input of energy, we are talking a net input to the entire system.
You can muse all you want about how you think the universe operates, but if your musings are not constrained by the known laws of physics, they don’t describe the actual universe as we know it to be. (I suppose you could claim that the known laws of physics are wrong, but to do so you would have to provide compelling evidence, and for the case of the laws we are talking about here, that ain’t going to happen.)
Stephen Wilde says:
November 15, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Phil said:
“The energy that radiates away is the rotational and vibrational energy, not potential energy.”
Well if the rotational and vibrational energy radiates away does that not affect the gravitational potential energy that the molecule can achieve ?
No they’re internal modes of the molecule. How fast a molecule is spinning isn’t related to gravitational PE.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 15, 2013 at 4:02 pm
If I am to change my position someone needs to demonstrate to me that GHGs can affect surface temperature despite their ability to rise in the atmosphere when they absorb radiative energy (thereby cooling as a result of the gravitationally induced lapse rate) and despite their ability to radiate directly to space which is something that radiatively inert gases cannot do.
This appears to be a crux of your misunderstanding, GHGs have no ‘ability to rise in the atmosphere when they absorb radiative energy’. When they absorb radiative energy they just rotate/vibrate at a higher rate.
stephen wilde says:
November 16, 2013 at 1:41 am
“I am very doubtful about the proposition that KE is not replaced by PE as one rises up through an atmosphere.”
It is, but the KE / PE interchange is treated as “work” in thermo. As a parcel of air ascends it cools because it does work pushing the rest of the atmosphere aside. As it descends the process reverses, and the stored “work” (implicitly stored as PE) is recovered as heat. This is termed an adiabatic process.
Anthony Watts says
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]
Henry@Anthony
I am disturbed by this message. Truly, I think that what has made WUWT great is its policy of trying to provide a platform for the free exchange of ideas and opinions no matter how weird or unscientific. I think “banning” anyone from the WUWT “permanently” is the wrong way to go. If people truly have misbehaved, like swearing at each other, calling other commenters fools or names, or if they were clearly “thread bombing” etc. they should go into a sin bin, but should be allowed back after a period of time?
I am asking you to bring Anomalatys (or Joe Postma) back on again.
[Reply: Henry, apparently you do not know the whole history. — mod.]
stephen wilde says:
November 16, 2013 at 2:11 am
“Since radiative theory does not appear to recognise the surface warming effect of the descending parcel it needs to propose DWIR from radiative molecules to keep the surface 33K warmer when convection within the established atmosphere tries to cool the surface.”
Great description. Unfortunately it will be lost on the GHE apologists who remain in full bluster. It’s enjoyable watching the curtain being slowly pulled open by mother nature while the GHE wizards frantically try to keep up the charade that even they know is wrong.
Soon we won’t have to put up with AGW being used as a statist tool and can just have a gentle chuckle at our dear friends expense.
Stephen 2:11am: “Uplift cools a surface but descent warms a surface.”
You do well to think all this thru on your own but the modern text books add a lot more science than even Joel & Phil. can recently try & convey to improve your conclusions in blog mode. Personally I learn a lot by looking up (video replay) where your narrative stops being science based.
Look into your statement I clipped herein, improve it on your own: descending air parcels come from a cooler environment than one near the surface. Yet your statement says “descent warms a surface”. How so?
This is in part Joel’s point and worth quoting his post again (for Eric too), I’m glad he took the time and patience to write it out:
“The real physics of how this all works is, frankly, quite fascinating. You ought to be focusing your efforts on trying to understand it rather than trying to defeat it with incorrect physics.”
it seems my comment to A W is lost in the cue?