Note: two events at AGU13 this morning dovetail in with this essay. The first, a slide from Dr. Judith Lean which says: “There are no operational forecasts of global climate change”.
The second was a tweet by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, attending Lenny Smith’s lecture (which I couldn’t due to needing to file a radio news report from the AGU press room) that said:
Smith: usefulness of climate models for mitigation 'as good as it gets', usefulness for adaptation? Not so much #AGU13
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) December 10, 2013
With those events in mind, this essay from Dr. William Gray (of hurricane forecasting fame) is prescient.
Guest essay by Dr. William M. Gray
My 60-year experience in meteorology has led me to develop a profound disrespect for the philosophy and science behind numerical climate modeling. The simulations that have been directed at determining the influence of a doubling of CO2 on Earth’s temperature have been made with flawed and oversimplified internal physical assumptions. These modeling scenarios have shown a near uniformity in CO2 doubling causing a warming of 2-5oC (4-9oF). There is no physical way, however, that an atmospheric doubling of the very small amount of background CO2 gas would ever be able to bring about such large global temperature increases.
It is no surprise that the global temperature in recent decades has not been rising as the climate models have predicted. Reliable long-range climate modeling is not possible and may never be possible. It is in our nation’s best interest that this mode of prophecy be exposed for its inherent futility. Belief in these climate model predictions has had a profound deleterious influence on our country’s (and foreign) governmental policies on the environment and energy.
The still-strong—but false—belief that skillful long-range climate prediction is possible is thus a dangerous idea. The results of the climate models have helped foster the current political clamor for greatly reducing fossil fuel use even though electricity generation costs from wind and solar are typically three to five times higher than generation from fossil fuels. The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which are based on the large (and unrealistic) catastrophic global warming projections from climate models.
The pervasive influence of these IPCC reports (from 1990 to 2013) derives from the near-universal lack of climate knowledge among the general population. Overly biased and sensational media reports have been able to brainwash a high percentage of the public. A very similar lack of sophisticated climate knowledge exists among our top government officials, environmentalists, and most of the world’s prestigious scientists. Holding a high government position or having excelled in a non-climate scientific specialty does not automatically confer a superior understanding of climate.
Lack of climate understanding, however, has not prevented our government leaders and others from using the public’s fear of detrimental climate change as a political or social tool to further some of their other desired goals. Climate modeling output lends an air of authority that is not warranted by the unrealistic model input physics and the overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques. (Model grids cannot resolve cumulus convective elements, for example.) It is impossible for climate models to predict the globe’s future climate for at least three basic reasons.
One, decadal and century-scale deep-ocean circulation changes (likely related to long time-scale ocean salinity variations), such as the global Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) and Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC), are very difficult to measure and are not yet well-enough understood to be included realistically in the climate models. The last century-and-a-half global warming of ~0.6oC appears to be a result of the general slowdown of the oceans’ MOC over this period. The number of multidecadal up-and-down global mean temperature changes appears also to have been driven by the multidecadal MOC. Models do not yet incorporate this fundamental physical component.
Two, the very large climate modeling overestimates of global warming are primarily a result of the assumed positive water-vapor feedback processes (about 2oC extra global warming with a CO2 doubling in most models). Models assume any upper tropospheric warming also brings about upper tropospheric water-vapor increase as well, because they assume atmospheric relative humidity (RH) remains quasi-constant. But measurements and theoretical considerations of deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds indicate any increase of CO2 and its associated increase in global rainfall would lead to a reduction of upper tropospheric RH and a consequent enhancement (not curtailment) of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space.
The water-vapor feedback loop, in reality, is weakly negative, not strongly positive as nearly all the model CO2 doubling simulations indicate. The climate models are not able to resolve or correctly parameterize the fundamentally important climate forcing influences of the deep penetrating cumulonimbus (Cb) convection elements. This is a fundamental deficiency.
Three, the CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a “radiation only” perspective. Disregarding water-vapor feedback changes, it has been assumed a doubling of CO2 will cause a blockage of Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) of 3.7 Wm-2. To compensate for this blockage without feedback, it has been assumed an enhanced global warming of about 1oC would be required for counterbalance. But global energy budget considerations indicate only about half (0.5oC, not 1oC) of the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage of CO2 should be expected to be expended for temperature compensation. The other half of the compensation for the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage will come from the extra energy that must be utilized for surface evaporation (~1.85 Wm-2) to sustain the needed increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2 percent.
Earth experiences a unique climate because of its 70 percent water surface and its continuously functioning hydrologic cycle. The stronger the globe’s hydrologic cycle, the greater the globe’s cooling potential. All the global energy used for surface evaporation and tropospheric condensation warming is lost to space through OLR flux.
Thus, with zero water-vapor feedback we should expect a doubling of CO2 to cause no more than about 0.5oC (not 1oC) of global warming and the rest of the compensation to come from enhanced surface evaporation, atmospheric condensation warming, and enhanced OLR to space. If there is a small negative water-vapor feedback of only -0.1 to -0.3oC (as I believe to be the case), then a doubling of CO2 should be expected to cause a global warming of no more than about 0.2-0.4oC. Such a small temperature change should be of little societal concern during the remainder of this century.
It is the height of foolishness for the United States or any foreign government to base any energy or environmental policy decisions on the results of long-range numerical climate model predictions, or of the recommendations emanating from the biased, politically driven reports of the IPCC.
###
William M. Gray, Ph.D. (gray@atmos.colostate.edu) is professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
Konrad says:
December 13, 2013 at 10:35 pm
>snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe that the above is incorrect:
The down IR also makes up some of the heat the ocean is losing by radiating. The rest comes by conduction and advection from below.
Downward IR is therefore “heating the Oceans” by “slowing” the flow of LW energy from the surface skin. In the same way that GHE works in slowing the radiative loss from the Earth to space. It’s the tapping of a reservoir result whereby the whole takes longer to drain when the “tap” is open because it still has an inflow. Therefore it is “pseudo” heating.
We must also consider that heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere must take place through the skin layer and its magnitude depends on the temperature gradient between the skin and the atmosphere above. This is because it is done by conduction – in a situation where the skin temp is reduced via back IR causing enhanced evaporative cooling, then there will be less heat conducted into the atmosphere (to be convected away) at that interface.
TB
Back IR is not “heat”. Heat is the net IR flux between two objects, and the net in this case is from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere.
TB
Maybe, your point is that the rate of heat flowing from surface to atmosphere slows as the air temperature rises. That is, of course, correct. The temperature differential affects the rate of transfer. That is true of all objects, and it is a property of the mass of the atmosphere, independent of the concentrations of gases therein.
Konrad says:
December 13, 2013 at 5:22 pm
TB says:
December 12, 2013 at 4:59 am
——————————————–
TB,
your response has fallen into they typical format of radiative greenhouse defenders –
“The surface will not be uniform. Some parts will be hotter than others, and this will set up local turbulence/convection. Growing and taking heat from the tropics to colder parts. The N2 will be in motion.
There will be some energy exchange from this convection but on balance, heat flux to the N2 goes nowhere. For N2 cannot emit it to space. It can only conduct it back to the surface (somewhere).”
– the hand waving that somehow strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation can continue in the absence of radiative gases. It cannot. Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to this circulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, not hand-waving – just basic Meteorology.
Radiative effects can be removed from the physics and convection start/continue. One need only consider in inhomegenities present in a rotating non-radiative atmosphere – differential heating and friction primarily. It must all obviously follow from there. Any fluid (as an atmosphere behaves) will begin/continue motion by those mechanisms. Have you not seen experiments of rotating pans of water heated at the outside and cooled in the middle? They develop turbulence then eddies/flows (Rossby waves/vortices/jets) to try to get to thermodynamic equilibrium. No radiation is involved.
In the case of planetary atmosphere this would set in train a “heat-pump” mechanism whereby compression/rarefaction would transfer heat down (as described in my post) thereupon at some point “normal” convection would occur where the loss of internal energy via the DALR would cause a natural vertical motion once the atmosphere has equaled/exceeded this value. “Normal” convection then keeps the LR pretty much stable due to transport of WV therefore LH release aloft.
“Conductive heating and cooling of the atmosphere at surface level will never create enough “turbulence” to drive strong vertical circulation over the 10 to 15 km height of the troposphere.”
I didn’t say at the surface – I said it starts there (as it must as there is the density discontinuity).
The turbulence caused by differential conduction due to latitudinal thermal absorption variation then friction slowing as convection/turbulence advances will build through and mix to the full depth of the atmosphere with thermal winds created aloft eventually forming jet streams/Rossby waves etc (as in differentially heated “hemispheres” of water in a rotating pan) and hence baroclinic vortices. All this can take place without radiating gases.
“Radiative cooling at altitude is critical to driving strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. The amount of energy being radiated to space from the upper atmosphere is more than TWICE the energy being absorbed by the atmosphere from incoming solar IR and outgoing surface IR. This is because radiative gases at altitude are not just emitting energy from absorbed IR to space, but also all the energy the atmosphere acquired from surface conduction and the release of latent heat from condensing water vapour.”
I believe I agreed with this in my response to your OP. However convection can/does take place without radiational involvement – other than radiative cooling of cloud tops overnight (hence the max severe thunderstorm incidence occurring late in the night). That’s caused by a radiative cooling of the parcel top and thereby causing a greater instability within the rising air of the parcel (cloud).
In the Hadley cell, yes, air cools as it heads away from the ITCZ (chiefly via WV emission) but it also converges at around 30N due Coriolis and would descend anyway, setting up the circulation.
“Due to issues of IR opacity, the ability of radiative gases to heat the atmosphere is an inverse logarithmic function of their concentration. Their ability to cool the atmosphere however is a far more linear function of their concentration.”
?Whatever .. So you are saying that increasing GHG’s has a net effect of cooling the atmosphere?
It has the net effect of cooling the Strat (which is what observation shows). But has a net effect of warming the Trop – right up to the ‘pause.
“And the ability of radiative gases to slow the cooling of the “surface”? Far less than claimed. Incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. That would be 71% of the earth’s surface. Go back and check the calculations of the pseudo scientists, they calculated the effect of LWIR on the oceans based on their emissivity. This works for most materials, but not liquid water.”
Err, and you accuse me of hand-waving. Supporting evidence please.
“LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool”.
Yes it most assuredly can see my above post to Konrad.
No, I wont check anything – it is you making assertions away from established physics – therefore it is you that should provide links to studies that support your view.
“Radiative gases do absorb IR and heat the atmosphere. Radiative gases do emit IR back to the surface slowing the cooling of the land surface only. However radiative gases primary role in our atmosphere is cooling, via LWIR emission to space. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.”
No – and I answered this assertion in my OP. GHG’s do not reduce the atmospheres cooling ability – but they do slow it such that it has to radiate at a higher temp in order to overcome the “constriction” of terrestrial IR photons to space. Shifting the LR balance point higher and raising the surface temp 33C above what it would be without.
So you are saying that Venus is colder than it would have been by having a CO2 atmosphere rather than a N2+O2 one? – crickey! and it’s at 460C now.
Your assertions are all contrary to established physics and observation.
I think I asked this of you up-thread – again – what is causing the heating of Venus if not it’s CO2 atmosphere? And don’t say internal heat as it’s not as it’s not a gaseous planet and any internal heat would be caused by radioactive decay, which is many orders of magnitude less than solar input.
Here is the IPCC’s view (using fundamental physics).
There is a general warming effect through the Troposphere due increasing GHG concentrations…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-2.html
Applying my favoured physical conceptual method to the question, I reason it this way:
You assert that GHG’s cool the Earth…..
Now we have a process whereby molecules present in a medium are able to catch energy (thereby distribute it to molecules around via conduction) and then re-admit it. Like for like in all directions.
This happens throughout the atmosphere. Now given that the energy can only escape finally to space the majority of photons will be emitted from the surface at least once and some more than once. Therefore the IR energy will be focused within the whole depth of the atmosphere in preference to it’s emittance to space.
A bouncing ball in a courtyard with one open end – will necessarily spend more time in the yard as a result of “bouncing” off 3 sides and only having an exit on one.
TB;
you might want to take into account that Venus’ CO2 atmosphere is radiatively isolated from space by a thick cloud cover of other chemicals, with a very high albedo (meaning low emissivity and high reflectivity).
Trick says:
December 14, 2013 at 7:36 am
———————————————-
“ (Konrad used 1 thermometer for a temperature field!).”
Nice try, but it won’t work. That experiment has been presented with build and run instructions many times on this and other blogs. The instructions included advice to measure the temperature at a number of points in each gas column. That was entirely the point, because it builds a picture of the flow pattern in each gas column.
“Without decent, controlled (expensive!) instrumentation, Konrad conclusions can be anything Konrad wants to support a view.”
No they can’t. The experiment has been designed specifically for others to replicate without expensive equipment. The physics demonstrated are so basic that no expensive instrumentation is required.
“Hiding behind assertions won’t work.”
No, that doesn’t work either. I’m clearly standing in front of empirical experiments, not hiding behind assertions.
“Figure 7-12 control volume is Earth surface and TOA (“outgoing terrestrial radiation”). You can move energy all you want inside the CV since the counting of energy in and energy out, spatially and temporally avg.d for CV will be unaffected. This is most basic thermo. 101.”
Wrong. This is the mistake that leads to a believing two shell radiative models can model atmospheric temperatures without considering mechanical energy transport within the control volume. Ignoring geothermal, the earth only gains and loses energy via electromagnetic radiation. However calculating only radiative flows will not give the correct answer for atmospheric temperatures.
A simple way to demonstrate the importance of mechanical energy transport is “Solar Pond” technology. Build two 10m2 1m deep ponds with interior surfaces painted black. Insulate the exterior walls and base. Fill with fresh water. In pond B add horizontal screens of thin transparent LDPE film 200 apart starting 200mm below the surface. Both ponds can cool by radiation and evaporation. Expose to the sun for about a week until each pond has settled at a diurnal equilibrium temperature. Both ponds will now be absorbing and losing an equal amount of energy over a diurnal cycle. Pond B however will now have a water temperature of around 80C. Same energy entering and exiting the control volume but very different equilibrium temperatures solely because of differences in mechanical energy transport within the control volume.
This is why AGW is pseudo science. You cannot on one hand claim that changing the pattern of radiative energy transport within the land/ocean/atmosphere system can change the equilibrium temperature of the system while refusing to acknowledge that changes in mechanical energy transport can do the same.
“As for the paper, try this, no need to build an uncontrolled kitchen table experiment.”
Trick if incident LWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool, it should be a easy for you to provide a simple (ie: doesn’t require expensive equipment like kitchen tables) empirical experiment demonstrating this that other readers can build and try for themselves.
The reason neither you nor any AGW believer can produce such an experiment when challenged is that incident LWIR cannot heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Konrad 6:07pm: Once again, you avoid the obvious need to demonstrate theory and empirically exactly where the Fig. 7-12 and Eqn. 7.16 are misleading. The basic science behind them will be thought sound and will keep being used successfully in text books, solar system and exoplanet research until you do so.
“You cannot on one hand claim that changing the pattern of radiative energy transport within the land/ocean/atmosphere system can change the equilibrium temperature of the system while refusing to acknowledge that changes in mechanical energy transport can do the same.”
Yes. I can. Do not count any energy that doesn’t cross the control volume of interest in calculating Tmean, only radiation crosses CV. Thermo. 101. Look it up. The mechanical energy doesn’t exit the control volume to deep space so don’t count it in eqn. 7.16. Wind doesn’t change the system equilibrium temperature Tmean=288K more than about 0.7K SST thru ocean emissivity which can cross the CV. This is the lesson you miss. Wind just moves the energy around in the CV.
Mess with the radiation crossing the CV, energy in and out of your experiments and you can mess with Tmean. CO2 and every other gas in the atm. does so in Tmean=288K with f=0.77 thru Fig. 7-11. Nothing you have tested shows otherwise.
Show a theory or empirical issue with eqn. 7.16 or Fig. 7-12 and I will again be interested.
TB:
December 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Thank you again for responding! I’m not doing a very good job of getting you to address my position though!
I have never disagreed with with the notion of the simple S-B radiative model and agree that the affect of GHGs explains the divergence from the theory (The Earth’s effective temperature is higher than that given by the general grey-body equation).
TB said:
“By emissivity – you mean the ability of a molecule to emit radiation in a specific range of wavelengths. Hence “grey body. GHG’s in the atmosphere absorb/emit in discrete bands of radiation. The two are held to be equal such that IR emitted to space is averaged out to the ratio of GHG’s (including WV) known to be present in the atmosphere and taking them to be well mixed throughout. Clouds will be modeled via a simple quantification of temp and rel. hum. for each grid-scale box.
I don’t see it as equalising albedo against emissivity but I suppose you could look at it that way.
No, I mean quite specifically that the equation is for a body without atmosphere! The grey-body ’emissivity’ quite clearly, means amount of radiation absorbed after accounting for reflection. The S-B equation can generate an average temperature given total energy absorbed. Earth is a grey-body because it reflects some energy, it has nothing to do with atmospheric absorption. I’m trying very hard and you keep avoiding answering my question! What is found, is that the grey-body equation can’t account for the actual temperature, It is too cold. This is uncontroversial! A separate calculation must be made to account for the higher temperatures recorded on Earth and this is where GHGs come in. This “Greenhouse” effect is not described by the S-B law because the problem enters the realm of more complex kinetic relationships.
But my question is even more specific:
Q: A figure for Albedo (30-35%) is used as the emissivity term in the grey-body equation. Given that clouds and surface albedo are combined to produce this figure how can you derive an equilibrium temperature? Again, the albedo of the surface changes over time and the albedo due to clouds changes rapidly and even the ocean surface albedo changes hourly.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim to know the equilibrium temperature of the Earth based on the S-B law.
The simple radiative model imagines a black-body having no atmosphere absorbing all incident energy. The general model allows for bodies that reflect some of the energy, thus the figure for absorption is adjusted down for a grey-body. It has nothing to do with the energy balance, this is still dealing with the “energy-in” stage! This is at the very fundamental level of your argument. The radiative model at its simplest, asks first, how much energy is actually received given some is reflected! In the equation, this ’emissivity’, is calculated by assuming an average albedo! The difficulty with the Earth is that the figure includes clouds! It is not simply albedo at the surface. This is a big fudge factor!
You keep saying the Earth is a heat engine but how much heat is actually going in? We both agree that heat comes out but how long does it take to come out? You often refer to a boiling pan of water. I keep seeing images of water boiling at room temperature in the partial vacuum of a suction flask or salt being added to boil pasta! Obviously pressure and salinity matter and this is a big problem for a linear equation, given that on Earth, they vary spatially and temporally.
If you still manage to ignore the problem of calculating absorption for the Earth, the figure for solar irradiance is extremely complex and controversial even without the difference between the expected 1,368 from the ‘observed’ 1,366 and ‘adjustment’ to 1,3361 W/m2. Changing albedo by 0.01 or solar irradiance by 6 W/m2 changes the equilibrium temperature by a degree. Solar irradiance doesn’t have to vary much over the longer term to be able to explain all of ‘global warming’ (0.1% or so).
There is much more to say about the Solar Constant and the simple radiative model describing Earth as a grey-body is invalidated by the inability to calculate absorption at any time scale.
TB says:
December 14, 2013 at 3:31 pm
“No, not hand-waving – just basic Meteorology.”
No, this is basic meteorology –
[Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence. The subsiding air warms (as pressure increases towards lower levels), further lowering the relative humidity and maintaining clear-sky conditions. However, although the subsiding air warms, it does not do so at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Continuing losses of longwave radiation (radiative cooling) means that the air warms at less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (i.e. some of the adiabatic warming is offset by diabatic cooling).]
This is hand-waving –
“Radiative effects can be removed from the physics and convection start/continue. One need only consider in inhomegenities present in a rotating non-radiative atmosphere – differential heating and friction primarily. It must all obviously follow from there. Any fluid (as an atmosphere behaves) will begin/continue motion by those mechanisms. Have you not seen experiments of rotating pans of water heated at the outside and cooled in the middle? They develop turbulence then eddies/flows (Rossby waves/vortices/jets) to try to get to thermodynamic equilibrium. No radiation is involved.”
– You are trying to claim that without radiative gases allowing airmases to lose buoyancy and subside from altitude, conductive heating and cooling of the atmosphere at the surface would create “turbulence” to powerful enough drive strong vertical circulation over the 10 to 15 km height of the troposphere and create a pneumatically generated lapse rate as strong as currently observed.
“So you are saying that increasing GHG’s has a net effect of cooling the atmosphere?”
Precisely. Without radiative gases , the atmosphere has no effective method of cooling. Contact with a radiatively cooled surface at night is ineffective. A simple empirical experiment shows, the surface is far better at conductively heating a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field than it is at conductively cooling it. An example in basic meteorology would be a night inversion layer.
“Err, and you accuse me of hand-waving. Supporting evidence please.
“LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool”.
Yes it most assuredly can see my above post to Konrad.
No, I wont check anything – it is you making assertions away from established physics – therefore it is you that should provide links to studies that support your view.”
This is one of the critical mistakes in the global warming pseudo science. Just like figure 7-12 in the link you provided, the surface of the planet is not shown as land and ocean, just surface. Climate scientists claim that the oceans respond to incident LWIR in the same way as materials that cannot evaporatively cool. Water does absorb LWIR and like other materials, it’ absorption bands match it’s emission bands. But LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of the skin evaporation layer. It simply trips a few molecules from liquid to vapour slightly sooner than they otherwise would. It does not effect the cooling rate of liquid below this layer. This simple experiment that other readers can build and run for themselves demonstrates this fact –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
– no AGW promoter has ever been able to provide a simple experiment that readers can check that demonstrates LWIR slowing heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. Trick couldn’t provide one and you will not be able to provide one either
“I think I asked this of you up-thread – again – what is causing the heating of Venus if not it’s CO2 atmosphere?”
Venus has a far higher atmospheric pressure than earth and receives more solar radiation. Due to atmospheric opacity, most direct solar heating of Venus occurs in the atmosphere. Because CO2 allows radiative cooling at altitude, convective circulation is established in the Venus atmosphere. This circulation allows solar heated gas to be transported towards the surface where it undergoes far greater pneumatic heating due to the greater atmospheric pressure than would occur on earth.
“Applying my favoured physical conceptual method to the question, I reason it this way:
You assert that GHG’s cool the Earth…..
Now we have a process whereby molecules present in a medium are able to catch energy (thereby distribute it to molecules around via conduction) and then re-admit it. Like for like in all directions.
This happens throughout the atmosphere. Now given that the energy can only escape finally to space the majority of photons will be emitted from the surface at least once and some more than once. Therefore the IR energy will be focused within the whole depth of the atmosphere in preference to it’s emittance to space.
A bouncing ball in a courtyard with one open end – will necessarily spend more time in the yard as a result of “bouncing” off 3 sides and only having an exit on one.”
Your reasoning is a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and a direct confirmation of what Dr. Grey was saying. You are looking at the delay of outgoing surface radiation radiation only. However the primary energy transport away from the surface is not radiation, it is conduction, evaporation and convection. The primary transport of energy out of the atmosphere is radiation to space. Most of the energy being radiated by the atmosphere to space was not acquired by interception of surface LWIR.
Basically both the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis depend on denying the following-
1. Most of the energy the atmosphere is radiating to space was acquired from surface conduction and the release of latent heat.
2. Radiative gases play a critical role in tropospheric convective circulation by allowing the subsidence of airmasses from altitude. Changing the concentration of radiative gases changes the speed of this circulation, the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface and the observed lapse rate.
3. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Don’t the S-B equations assume a low mass perfectly conductive plane surface? The Moon doesn’t conform; why should the Earth?
Trick says:
December 14, 2013 at 7:19 pm
——————————————————-
What? No empirical experiment showing LWIR heating liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool that other readers can easily replicate? Next you will claim this is my fault for excluding the use of expensive apparatus like kitchen tables….
“Once again, you avoid the obvious need to demonstrate theory and empirically exactly where the Fig. 7-12 and Eqn. 7.16 are misleading.”
I provided build diagrams for empirical experiments that demonstrated how the maths in 7-12 worked and also showed why it was not applicable to a moving gas atmosphere. These were specifically designed for others to replicate. What more did you need?
K – “You cannot on one hand claim that changing the pattern of radiative energy transport within the land/ocean/atmosphere system can change the equilibrium temperature of the system while refusing to acknowledge that changes in mechanical energy transport can do the same.”
T – “Yes. I can. Do not count any energy that doesn’t cross the control volume of interest in calculating Tmean, only radiation crosses CV. Thermo. 101. Look it up.”
WOW! Now you are contradicting the radiative greenhouse hypothesis you are supposed to be supporting. The failed hypothesis claims that the planet can be in radiative equilibrium, with the same amount of energy entering and exiting the “control volume” with different atmospheric temperatures depending on different radiative flows within the atmosphere/land/ocean system.
This is a bit like the time you argued endlessly that you could not drive convective circulation in a fluid column by the removal of energy. No need to remind me how that worked out. The Internet remembers.
Brian H says:
December 14, 2013 at 11:02 pm
“Don’t the S-B equations assume a low mass perfectly conductive plane surface? The Moon doesn’t conform; why should the Earth?”
———————————————————-
Good questions. And the simple answer is “never apply SB equations to a moving gas atmosphere above a liquid ocean”.
The moon does not conform because of conduction into the regolith. Conductive flux needs to be modelled in this case.
The earth does not conform because SW absorption of the oceans occurs well below their surface and LWIR effects the speed and pattern of mechanical energy transport within the atmosphere. Both conductive flux and convective flows need to be modelled in this case.
Konrad 11:03pm:
“What more did you need?”
Simply need to see your theory showing where eqn. 7.16 is not applicable to an atmosphere. Your assertions have had and will have no impact on any research in the field because you demonstrate little understanding of simple control volume energy accounting calculating Tmean.
Trick says:
December 15, 2013 at 5:34 am
“Simply need to see your theory showing where eqn. 7.16 is not applicable to an atmosphere.”
——————————————————————————————
Equation 7.16 is simply based on the radiation only two shell model shown in figure 7-12. I have demonstrated by empirical experiment that this maths is fine for a physical two shell model without moving fluids. I have also demonstrated by empirical experiment why this approach is not applicable to a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field. Two fluid columns in a gravity field can be in equilibrium with identical amounts of energy entering and exiting the columns, but with very different average temperatures depending on the differing heights of energy input and exit. Equation 7.16 cannot model this. It is therefore inapplicable to a moving gas atmosphere.
Lets look at the discussion of equation 7.16 in the chapter –
“Radiative models used in research go beyond the gray atmosphere model by resolving the wavelength distribution of radiation, and radiative-convective models go further by accounting for buoyant transport of heat as a term in the energy balance equations. Going still further are the general circulation models (GCMs) which resolve the horizontal heterogeneity of the surface and its atmosphere by solving globally the 3-dimensional equations for conservation of energy, mass, and momentum. The GCMs provide a full simulation of the Earth’s climate and are the major research tools used for assessing climate response to increases in greenhouse gases.”
“…. radiative-convective models go further…”. Right there is the smoking gun. Radiative-convective models were a patch job, a bandaid applied to global warming post 1990 in a panicked attempt to save the scam. The “basic physics of the settled science” did not include these, but these should have been the very foundation of the hypothesis if it had any validity at all. The reason is simple.
The only logical way to consider the effects of radiative gases in our atmosphere would be to model the temperature of a non radiative atmosphere. Equation 7.16 cannot do this as all energy entering and exiting such an atmosphere would not involve radiation, it would be only through conduction convection and the release of latent heat. Radiation would pass straight through.
Logically if equation 7.16 cannot be used to model atmospheric temperatures in a non-radiative atmosphere, it cannot possibly model temperatures accurately in a partially radiative atmosphere like ours.
Similarly GCMs are a patch job. They were developed years after the “basic physics of the settled science”. This claim – “Going still further are the general circulation models (GCMs) which resolve the horizontal heterogeneity of the surface and its atmosphere by solving globally the 3-dimensional equations for conservation of energy, mass, and momentum.” simply serves to gloss over the failings of GCMs. GCMs do not have the vertical resolution to model even the basic physics shown in my two column experiment. They are essentially two layer models with vertical energy and mass transport between grid squares in each layer calculated via radiative-convective equations rather than computational fluid dynamics. They do not solve for the role of radiative gases in our atmosphere. They are effectively preprogrammed with equations that tell them that radiative gases cause warming.
In conclusion, equation 7.16 cannot model the temperature of a non-radiative atmosphere, therefore it cannot model the temperature of a partially radiative atmosphere. You cannot refute my claim that the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere is atmospheric cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm by running back to radiation only equations.
Konrad 5:15pm: That’s a nice piece of work. It shows good faith effort to make progress. Thank you.
However it fails to prove your conclusion Eqn. 7.16 cannot model a moving gas atmosphere for the simple reason the moving gas within the control volume does not count in the energy crossing the control volume so this moving gas cannot affect Tmean within the control volume of interest. As I have pointed out here and previous this is the thermo. 101 basic that you miss. Winds don’t dump Earth system energy out to deep space.
Eqn. 7.16 does in fact model a basic non-radiative atm. perfectly well given none of the moving gas energy crosses its control volume – total moving gas energy inside CV remains unchanged; its constituents can vary from strong to weak and vice versa. Moving gas energy therefore cannot affect Tmean (in practice not by more than 0.7K SST though windy ocean emissivity cited prev.).
To use eqn. 7-16 perfectly well and within the confines of 0th, 1st and 2nd law for a theoretical non-radiative atm., simply reduce f term to 0.0 from 0.77. This computes the new equilibrium global surface Tmean to which the sun will be able to force the theoretical Earth system Tmean response at current epoch parameters using only convective and conductive energy transfer within the CV.
Or more physically true, reduce f term to N2 and O2 radiative capabilities as shown in Fig 7-11 (you will have to adjust the scale to find their f term or, as shown, emissivity epsilon slightly .GT. 0.0).
I need a scorecard as a newbie in order to understand what is being said by who. I do not know the screen names, and being a sceptic I question everything unless I know the source.
Please add a short CV or at least your title and position at the end of your posts.
Brad Weaver, PE
Building Energy Analyst
Owner – NWEC
Thanks!
Trick says:
December 15, 2013 at 7:28 pm
——————————————
“However it fails to prove your conclusion Eqn. 7.16 cannot model a moving gas atmosphere for the simple reason the moving gas within the control volume does not count in the energy crossing the control volume so this moving gas cannot affect Tmean within the control volume of interest. As I have pointed out here and previous this is the thermo. 101 basic that you miss. Winds don’t dump Earth system energy out to deep space.”
No, still wrong.
Firstly I have never claimed that winds dump energy into space.
Secondly for a non radiative atmosphere equation 7.16 would only be modelling surface temperatures. Climate pseudo scientists doing this always get it wrong because they assume that they can use the emissivity of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool to calculate the effect of LWIR or the lack of it on the cooling rate of the ocean. As empirical experiment shows, this is totally incorrect.
Thirdly as equation 7.16 would only be incorrectly modelling surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures would have to be modelled using assumptions about conductive and mechanical energy transport. Which of course is EXACTLY what you do here –
“This computes the new equilibrium global surface Tmean to which the sun will be able to force the theoretical Earth system Tmean response at current epoch parameters using only convective and conductive energy transfer within the CV.”
But that won’t work either. I have many times demonstrated by empirical experiment why you cannot use surface Tmean to determine the temperature of a non-radiative atmosphere conductively heated by the surface. Empirical experiment proves that for a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field, it is Tmax that will drive the resulting near isothermal temperature of such an atmosphere.
Will you at least admit that Trick? In claiming equation 7.16 can model atmospheric temperatures for a non-radiative atmosphere you have simply claimed (incorrectly) that the atmospheric temperature would be set by surface Tmean. That’s all you have done isn’t it? And I have already proved by empirical experiment why that approach won’t work.
The bottom line is that AGW relies on physically impossible claims –
That incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.
That strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation (strong enough to pneumaticly generate the observed lapse rate) would continue in the absence of radiative gases.
That the temperature of a non radiative atmosphere will be set by surface Tav or Tmean.
These are all physically impossible claims, therefore the AGW hypothesis which relies on them is also physically impossible.
Konrad 12:52am: “…they assume that they can use the emissivity of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool to calculate the effect of LWIR or the lack of it on the cooling rate of the ocean.”
Ocean emissivity is not an assumption. There are many modern text books and many papers that demonstrate the physics with experiment and sound theory based conclusions – I cited just one above (from 2005); satellite instrumentation more precise than you use on the atm. as a whole. Your task is to prove where each and every one of them is wrong with sound theory that gets the author’s attention.
The 1st step is finding a flaw in the sound basic science of 7-11, 7-12 and eqn. 7-16. The input is all measured. If you do so, you will change whole fields of planetary science and exoplanet science.
“Firstly I have never claimed that winds dump energy into space.”
Yes, Konrad did. Right here clipped from your 5:15pm:
“…all energy entering and exiting such an atmosphere would not involve radiation, it would be only through conduction convection..”
More later today if thread stays open.
******
BW2013 8:15pm:
I recommend start reducing newbie by ignoring the blogs and get the pre-req.s for proficiency to read a couple modern text books on the subject. I’ve recommended that to Konrad many times. I like Bohren 1998 and 2006.
LP Buckingham 12:02pm – “..very interesting discussion.”
For me, the basic science is interesting to learn and that understanding is improved thru discussion. The futility of long range numerical climate prediction is not that the basic science in the ref. provided by TB (Chapt. 7 and many other modern text books) is in any way faulty (far as science knows to date anyway) as opposed to what Konrad asserts: “AGW hypothesis…is physically impossible.”
The measured but chaotic inputs to the basic science equation 7.16 are where the futility comes from in predicting long range climate numerically. The Callendar 1938 paper conclusions did remarkably well over the 75 years since the original reasoning and basic 1st principles of science therein remain sound.
“…not expressed in perfect Queens English.”
No kidding; for me especially – I have long admitted needing an editor.
Trick says:
December 16, 2013 at 5:13 am
——————————————–
“Ocean emissivity is not an assumption. There are many modern text books and many papers that demonstrate the physics with experiment and sound theory based conclusions – I cited just one above (from 2005); satellite instrumentation more precise than you use on the atm. as a whole. Your task is to prove where each and every one of them is wrong with sound theory that gets the author’s attention.”
Nowhere do I dispute figures for ocean emissivity or absorption. In fact on this very thread I point out to TB that – [Water does absorb LWIR and like other materials, its absorption bands match its emission bands. But LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of the skin evaporation layer. It simply trips a few molecules from liquid to vapour slightly sooner than they otherwise would. It does not effect the cooling rate of liquid below this layer.] And I even give a build diagram for the experiment to support my claim for other readers to replicate.
“The 1st step is finding a flaw in the sound basic science of 7-11, 7-12 and eqn. 7-16. The input is all measured.”
Again, as I have previously stated on this thread regards figure 7.11, I am not disputing that the atmosphere absorbs or emits LWIR. As to figure 7.12 and equation 7.16 I have both given you an empirical experiment confirming the radiative physics behind these, and also experiments proving why these alone cannot be used to determine atmospheric temperatures for a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field.
“If you do so, you will change whole fields of planetary science and exoplanet science.”
This is little more than an attempt at “call to authority”, a poor form of debate. And given that every climate model based on the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has failed, it is probably not the best approach 😉
You respond to this –
“Firstly I have never claimed that winds dump energy into space.”
With this –
“ Yes, Konrad did. Right here clipped from your 5:15pm:
“…all energy entering and exiting such an atmosphere would not involve radiation, it would be only through conduction [&] convection..” “
But my statement nowhere claims conduction from the atmosphere to the vacuum of space. That was your assumption. My statement is totally accurate. Energy entering a non-radiative atmosphere will only be through conduction, convection and release of latent heat of evaporation. Energy can only exit a non-radiative atmosphere through conduction back to the planets surface. As I have previously shown through empirical experiment, for a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field, the surface is far better at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it.
This is one of the critical errors in climate pseudo science, the assumption that the surface has an equal ability to conductively heat and cool the atmosphere. This is the very assumption you are making when you claim equation 7.16 can model the temperature of a non-radiative atmosphere. You set the atmospheric temperature using surface Tmean. This is the wrong approach as it ignores gravity, pressure gradient, gas conduction and fluid dynamics. For a gas column in a gravity field, the relative height of energy entry and exit from the column is critical to determining the average temperature of the gas column.
test
[Not here. Use the “Test” thread – see links at top of each page, and on the home WUWT page. Mod]
Konrad says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:54 pm
TB says:
December 14, 2013 at 3:31 pm
“No, not hand-waving – just basic Meteorology.”
No, this is basic meteorology –
[Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence. The subsiding air warms (as pressure increases towards lower levels), further lowering the relative humidity and maintaining clear-sky conditions. However, although the subsiding air warms, it does not do so at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Continuing losses of longwave radiation (radiative cooling) means that the air warms at less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (i.e. some of the adiabatic warming is offset by diabatic cooling).]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Konrad, For a start, potential temperature has nothing to do with LH – the definition of same is simply dry air (at the particular level) brought down the DALR to 1000mb. No WV is involved. Perhaps you think of Wet Bulb Potential temp – ThetaW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_temperature
It will lose LW energy as it moves north, yes of course. And I did say that cooling would occur – Just that it is not necessary for the formation of a Hadley cell. Look, air moving N from the ITCZ can only get so far (~30N/S) before Coriolis turns the air parallel to lines of latitude. At that point the air is (obviously) converging aloft and will sink (Convergence aloft = divergence below (HP)). Hence a band of HP circulating the Earth at around 30 deg N/S. Cooling aloft is NOT needed.
Descending air does warm at the DALR – it has too as that is the definition of air moving up/down in the atmosphere (when dry). It does not warm at less than the DALR any more than dry air cools more than the DALR when it rises. It is the adiabatic lapse rate (no energy exchanged with surroundings).
I have looked at many, upper air descents professionally from within Highs – they track the DALR aloft, at least for a while, depending on subsidence extent and mixing below that zone. Before reaching the subsidence inversion.
From: http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap4.html
“The outflowing air is then carried by the winds at high altitude and must eventually subside for mass conservation of air to be satisfied. As the air subsides, its temperature increases following the dry adiabatic lapse rate G.”
“- You are trying to claim that without radiative gases allowing air-masses to lose buoyancy and subside from altitude, conductive heating and cooling of the atmosphere at the surface would create “turbulence” to powerful enough drive strong vertical circulation over the 10 to 15 km height of the troposphere and create a pneumatically generated lapse rate as strong as currently observed”
I am not claiming it – it’s just obvious basic meteorology. Starting with an isothermal atmosphere on a rotating, dry planet at the same distance from the Sun as Earth.
Think about the meteorology involved – just basic fluid mechanics.
No, the LR now observed on Earth has been modified by equilibrium with the DALR/SALR and added radiative imbalances. I just did the 1st principles thing to show that radiation is not needed to start the process off (other than surface heating).
““So you are saying that increasing GHG’s has a net effect of cooling the atmosphere?”
Precisely. Without radiative gases , the atmosphere has no effective method of cooling. Contact with a radiatively cooled surface at night is ineffective. A simple empirical experiment shows, the surface is far better at conductively heating a moving gas atmosphere in a gravity field than it is at conductively cooling it. An example in basic meteorology would be a night inversion layer.””
No, GHG’s provide the medium for IR transport – passing it on elsewhere randomly before it exits the TOA – where IR must ultimately escape to space from. Without radiative gases there would be a much wider IR window and a LOT more than 9% (see below) would escape from the surface that way. Surface IR (absorbing 46% currently – see below) could leave to space unhindered – straight out ! – the exact opposite of what you assert > ie the ABSENCE of GHG’s cools and not their presence. A night-time inversion (on a clear, still, night involving dry air) is a complicated process of radiative and conductive exchange of the lowest layers over a radiating surface – back-radiation is involved but so is slight turbulent mixing which is nearly always present. What has that to do with GHG’s cooling the atmosphere?
cont
cont
“This is one of the critical mistakes in the global warming pseudo science. Just like figure 7-12 in the link you provided, the surface of the planet is not shown as land and ocean, just surface. Climate scientists claim that the oceans respond to incident LWIR in the same way as materials that cannot evaporatively cool. Water does absorb LWIR and like other materials, it’ absorption bands match it’s emission bands. But LWIR is absorbed in the first few microns of the skin evaporation layer. It simply trips a few molecules from liquid to vapour slightly sooner than they otherwise would. It does not effect the cooling rate of liquid below this layer. This simple experiment that other readers can build and run for themselves demonstrates this fact –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg no AGW promoter has ever been able to provide a simple experiment that readers can check that demonstrates LWIR slowing heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. Trick couldn’t provide one and you will not be able to provide one either”
Re 7-12 ocean acts as land – it absorbs SW+LW and emits LW – the figure is a schematic – in realitive there are radiative differences taken care of by models.
I should direct your objections to Harvard, with mathematical support/empirical observation that refutes ~150 years of science.
No, again – the body of water will warm because the evaporatively cooled surface skin cannot transport as much heat conductively to the atmosphere immediately above. Yes? Cooler so allowing less flux upward. Yes? Try to think of heat transport in other than radiative terms in this instance and involving more than just the skin.
Cont
However, logically it makes ZERO sense. What thermodynamic law is obeyed when (as you claim) an object can be cooled by the application of heat (sorry that is what back-IR is ultimately – otherwise there would not be extra evap cooling). But the Ocean is MORE than just the skin. Ultimately that is all that is required to realise what you suggest cannot be correct.
“Venus has a far higher atmospheric pressure than earth and receives more solar radiation. Due to atmospheric opacity, most direct solar heating of Venus occurs in the atmosphere. Because CO2 allows radiative cooling at altitude, convective circulation is established in the Venus atmosphere. This circulation allows solar heated gas to be transported towards the surface where it undergoes far greater pneumatic heating due to the greater atmospheric pressure than would occur on earth.”
Venus does not receive more insolation. Yes, it’s closer to the Sun but due it’s thick atmosphere it’s albedo is higher than Earth’s and ensures it receives less insolation than earth – less than 10% incident radiation at TOA reaches the surface. No, you cannot pump the surface temp past the natural lapse rate it will reach at equilibrium – the point at which rising/sinking air cools/warms at the DALR as calculated using Clausuis-Clapeyron.
Err – you are saying there is cooling aloft – but (also) solar heated gas is transported towards the surface…. Sorry that doesn’t make sense to me.
This has nothing to do with the basics of how Venus is shedding it’s (much reduced) solar insolation to space whilst heating it’s atmosphere to such an extreme.
“Your reasoning is a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and a direct confirmation of what Dr. Grey was saying. You are looking at the delay of outgoing surface radiation only. However the primary energy transport away from the surface is not radiation, it is conduction, evaporation and convection. The primary transport of energy out of the atmosphere is radiation to space. Most of the energy being radiated by the atmosphere to space was not acquired by interception of surface LWIR.”
? You say that most energy is transported via conduction, evaporation and convection. No it is not. As ultimately energy MUST leave Earth as radiation – via TOA. If this was not so, heat would be transported aloft without having much effect in the interim and a hot zone appear aloft ( the opposite of your cooling aloft creating convection). Observations show this does not happen, apart from in the Strat. You are being internally inconsistent. To say “Most of the energy being radiated by the atmosphere to space was not acquired by interception of surface LWIR.” Is wrong –this …
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html
Shows that of the 46% of TOA solar is absorbed by the surface and 23% is absorbed by the atm.
= 69% absorbed by climate system.
31% is emitted via conv/LH transport – but note – just into the atmosphere – not out of it.
60% is emitted by the atmosphere (which would include the above). Leaving an additional 29% from the atmosphere alone.
9% leaves via the IR window.
Therefore all energy exits TOA (69% tot sol abs vs 69% IR emit)
Of which 31% is dispersed by cond/conv in the atmosphere THEN emitted as IR.
“Basically both the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis depend on denying the following-
1. Most of the energy the atmosphere is radiating to space was acquired from surface conduction and the release of latent heat.
2. Radiative gases play a critical role in tropospheric convective circulation by allowing the subsidence of airmasses from altitude. Changing the concentration of radiative gases changes the speed of this circulation, the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface and the observed lapse rate.
3. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.”
Last Cont.
Your point 1) No, shown incorrect above.
2) No, shown wrong further above. Changing the concentration of GHG’s upward would accentuate is slowing” effect. If you accept that they absorb then re-emit LWIR then they must do that – it is akin to a resistor in a conductor. It does not allow electrons to pass through more freely. You turn logic and Meteorology on it’s head. I’m sorry I’m just astounded.
3) Shown wrong above also by consideration of reduction in thermal gradient of skin to air interface which therefore reduces the conductive flux and allows slower cooling of the water body below the skin.
Konrad. If you think that GHG’s cool then go to Dr Roy Spencer’s site and maybe he can advise you otherwise. I know you will not accept my reasoning but he is at least a skeptic..
I am pretty sure that Anthony also accepts GHG’s slow cooling….
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/new-wuwt-tv-segment-slaying-the-slayers-with-watts/
“As readers may know, Dr. Roy Spencer and I have had a long running disagreement with the group known as “Principia Scientific International” aka the Sky Dragon Slayers after the title of their book. While I think these people mean well, they tend to ignore real world measurements in favor of self-deduced science. They claim on their web page that “the Greenhouse gas effect is bogus” and thus ignore many measurements of IR absorptivity in the atmosphere which show that it is indeed a real effect. Rational climate skeptics acknowledge that the greenhouse effect exists and functions in Earth’s atmosphere, but that an accelerated greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 emissions doesn’t rise to the level of alarm being portrayed. Yes, there’s an effect, but as recent climate sensitivity studies show, it isn’t as problematic as it is made out to be.”
Cont.
Your point 1) No, shown incorrect above.
2) No, shown wrong further above. Changing the concentration of GHG’s upward would accentuate is slowing” effect. If you accept that they absorb then re-emit LWIR then they must do that – it is akin to a resistor in a conductor. It does not allow electrons to pass through more freely. You turn logic and Meteorology on it’s head. I’m sorry I’m just astounded.
3) Shown wrong above also by consideration of reduction in thermal gradient of skin to air interface which therefore reduces the conductive flux and allows slower cooling of the water body below the skin.
Konrad. If you think that GHG’s cool then go to Dr Roy Spencer’s site and maybe he can advise you otherwise. I know you will not accept my reasoning but he is at least a skeptic..