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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…when including the effects of other GHG like CH4…”
And/or, of course, H2O.
Trick says:
November 19, 2013 at 1:55 pm
‘Abe Lincoln had it right: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt” which becomes in modern world “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open up your own website and remove all doubt.”’
I disagree emphatically. That is how one learns. I realized early on in my classes that, if I did not understand what the prof was saying, it was a good bet most of the class did not either. So, I asked questions when nobody else would. Some people may have thought I was exposing myself as a dim bulb. But, I got better marks, and learned the material in greater depth, than they typically did. As one of my idols was wont to ask, “what do you care what other people think?“
Bart says:
You have no justification for subtracting off such a trend. Saying that the temperature was rising because of the exit of the LIA is not an explanation. You have to demonstrate that the temperatures would have risen in this way. How long would they have continued rising this way?
This might explain some of the rise earlier in the century, but there is no evidence that it explains the modern rise over the last 50 years or so where we have a better idea of what the natural and anthropogenic radiative forcings are.
And, you know that how? Depending on the strength of the feedback, it could indeed have stabilized at that level.
You haven’t demonstrated this.
How can we have a constructive dialog with someone who is just making up physical principles as he goes along and never writing down any equations and models. A modification that would make his ideas physically viable would be to obey conservation of energy…but then he would find that his claim that non-radiative effects can explain the 33 K natural greenhouse effect would be completely wrong.
Bart 2:05pm: Hint: Abe wasn’t thinking about everyone. LOL.
Phil said:
“Your idea that the radiative and non-radiative components behave separately is incorrect!”
That isn’t exactly what I said but obviously they must both behave differently within an atmosphere.
More than once I have dealt with Phil’s objection by pointing out that if GHGs do share energy with other less radiative molecules then the height of the entire mixed parcel will be affected not just the individual GHG molecules but he studiously ignores that point and goes off on wrong tangents.
So called radiative gases absorb and re-radiate a lot apparently. So called non radiative gases barely at all.
The net behaviour of the atmosphere as a whole will vary according to the relative proportions and to believe otherwise is piffle.
I think Phil realises that to admit a height change from a change in the mix of atmospheric gases could drive a hole through radiative theory so he insists on the fantasy that changes in the proportions of radiative and non radiative gases makes no difference to height or volume at all.
And all my objectors refuse to opine as to how kinetic energy at the surface can both hold up an atmosphere yet magically somehow still be available to radiate to space.
None of them opine as to what happens to the kinetic energy being recovered from potential energy as air descends to a surface. It is accepted science that descending air warms and that at any given moment 50% of any atmosphere is descending.
Nor do they acknowledge that such warmed descending air must reduce cooling on the day / summer side of a rotating sphere and either reduce cooling or warm the surface on the night / winter side.
Recognising any one of those phenomena as contributing to the 33K ‘extra’ surface warmth damages radiative theory.
In fact those phenomena likely account for all of it with no GHGs necessary.
But instead of debate here we just see absolute denial of the omissions in radiative theory, the ignoring of well known meteorological phenomena and the personal trashing of someone who queries their radiative bubble.
Stephen Wilde says:
And, your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
(1)The only way to increase the steady-state temperature (assuming the rate of energy input from the sun doesn’t change) is to reduce the rate of emission of energy out of the Earth-atmosphere system.
(2) A surface at an average temperature of 288 K is radiating energy out into space at a rate that significantly exceeds the rate that the system is receiving energy from the sun.
(3) The only way to reduce the amount of energy being emitted to space is to have the atmosphere absorb some of this radiative emission. This is a radiative process requiring a radiatively-absorbing atmosphere.
(4) Actual empirical data from satellites verifies that (3) is exactly what is happening: The emission spectrum looks like a blackbody (or close to blackbody) at the local surface temperature except that there are “bites” taken out of the spectrum at the wavelengths where the various greenhouse elements (gases and clouds) absorb the radiation.
It is really that simple. Which of these points do you dispute and show me how you dispute them using CORRECT PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES, i.e., principles I can find in a physics textbook, not nonsense about how the emission isn’t radiative inside the atmosphere or that it is “absorbed by the atmosphere in the form of PE which arises during the process of lifting the mass of the atmosphere off the surface”.
Stephen Wilde says:
This question doesn’t even make sense. It doesn’t use up energy to hold up the atmosphere. Work is needed only if a force displaces an object. So, your physics has failed at line 1. What energy conservation says is that in steady-state, energy in and energy out must balance.
Yes, it is accepted science that descending air warms but you have the reason wrong: It warms because it gets compressed, which represents work done on the parcel of gas by the surrounding gas. For a neutrally-buoyant parcel of air, the work done by gravity and the work done by the buoyant force exactly cancel.
Nobody denies that there are energy transfers via convection. (However, these transfers must in net obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.)
No…It doesn’t even begin to address the extra 33 K. How often do I have to explain to you that you don’t just have to satisfy energy balance at the surface, you also have to satisfy it at the top of the atmosphere? That is, you have to have to have an approximate balance between the rate at which energy is received from the sun and the rate at which it exits back into space (any significant imbalance leading to rapidly warming or cooling).
You are completely hung up on the surface energy balance where it is easier to fool yourself into believing that you can magically warm up the surface by proposing various processes that likely don’t even obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is much easier to immediately see that your arguments are nonsense by looking at the top-of-the-atmosphere energy balance.
When you look at that, you reach an unmistakable conclusion: The average surface temperature can only exceed ~255 K if some of the radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. No amount of magical processes are going to get you around this simple fact.
Nobody ignores them. We just don’t misunderstand these processes as you do. And, we understand a basic truth that seems lost on you: The only way that the Earth and atmosphere can communicate energy with the rest of the universe is via radiation. That happens to make radiation pretty important.
Convection plays a role, but its role is actually in net to help cool the surface (just as the 2nd Law requires), not to warm it. And, its ability to cool the surface is limited by the fact that the atmosphere is only unstable to convection when the lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate. Hence, it can reduce the radiative greenhouse effect by reducing the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate but cannot reduce it any further than that.
Unfortunately, you are completely impervious to correct atmospheric physics, preferring to believe instead that you understand the atmosphere far better than not only us, but even skeptics who actually have a good enough background to understand atmospheric physics (Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Robert Brown). Never have I seen such extreme arrogance based on so little reason to be arrogant!!! It is really quite a sad and pathetic display.
Stephen continues relentlessly as in “Unforgiven”: “So called radiative gases absorb and re-radiate a lot apparently. So called (less) radiative gases barely at all.”
^ding^ You almost got it, a nascent EM Theory buds out. See my slight correction, checked not graded (CNG).
“..all my objectors refuse to opine as to how kinetic energy at the surface can both hold up an atmosphere yet magically somehow still be available to radiate to space.”
I opine KE is in molecules; enthalpy in parcels, it is photons radiate to space. And can get absorbed/emitted by atm. molecules on the way.
“None of them opine as to what happens to the kinetic energy being recovered from potential energy as air descends to a surface. It is accepted science that descending air warms..””
Adiabatically! I’ve opined on the important gas enthalpy term in parcel meteorological phenomena that you continue to ignore. Increases the parcel Tmean not the surface Tmean, parcel having cooled the surface in the past; parcel enthalpy, photons!
“Nor do they acknowledge that such warmed descending air must reduce cooling on the day / summer side of a rotating sphere…”
I’ve opined nature w/o DWIR only has enough night side descending air parcel energy to keep certain bird baths from routinely freezing below 170F. Photons are needed too! With DWIR photons, there is finally enough energy so certain bird baths freeze rarely as Stephen admits experiencing then forgets.
“Recognising any one of those phenomena as contributing to the 33K ‘extra’ surface warmth damages radiative theory. In fact those (convective, radiative and conductive) phenomena likely account for all of it with (small amount) GHGs necessary”
Not at all, convective and radiative energy transfer operate together, keep certain bird baths from freezing routinely. Nascent! Small meteorological phenomena improvements made. CNG !
“But instead of debate here we just see absolute denial of the omissions in radiative theory…”
I see collaborative debate here to discuss science w/someone who relentlessly inquires about EM Theory. I admire the effort. Wish a modern atm. thermo. text book was in his future.
By the way, Stephen, it is not hard to find places on the web where you can learn about the adiabatic lapse rate. Here are but two such examples:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node56.html
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/cooling_processes/cooling_processes.html
Some things to note:
(1) They say things like
and
Notice how there is no talk about the lapse rate occurring because of an exchange of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. Rather, they all explain it the way that we explain it.
(2) They confirm the notion that the adiabatic lapse rate is a stability limit, i.e., that lapse rates steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate are unstable to convection and that lapse rates less steep than the adiabatic lapse rate are stable:
(3) They explain that the reason why the atmosphere is not isothermal has to do with things such as the fact that it is heated from below and that it is a poor conductor of heat…and because convection only lowers the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate but no further (although this last point is probably not stated quite as directly as it should be):
Trick.
A couple of useful points more clearly expressed at last. Don’t worry about the effort. I’ve been a weather and climate enthusiast for 60 years so a few long sessions don’t worry me.
Tmean parcel clearly cooled the surface when the atmosphere first lifted off the surface but once the atmosphere stabilised the surface then receives continuing insolation as before but additionally energy from the atmosphere which after a while gives that extra 33K surface temperature at the new equilibrium.
The issue is as to how that energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface is effected.
Radiative theory says it is DWIR but from my meteorological experience I see it as conduction due to the adiabatically warmed descending air circulating to the night / winter side and reducing the cooling rate and / or warming the cold surfaces and in so doing raising the surface temperature of the entire planetary surface by 33K.
Note that the thermal inertia of the oceans plays a major role too so what we see in the adiabatic cycle is only a pale shadow of what a dry planet would see. Mars gets planet wide dust storms when it gets ‘too’ warm.
In practice the rotation of the planet spreads the convective cells all around but at base it is just energy transfer from illuminated to unilluminated regions.
The thing is that if radiative theory is right then changing the quantity of radiative gases must enhance the surface temperature beyond 33K but if it is actually conduction then that is related to atmospheric mass and so changes in the quantity of our emissions would count for nought.
You say that warming from adiabatic descent would not be sufficient and so it has to be supplemented by DWIR. Why ?
The bird bath example is no good because the necessary conditions really are exceptional and short lived in that it requires no wind and a very clear sky but wind and clouds are all pervasive so it hardly ever happens and then not for long.
Note that I brought up the image of a large high pressure cell with a small central core of quiet air but for over 500 miles in every direction there are swirling descending warm winds capable of putting a virtual stop to cooling on the night side of the planet except over fast cooling continental land masses and even there the inflow of warm air has substantial ameliorating effects.
Such high pressure cells cover the entire subtropics in both hemispheres and intermittently spread across middle latitudes.
So from my meteorological knowledge I have no problem seeing surface warming caused by adiabatic descent as being enough to account for that 33K.
Note too that the power of the adiabatic cycle that we observe is much weaker than it could be because of the efficiency of the water cycle. It is the water cycle superimposed on the adiabatic cycle that does the heavy lifting and reduces the work that the adiabatic cycle has to do to keep the system stable.
I’ve previously made the point that absence of the water cycle would result in a much more vigorous adiabatic cycle so as to get energy back to the surface fast enough to radiate out and preserve equilibrium.
However non condensing radiative gases do play a role. As per Phil’s chart they supply another heat pump acquiring energy from low down then rising within the adiabatic cycle and releasing it to space. In doing that they supplement the water cycle and both processes reduce the need for a more vigorous adiabatic cycle.
So, I don’t see why one needs radiative gases to raise the surface temperature by 33K. If anything they help to keep it down to 33K above the S-B prediction.
You keep raising the issues of thermo and enthalpy but I do not see how the above narrative fails to take that into account.
It is all very well mumbling that “KE is in molecules; enthalpy in parcels, it is photons radiate to space. And can get absorbed/emitted by atm. molecules on the way.” since that is all a given.
As I see it once KE is in PE form it isn’t going to react with anything much so changes in KE and PE proportions as atmospheric height changes during transition periods (when the system is responding to a forcing element other than mass gravity or insolation) provides a very effective buffer against runaway instability.
Can you address any of my above points in a fashion clear enough for lay readers to follow ?
In essence I think I present a plausible description of mechanical processes that removes the need for a radiative solution.
As stated by Bart and many others here and elsewhere the radiative theory is failing to match reality.
joeldshore says:
November 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm
“This might explain some of the rise earlier in the century, but there is no evidence that it explains the modern rise over the last 50 years or so where we have a better idea of what the natural and anthropogenic radiative forcings are. “
It is exactly the same slope. It’s been steady for over 100 years, with the superposition of a quasi-cyclical overlay with period of 60-65 years. There is no justification for assuming it is anything new.
“And, you know that how? Depending on the strength of the feedback, it could indeed have stabilized at that level.”
The strength of any stabilizing feedback is necessarily weak, because it is not observable in the last 55 years since reliable CO2 measurements became available. To an astounding level of fidelity, in the modern era, CO2 fits a differential equation of the form
dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)
k = coupling factor, nominally constant over the interval
T = measured temperature anomaly
Teq = equilibrium temperature dictated by current conditions
This is what Salby is saying, which is the point of this article, if you recall. It is also very readily observable in readily available data sets.
If this model is all there is, then there can be no net sensitivity of temperature to CO2 level greater than zero at all, or the system would be unstable. If there is more to it than that, a small bit of negative feedback in the above equation which has not yet become observable, it opens up the possibility of some slight positive sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2. But, it cannot be significant, i.e., acting on a timeline shorter than 55 years, because of that present lack of observability.
“dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)
k = coupling factor, nominally constant over the interval
T = measured temperature anomaly
Teq = equilibrium temperature dictated by current conditions
This is what Salby is saying, which is the point of this article, if you recall. It is also very readily observable in readily available data sets.
If this model is all there is, then there can be no net sensitivity of temperature to CO2 level greater than zero at all, or the system would be unstable. If there is more to it than that, a small bit of negative feedback in the above equation which has not yet become observable, it opens up the possibility of some slight positive sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2. But, it cannot be significant, i.e., acting on a timeline shorter than 55 years, because of that present lack of observability.”
If this is what Salby is saying then Salby is wrong. The system is forced by CO2 by definition and this happens at light speed, obviously. If there is no net sensitivity of temperature to CO2 then…well that just doesn’t follow standard theory. It’s impossible.
AKerr says:
“The system is forced by CO2…”
Thank you for that assertion.
However, there is still no testable, verifiable scientific evidence proving that is true. It may be true [I personally think that CO2 has some small effect]. But there is no solid, replicable evidence showing it to be a fact.
Even if CO2=AGW is true, it is insignificant at current CO2 levels. Thus, the entire Chicken Little exercise in arm-waving is a fool’s game. We could double CO2 levels from current levels, and the only result would be a slightly warmer planet — a more desirable place to live.
At this point the entire “carbon” scare is motivated by all the grant money flowing into the pockets of the alarmist contingent. And I, like most hard-bitten taxpayers, very much resent it.
finally, ther is no “theory”. There is only an unproven conjecture. We have a long way to go to make it a ‘theory’, which would provide for reliable predictions — something that cannot be done using the current CO2/AGW conjecture.
AKerr says:
November 19, 2013 at 5:50 pm
“If this is what Salby is saying…”
Salby says that is the relationship. I am telling you that, that relationship severely constrains CO2 warming potential.
“If there is no net sensitivity of temperature to CO2 then…well that just doesn’t follow standard theory. It’s impossible.”
Quite possible. Either A) from a fundamental misconception of what occurs on a global scale or B) from powerful feedbacks suppressing the warming effect.
It really is undeniable. Atmospheric CO2 does obey the relationship. It does rule out positive feedback which would be induced by significant sensitivity of temperatures to atmospheric CO2.
Already, we are seeing atmospheric concentration increasing markedly while global temperatures stall. It is only a matter of time now before this unpleasant fact becomes evident to all. The warmists jumped to conclusions based on poorly extrapolated theory, and nature has a tendency to punish those who do so.
Stephen Wilde says:
Which is pretty amazing given how many times I have explained it to you! How can you give an answer to a question when you don’t even understand the question? I don’t care if adiabatic processes contribute 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 W/m^2 to the surface radiation budget, that still isn’t going to cause the top-of-the-atmosphere budget to match if you have a surface at a temperature of 288 K and no radiatively-active atmosphere to absorb any of the emitted radiation.
Of course, we know adiabatic processes don’t contribute that to the surface radiation budget because we know something called the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says that any spontaneous process considered as a macroscopic whole necessarily has heat flow from hotter to colder, i.e. from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere. That is true of the radiative process, which in net always involves a flow from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere (i.e., the radiative flow from the surface to the atmosphere is necessarily larger than that from the atmosphere to the surface). You are proposing processes that would have to involve a net flow for the process in the opposite direction, i.e., their net result is the transfer of energy from a colder body to a hotter body.
It is pretty impressive that you have managed to propose an idea that violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics simultaneously and yet you claim, “In essence I think I present a plausible description of mechanical processes that removes the need for a radiative solution.” Yes, you think that because your processes are unconstrained by having to obey any laws of physics. Removing that constraint makes it pretty easy to show anything that you want to show, but it also makes the result completely silly and useless.
bart: Your and Salby’s belief that even the rise in CO2 levels is not anthropogenic is denial of science at a level that I am really not prepared to deal with (although I suppose, in principle, no worse than the Slayers and Stephen Wilde’s denial of the radiative greenhouse effect). It is impressive in a sad way what otherwise intelligent people will convince themselves of in order to believe what they want to believe.
Just a reminder to all, take out a steady trend over the last 113 years, and all you’ve got left is a very regular ~60 year at-least-quasi-cyclical process and some noise.
There is no evident impact of accelerating CO2 concentration at all.
joeldshore says:
November 19, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“…at a level that I am really not prepared to deal with…”
I already knew that. It is because you do not understand feedback systems. But, it’s no skin off my nose. If you want to deny the obvious, that’s your choice.
And, really… You think you know climate science better than the guy who wrote the book? Amusing.
“the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says that any spontaneous process considered as a macroscopic whole necessarily has heat flow from hotter to colder, i.e. from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere. That is true of the radiative process, which in net always involves a flow from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere (i.e., the radiative flow from the surface to the atmosphere is necessarily larger than that from the atmosphere to the surface). You are proposing processes that would have to involve a net flow for the process in the opposite direction, i.e., their net result is the transfer of energy from a colder body to a hotter body.”
Well it’s not quite that simple Joel because we know that the surface is 33K warmer due to backradiation, and that *is* a net flow from “cooler” to “warmer” but it is required in order to balance the energy budget, so that there is a balanced net flow out of the system. Don’t let these people screw up your arguments and your good science just because they twist around the definitions and Laws of Thermo.
“There is no evident impact of accelerating CO2 concentration at all.”
YET! As the ice core records show, it takes a little while before the CO2 forcing effect comes into full swing. It is only a matter of time.
Stephen writes: “I’ve been a weather and climate enthusiast for 60 years…”
I’m astonished you don’t care a whit about modern climate study saying something about all since then abuse it except you. IIRC you last read a thermo. book back then in the 1960s that you are now unable to locate and I cannot find.
Stephen, just go get a modern atm. thermo book; Bohren’s 1998 text uses a lot of narrative as I’ve recommended before. The excitement of new stuff, new stories is right there for you. But it is fun and profitable in certain ways for me to look up why your narrative is sooo…. antique. Except, geez, many knew more about atm. thermo. science than you even prior 1938.
AKerr says:
“YET! …It is only a matter of time.”
How nice to be able to predict the future, AKerr. You must be as rich as Croesus.
Sorry, but I just have to laugh at the jamokes who see everything they believe falsified, but are still able to twist things around to convince themselves that “carbon” is gonna getcha!
Stephen wonders aloud: “So from my meteorological knowledge I have no problem seeing surface warming caused by adiabatic descent as being enough to account for that 33K.”
Let’s see your accounting then, show the numbers my friend. Bohren lays his out in 2006 text, yours are invisible. The bird baths only freeze occasionally because of the existing unseen DWIR without which they would freeze all the time everywhere it is less than 170F at night.
“I don’t see why one needs radiative gases to raise the surface temperature by 33K.”
Believe me we know. You are wrong; the satellites launched since you last read a thermo. book confirmed you are wrong. Or lay out your numbers showing this w/o DWIR, turn modern science around, head it backwards. Even the Soviets were ahead of you in the 1960s when they fabbed the 1st Venera probe with the right range of thermometer.
“Can you address any of my above points in a fashion clear enough for lay readers to follow ?”
See all my prior posts. Everywhere. See Bohren 1998. See Bohren 2006. Clear as a bell, your unclear, obviously confused foggy narrative is incomplete and mostly wrong.
“As stated by Bart and many others here and elsewhere the radiative theory is failing to match reality.”
By what amount in numbers? Why don’t birdbaths freeze every night everywhere? Why is Joel so verbose? Why is there air besides to blow up basketballs? Why do you bother with static incorrect knowledge, work it, increase it, read the books Stephen.
AKerr says:
November 19, 2013 at 7:27 pm
—————————————
Get with the program AKerr. Your heroes, leaders and scientific wankers are saying that the climate crisis is here and now. None of this future stuff, OK ??