Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The CERES data has its problems, because the three datasets (incoming solar, outgoing longwave, and reflected shortwave) don’t add up to anything near zero. So the keepers of the keys adjusted them to an artificial imbalance of +0.85 W/m2 (warming). Despite that lack of accuracy, however, the CERES data is very precise and sensitive.
As an example of what that sensitivity can reveal about the climate system, consider Figure 1, which shows the upwelling (outgoing) longwave (LW) and reflected solar shortwave (SW), month by month, for 13 years (N=156). Since these are individual CERES datasets, their trends and values should be valid.
Figure 1. Upwelling longwave (shades of blue) and upwelling reflected shortwave (shades of red) for the globe as well as the two hemispheres separately. Cyclical seasonal variations have been removed.
Now, there are several very curious aspects to this figure. The first and most surprising issue is that the hemispheric values for shortwave, and also the hemispheric values for longwave, are nearly identical from hemisphere to hemisphere. Why should that be so? There is much more ocean in the southern hemisphere, for example. There is solid land at the South Pole rather than ocean. In addition, the underlying surface albedos of the two hemispheres are quite different, by about 4 watts per square metre. Also, the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight than the northern hemisphere, because the earth’s orbit is elliptical.
So given all these differences … why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?
The next thing of interest is the stability of the system. The trends in all six of the measurements are so tiny I’ve expressed them in W/m2 per century so that their small size can be appreciated … if the trends continue, in a century they may change by a watt or two. Note that despite the small spread of the measurements, none of the trends are significant.
The next thing of interest is that in addition to the values being similar in both hemispheres, the trends are also quite similar. All of the trends are very slightly negative.
Finally, despite the great difference in the size of the LW and SW signals (240 vs 100 W/m2, Figure 1), the size of the variations in the two signals are quite similar. Here is a boxplot of the three pairwise comparisons—the anomaly variations in global, and northern and southern hemisphere.
Figure 2. Boxplots of the variations in the longwave and reflected shortwave shown in Figure 1, for the globe (left panel), the northern hemisphere (center panel) and the southern hemisphere (right panel).
Since these are boxplots, we know that half of the data lies inside the colored boxes. This means that half of the time, the longwave and the shortwave are within ± one-half watt of the seasonal value. Plus or minus one-half watt half the time, and within a watt and a half for 95% of the time, for a total of 156 months … this to me is amazing stability.
Given the myriad differences between the northern and southern hemispheres, my explanation of this amazing stability is that a) the temperature of the planet is regulated by a variety of threshold-based processes, and b) the set-point of that regulation is controlled by globally consistent values for the physics of wind, water, and cloud formation.
Now, there certainly may be some other explanation for this amazing stability and symmetry of the climate despite the large differences in the geometry and composition of the two hemispheres. That’s my explanation. If you have a better one … bring it on.
Best regards to all,
w.
NOTE ON DATA AND CODE: I’ve turned over a new leaf, and I’ve cleaned up my R computer code. I’ve put all the relevant functions into one file, called “CERES Functions.R”. That file of functions, plus the data, plus the code for this post, are all that are required to duplicate the figures above. I just checked, it’s all turnkey.
DATA: CERES 13 year (220 Mbytes, has all the CERES data in R format.)
FUNCTIONS: CERES Functions.R (Has all the functions used to analyze the data.)
CODE FOR THIS POST: Amazing Stability CERES (Has the code to create the figures and calculations used above.)
Willis
The full quote from one of your responses is –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
Dear heavens, is that what you are on about? Above, you accused me of saying that … now it’s NASA?
In any case, NASA is right, there is one more rotation than there are days (a “day” being one day/night cycle). I guess you must have skipped that day in school.” Willis
You believe in the assertion of 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days and as there are 1461 days in 4 orbital circuits then you are obligated to follow your reasoning to a logical conclusion that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days and from there into a cult realm where even the daily temperature rises and falls in response to a rotating Earth no longer survive as a fact.
There was always a chance that people who can think for themselves and have a streak of courage and intelligence would visit this website as opposed to a website promoting human control over planetary temperatures ,not just people who can handle historical and technical details but those less likely to be susceptible to cult traits like mob rule and what have you. That window of opportunity has firmly closed and this website falls to the wrong side of the line in terms of a productive environment for discussing climate .
All the bluffing about Arctic sea ice formation which requires a dynamical explanation in tandem with the reasons why 6 months of daylight follows 6 months of darkness at the North/South poles. I will give you all a hint – the reason we have a daily day/night cycle is via a surface rotation each 24 hour to the central Sun so the polar day/night cycle requires the same thing as a component of the orbital motion of the Earth.
In any case,the website recycled your arguments without dealing decisively with this encompassing issue so it won’t recover by taking the escape route – that is the way these things work.
[Reply: Gerald, please get back on topic – climate stability – or your comments will be snipped. First and last warning. ~ mod.]
Gerald seems to be nailed to the archaic notion that the stars (Sirius, for example) are “fixed” in some way.
That, people, is being stuck in the 1600s.
Gerald, I was open to understanding your augment, but you don’t seem interested in presenting a reasonable case. Your comments seem deliberately cryptic and contain more rants than explanations. If you were really interested in
It’s a given, though, that Earth inertial rotation rate is to a decent approximation is:
2*pi*366/24*365*3600 radians per second, or 72.92 micro-radians per second.
Plug that into Gerald’s reference frame and it comes out to right at (close enough, anyway) 1465 rotations in 1461 24-hour days.
Methinks you guys are getting crossed up by terminology.
Anyway,your basic question stands and should the forum change consensus in a decisive way,nobody will be more pleased than I.
Dude, you aren’t dealing with “the forum consensus”. You are dealing with your own nearly complete ignorance of mathematics and physics. To put it bluntly, you don’t understand time, you don’t understand space, you are clueless about inertial reference frames, forces, dynamics in general, pseudoforces in non-inertial frames, the observational basis for astronomy. You aren’t stuck in even the 18th century, you’re back there in the 17th, mouthing alchemical mumbo-jumbo. The scientific method and all of its fruits elude you. If you weren’t in a state of serious cognitive dissonance, a.k.a. “denial”, you could cure much of what ails you with a year or two of study beginning with at least elementary calculus, a course in introductory physics, and perhaps a decent course in astronomy.
In the meantime, since you are obviously ignorant of Newton’s Law of Gravitation, Newton’s Laws (as the basis of frames of reference and equations of motion), conservation principles, angular or linear momentum, energy, or any trace of electromagnetic theory and are stuck referring to Sirius as being Great with a capital G as if you are some sort of astrologer — wait, you are one, aren’t you. That explains why you use figures from a psychic’s website to support your arguments. Gawds, we have a freakin’ astrologer contributing to the site!
That’s it. There’s going to be no possible way of arguing with him, because he doesn’t accept the same rules for observational truth as everybody else. I should have known when he invoked Mach’s principle. That’s one of the most dangerous and oft abused statements of any physicist, bar none. It is invariably presented in a verbal argument that vastly overreaches its antecedents and assumptions, and with a complete absence of the kind of nasty, ugly, incredibly difficult differential geometry that might constitute an actual attempt to turn the “principle” into a theory with testable hypotheses subject to some other overarching theory, such as that of general relativity. Unless it is invoked by a serious high-end theoretical physicist or mathematician, in other words, in precisely the right context, it is pretty much an unique signature for “here there be crank physics”.
This is right back to a geocentric worldview. O-M-G. Why did God bother to invent parallax, one wonders.
rgb
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:00 am
“HELP! Can someone shut this idiot up, or at least tell him to take it to a relevant thread?”
Yes, I can help.
STOP RESPONDING TO HIM!!!
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:54 am (Edit)
Well, no. That’s just airy-fairy feel-good nonsense. Things play out quite differently in the two cases.
If you are requested to take a time out for repeatedly violating blog policies after a number of requests to cease trying to highjack the thread, then we are spared your meaningless, physically incorrect, childish, naive, and more to the point, TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC babbling about the planet’s rate of rotation.
In addition, people stopping by won’t be tempted to respond to your nonsense, further hijacking the thread.
You see how it works? It’s different if you have to take a time out, because we’re not exposed to your fallacious nonsense, and it gets much quieter without you constantly trying to hijack the thread, and people can discuss the actual topic without distraction.
w.
Bart says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:45 am
Blog policies exist for a reason, Bart. I’m just asking for them to be enforced so we don’t have to try to get everyone (including people just stopping by) to not respond to Gerald.
In any case, not feeding the troll doesn’t work for beans. Near as I can tell, trolls are relatives of the crocodile, able to survive without being fed for up to six months …
w.
Bart says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:45 am
Bart, I realized after writing the comment above this one that the problem is one of misidentification. Gerald is not a troll, which is someone who infests threads solely to make trouble. Gerald is not trying to make trouble.
Instead, he is a “SIF”, a Single Issue Fanatic. This is someone who has some issue stuck in their heads, and they insist on talking about it to anyone and everyone, usually in the most inappropriate places … I would not be surprised, for example, to see Gerald drop in on a knitting website and treat all of the knitters and purlers to his theories about the mystical 1465 days.
The problem is that like Ourborous, SIFs do not require external nutrition of any kind. In addition, he seems impervious to requests to STFU. Gerald will regale us with his bucketloads of bovine excrement until he is prevented from doing so, and there is no way to starve him out. He feeds off of his own sense of self-importance, and there is no end to that food source …
w.
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 8:48 am
“Konrad 7:20pm: Good move correcting your narrative that only IR makes it directly to space and not the winds. Try to hold on to that as the internet never forgets.”
———————————————————————————————
Good move? Correcting my narrative? Oh, please.
I have always been discussing the role of radiative gases in atmospheric cooling and driving strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation. I have never claimed that energy leaves the planet by any means other than LWIR to space. Around 90% of this is radiated from water vapour in the atmosphere below the tropopause and only a small amount directly from the surface.
Can you point to anywhere on this or any other blog where I have claimed otherwise? No, of course you can’t.
Trick, the delay/distraction/derailment attempts just serve to highlight how little AGW believers understand, and showcase the techniques they will use to keep the failed global warming hypothesis alive.
Sir George Simpson’s criticisms of Callendars attempt to re-animate AGW are solid. They become rock solid when the critical role of radiative gases in driving the non-radiative energy transports within the atmosphere he was referring to are considered.
The reality is unavoidable.
You cannot derive the temperature profile for moving fluids in a gravity field by SB equations alone. Nor can you just parametrise non-radiative transports or use mathematical fictions such as “effective radiative levels” to try and fix the problem.
But this is exactly what the pseudo scientists tried to get away with. The evidence of two shell radiative models being the sole basis for the original claims of global warming can never be erased.
There is no net radiative greenhouse effect on this planet.
This is an ocean planet.
The only effective cooling mechanism for the oceans is conductive and evaporative cooling into the atmosphere.
The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is LWIR to space emitted from radiative gases.
Therefore the net effect of radiative gases is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
AGW is a physical impossibility.
How did the pseudo scientists get it so wrong? (pre-1990)
When trying to calculate the SB temperature for the surface in the absence of an atmosphere (ignoring that the oceans would boil into space) they applied SB equations to the oceans. But the oceans are a moving fluid in a gravity field. So they got the wrong number. A desert without atmosphere may have a Tav of -18C, but not the oceans. If the oceans could exist without an atmosphere they would reach near surface temperatures closer to 80C.
How did the pseudo scientists get it so wrong? (post-1990)
They were lying and they knew it.
Konrad 1:47pm: “I have never claimed that energy leaves the planet by any means other than LWIR to space….Can you point to anywhere on this or any other blog where I have claimed otherwise?”
The internet never forgets. “Konrad 5:34pm : “Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space…”
The winds don’t get directly to space to emit amounts of IR so cannot cool the atm., only IR gets directly to space for dumping energy as in Konrad’s corrected statement. The winds stay in the control volume BOA to TOA as enabler distribution of energy for the LWIR bath plotted in Willis top post Fig. 1 to be smooth in NH and SH.
“You cannot derive the temperature profile for moving fluids in a gravity field by SB equations alone.”
Concur as above. Need conductive, convective AND radiative transfer measured and input to basic 1st law in a defined surface control volume. Then surface Tmean is revealed for planets and exoplanets, and moons. Konrad continues oblivious to the correct 1st principle atm. radiative science as far back as Callendar 1938 simply writing: “AGW is a physical impossibility.” w/o finding fault with the basic science only the imprecise words.
Here, again, is how things work in basic Queen’s English; find a fault in the paper’s radiative science, or a reason Willis’ Fig. 1 NH and SH plots overlay so smoothly and discuss:
“In replying (to Simpson), G.S. CALLENDAR said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and also that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Willis
I had a look at your climate stability video and the charming rotational terms known as morning,noon, sunset and so on –
Then you have this equally charming idea borrowed from a careless conclusion using timekeeping averages created in the late 17th century by John Flamsteed –
“In any case, NASA is right, there is one more rotation than there are days (a “day” being one day/night cycle). I guess you must have skipped that day in school.” Willis
It is like having a flat Earth foundation for discussing everything else so yes,it is presently the only issue out there – how humanity lost the basic facts which assign cause to those effects within a 24 hour day ,effects you willingly lecture people in the video and why they keep in step day in and day out throughout the year.
You also get the description of the Earth as seen from the Sun wrong,the polar latitudes will 23 1/2 degrees above or below the full face and appear to turn in a circle parallel to the ecliptic Equator thereby causing polar day and polar night however it is reflective of the main fact that aside from and addition to daily rotation,all location on the surface turn once to the Sun and take an orbit to do so.
As for things taking their own course,don’t worry about it,you’ll see.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm
“You also get the description of the Earth as seen from the Sun wrong,the polar latitudes will 23 1/2 degrees above or below the full face and appear to turn in a circle parallel to the ecliptic Equator thereby causing polar day and polar night however it is reflective of the main fact that aside from and addition to daily rotation,all location on the surface turn once to the Sun and take an orbit to do so.”
It was this portion of Gerard’s ranting that I questioned him on, in order to point out the problematic consequences of his assertions and he gave me the same answer as he gave most others: none at all. I agree with rgbatduke, that Gerard does not wish to engage in a rational discussion of his assertions.
One cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who’s argument is not based upon reason. And since a forum is the place for rational discussion, that leaves Gerard out.
SR
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:49 pm
————————————
Yes? What is it now? Oh, I see. The same again…
“The internet never forgets. “Konrad 5:34pm : “Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space…” “
No Trick, I have not “corrected” that statement.
It is 100% correct as it stands. The atmosphere is not totally opaque to IR. At surface level, around 10% of any IR emitted upward by an air mass will make it directly to space without being intercepted by the atmosphere. As the altitude of the air mass increases, optical IR opacity decreases above the air mass an this percentage increases.
“Concur as above. Need conductive, convective AND radiative transfer measured and input to basic 1st law in a defined surface control volume.”
But this is quite clearly what Callandar and all AGW pseudo scientists didn’t do correctly. Radiative gases play critical role in tropospheric convective circulation. You cannot adjust for just radiative flux for increasing concentrations of radiative gases without simultaneously adjusting the speed of tropospheric convective circulation, the primary energy transport within our atmosphere.
“Konrad continues oblivious to the correct 1st principle atm. radiative science as far back as Callendar 1938 simply writing: “AGW is a physical impossibility.” w/o finding fault with the basic science only the imprecise words.”
I am quite clearly finding fault with the “basic physics” of your “settled science”. I can show by empirical experiment that three critical claims of the AGW pseudo scientists are wrong –
1. downwelling LWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans. – Wrong
2. radiative gases are not critical for continued tropospheric convective circulation – Wrong
3. the oceans would have a Tav of -18C in the absence of an atmosphere – wrong.
And now on to Callendar’s weasel words in reply to Sir George Simpson’s 1938 criticism –
“..but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply? But that is exactly what radiative gases are doing. By allowing energy loss, buoyancy loss and subsidence of air masses from altitude, radiative gases are playing a critical role in governing the speed of tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar circulation cells. That’s seriously interfering with the distribution of energy within the atmosphere. Callendars calculations did not increase the speed of strong vertical tropospheric circulation for increasing concentrations of radiative gases.
Every climate pseudo scientist before 1990 made the same mistake. Post 1990 radiative-convective papers were simply an attempt to save AGW with bafflegab and hand-waving. “effective radiating level”, “choked radiators”, it’s all tripe with no supporting empirical evidence.
Ultimately to understand why AGW is physically impossible you only need to be able to answer two basic questions –
1. What is the net effect of the atmosphere on ocean temperatures?
2. What is the atmospheres only effective cooling mechanism?
Konrad 7:01pm – Again you make no objection in particular to any basic science in Callendar’s paper. See Willis’ top post Fig 1. again.
“1. downwelling LWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans. – Wrong”
CERES SH and NH LWIR overlay so you are proven wrong on this. There is much more water surface in SH, if you were right SH LWIR could not overlay NH LWIR as it clearly does.
“Callendars calculations did not increase the speed of strong vertical tropospheric circulation for increasing concentrations of radiative gases.”
Nor do they need to since you are wrong about: “Any air mass rising above the surface emits increasing amounts of IR directly to space…”
Only the surface window and atm. emit directly to space, any air masses rising above the surface emit increasing amounts of IR directly into the atm. radiation bath; strong winds simply cannot cool the atm. by themselves since winds don’t dump their energy out of control volume directly into space.
“…radiative gases are playing a critical role in governing the speed of tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar circulation cells. That’s seriously interfering with the distribution of energy within the atmosphere.”
That’s seriously enabling distribution of energy; clearly smoothing the NH, SH, Total LWIR as observed in Fig. 1. Willis’ Fig. 1 is serious trouble for you and the internet never forgets.
Ultimately to understand that the surface Tmean can be increased and the Tmean at great height likewise decreased, all you need is Callendar 1938 showing: “…if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:37 pm
———————————————-
You state –
“Konrad 7:01pm – Again you make no objection in particular to any basic science in Callendar’s paper. See Willis’ top post Fig 1. again.”
and then quote me as saying –
“1. downwelling LWIR can slow the cooling rate of the oceans. – Wrong”
What’s that if not a serious objection to the “basic” pseudo science of Callendars paper?
Then you try –
“CERES SH and NH LWIR overlay so you are proven wrong on this. There is much more water surface in SH, if you were right SH LWIR could not overlay NH LWIR as it clearly does.”
The data you mention has absolutely no bearing on weather LWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. None what so ever.
This simple experiment that other readers can build answers the question –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Simply start with water samples at around 40C and observe the cooling rate under both the weak LWIR source and the strong LWIR source. There is no difference. Now repeat the experiment with a thin LDPE film restricting evaporation on the surface of each water sample. Now the samples cool a different rates from each other.
You can even use the experiment set up to test other materials. You can fill each test chamber with warm sand. The one under the strong LWIR source cools slower.
Again I challenge you to provide a simple experiment that others can build that demonstrates LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
You can’t do it can you Trick? And that’s typical of all AGW believers. No empirical evidence.
Go on Trick, a simple experiment showing LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Just one simple little empirical experiment.
You have got nothing but hand-waving and bafflegab have you?
Konrad 7:37pm: “You have got nothing but hand-waving and bafflegab have you?”
I’ve the CERES LWIR data posted by Willis, many modern text book cites and specialist papers on the earth system at large. All provided for you. Even Tyndall made some pure air scattering conclusions from his small apparatus that turned out not applicable to earth atm., you are in good company.
Which exact science/paragraph in Callendar paper do you object about downwelling IR not slowing cooling rate of oceans?
“The data you mention has absolutely no bearing on weather LWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. None what so ever.”
The data show there is no difference SH and NH LWIR the ultimate data from the cooling rate of liquid water where there is a large difference in water surface; papers show 0 to windy conditions affect ocean emissivity by ~1 part in 100. Your small experiments do not resolve for an atm., as Tyndall’s did not in some aspects.
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:21 pm
—————————————————————-
Can you provide a simple experiment showing LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool that other readers can replicate?
Yes or No?
Konrad 9:25: Yes or No?”
It doesn’t matter for resolving available measured earth system data where I am sure the 1st law & applying control volume science approach work. Willis’ discussion of CERES et. al. experiments on earth surface/atm./solar measure the control volume system of interest data needed along with surface balance; 1st law is good to input measured system data into, has stood the test of time so far. That’s basic, practical understanding of earth system, more details are in Callendar’s 1938 paper: “…if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
None of your small tests disprove Callendar 1938 which is based in part on cited testing. Expenditures for satellites have to be made & data used.
Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:56 pm
————————————–
The Tyndall tube experiment is a great demonstration of CO2 absorbing and re-emitting LWIR in random directions. It works –
But you can’t provide a similar simple demonstration of LWIR slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. You can only provide excuses for why you don’t have to.
The reason you cannot provide such a simple experiment for others to replicate is because incident LWIR on the surface of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool does not slow its cooling rate.
But in every AGW calculation increased downwelling LWIR is claimed to have a similar effect over the oceans as it does over land.
Something so critical to the whole global warming narrative and you can’t even back it up with a simple lab experiment others can replicate. It should be so easy. The oceans are supposed to freeze solid without downwelling LWIR.
But you can’t provide just one simple experiment demonstrating how LWIR slows the cooling rate of liquid water. Just like every other AGW believer, all you have is excuses.
Sorry but that video of the Tindal experiment is not saying anything.
The CO2 is being released from a tank under pressure, of course its going to absorb energy.
Nor does it show any evidence of re-emitting.
Notice how quickly he stops the video of the experiment.
Steve Reddish wrote –
“Gerald Kelleher says:
January 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm
“You also get the description of the Earth as seen from the Sun wrong,the polar latitudes will 23 1/2 degrees above or below the full face and appear to turn in a circle parallel to the ecliptic Equator thereby causing polar day and polar night however it is reflective of the main fact that aside from and addition to daily rotation,all location on the surface turn once to the Sun and take an orbit to do so.”
It was this portion of Gerard’s ranting that I questioned him on, in order to point out the problematic consequences of his assertions and he gave me the same answer as he gave most others: none at all. I agree with rgbatduke, that Gerard does not wish to engage in a rational discussion of his assertions.”
It isn’t an assertion,it is a 100% observational certainty but apparently readers have difficulties putting the orbital surface rotation to the central Sun in context with the unexplained cause of the polar day/night cycle –
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
I am presently looking at an advisor with the ear to the President talk about global warming causing cold snaps and for all the world it looks like the very dystopian society Orwell created out of Nazi ideology –
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. ” Orwell Nineteen Eight Four
As a Christian, there is no more appropriate insight into those who do not work off a stable foundation while they go about constructing a house as they see fit with elaborate features however you guys forgot the foundations in terms of what causes the daily temperature fluctuations,what causes the seasons and particularly the polar day/night cycle,how many rotations fit inside 4 orbital circumferences of the Earth in is circuit around the Sun and things like that –
“Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.” Jesus
They tried to build a house on the basis of a rotating celestial sphere geometry back in the late 17th century and that is like building on sand so I assure readers it is not a one-issue topic. Too little to late to matter among present company.
AndyG55 says:
January 9, 2014 at 1:15 am
—————————————-
Andy, the Tyndall experiment does work. I have checked this.
However the more relevant experiment is this –
http://i49.tinypic.com/34hcoqd.jpg
These two chambers are insulated and double “glazed” at the top with LDPE film.
Both are illuminated with equal shortwave.
At the base of both is a matt black aluminium target plate.
In side each chamber is a radiation shielded thermometer and circulation fan.
Each chamber is pressure regulated to 1 bar.
One chamber is filled with air and the other with pure CO2. (Note that for the depth of theses chambers the CO2 represents about 25% of the total CO2 in an atmospheric column)
Both heat at the same rate when illuminated and cool at the same rate when the SW is cancelled.
The reason?
CO2 does restict the LWIR cooling of the plate in the CO2 chamber but it also increases the LWIR cooling of the gas conductivly heated by the target plate in the chamber.
But this is a dry experiment. In the real atmosphere the cooling power of CO2 exceeds the warming power by a factor of 2.
Konrad 10:22pm: “Something so critical to the whole global warming narrative and you can’t even back it up with a simple lab experiment others can replicate.”
The Tyndall experiment I mention is the one on scattering in pure air, not the ones on absorption/emission. Look into it yourself as an experimentalist, report what you find. The atm. air scatters and attenuates a beam where his small experiment did not.
“Something so critical to the whole global warming narrative and you can’t even back it up with a simple lab experiment others can replicate.”
Please provide a lab experiment that measures the atm. lapse rate, both dry and moist. If cannot, then can’t back them up.
Also, please get a paper published in say Nature on the discovery that disproves the multitude of ocean emissivity papers and text books that have built up from Tyndall’s day ever improving the science. Konrad’s reluctance to do so indicates really not so confident the small experiments replicate the data measured from oceans.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 8, 2014 at 3:17 am… [ … ]
Someone has apparently wired around Gerald’s On/Off switch, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. ☹