# Upwelling Solar, Upwelling Longwave

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The CERES dataset contains three main parts—downwelling solar radiation, upwelling solar radiation, and upwelling longwave radiation. With the exception of leap-year variations, the solar dataset does not change from year to year over a few decades at least. It is fixed by unchanging physical laws.

The upwelling longwave radiation and the reflected solar radiation, on the other hand, are under no such restrictions. This gives us the opportunity to see distinguish between my hypothesis that the system responds in such a way as to counteract changes in forcing, and the consensus view that the system responds to changes in forcing by changing the surface temperature.

In the consensus view, the system works as follows. At equilibrium, what is emitted by the earth has to equal the incoming radiation, 340 watts per metre squared (W/m2). Of this, about 100 W/m2 are reflected solar shortwave radiation (which I’ll call “SW” for “shortwave”), and 240 W/m2 of which are upwelling longwave (thermal infrared) radiation (which I’ll call “LW”).

In the consensus view, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation decreases because more LW is absorbed. In response, the entire system warms until the longwave gets back to its previous value, 240 W/m2. That plus the 100 W/m2 of reflected solar shortwave radiation (SR) equals the incoming 340 W/m2, and so the equilibrium is restored.

In my view, on the other hand, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave radiation decreases because more is absorbed. In response, the albedo increases proportionately, increases the SR. This counteracts the decrease in upwelling LW, and leaves the surface temperature unchanged. This is a great simplification, but sufficient for this discussion. Figure 1 shows the difference between the two views, my view and the consensus view.

Figure 1. What happens as a result of increased absorption of longwave (LW) by greenhouse gases (GHGs), in the consensus view and in my view. “SW” is reflected solar (shortwave) radiation, LW is upwelling longwave radiation, and “surface” is upwelling longwave radiation from the surface.

So what should we expect to find if we look at a map of the correlation (gridcell by gridcell) between SW and LW? Will the correlation be generally negative, as my view suggests, a situation where when the SW goes up the LW goes down?

Or will it be positive, both going either up or down at the same time? Or will the two be somewhat disconnected from each other, with low correlation in either direction, as is suggested by the consensus view? I ask because I was surprised by what I found.

The figure below shows the answer to the question regarding the correlation of the SW and the LW …

Figure 2. Correlation of the month-by-month gridcell values of reflected solar shortwave radiation, and thermal longwave radiation. The dark blue line outlines areas with strong negative correlation (more negative than – 0.5). These are areas where an increase in one kind of upwelling radiation is counteracted by a proportionate decrease in the other kind of upwelling radiation.

How about that? There are only a few tiny areas where the correlation is positive. Everywhere else the correlation is negative, and over much of the tropics and the northern hemisphere the correlation is more negative than – 0.5.

Note that in much of the critical tropical regions, increases in LW are strongly counteracted by decreases in SW, and vice versa.

Let me repeat an earlier comment and graphic in this regard. The amounts of reflected solar (100 W/m2) and upwelling longwave (240 W/m2) are quite different. Despite that, however, the variations in SW and LW are quite similar, both globally and in each hemisphere individually.

Figure 3. Variations in the global monthly area-weighted averages of LW and SW after the removal of the seasonal signal.

This close correspondence in the size of the response supports the idea that the two are reacting to each other.

Anyhow, that’s today’s news from CERES … the longwave and the reflected shortwave is strongly negatively correlated, and averages -0.65 globally. This strongly supports my theory that the earth has a strong active thermoregulation system which functions in part by adjusting the albedo (through the regulation of daily tropical cloud onset time) to maintain the earth within a narrow (± 0.3°C over the 20th century) temperature range.

w.

As with my last post, the code for this post is available as a separate file, which calls on both the associated files (data and functions). The code for this post itself only contains a grand total of seven lines …

Data (in R format, 220 megabytes)

Functions

R Code

## 348 thoughts on “Upwelling Solar, Upwelling Longwave”

1. Michael Kelly says:

Thank you Willis,
For over ten years, being an educated sort of layman, I have been trying to explain the increased temp/increased water vapor/increased Albedo, equilibrium scenario. Your post has given me one more arrow in my quiver to further state what I feel as the obvious (in my non-scientific opinion), That is the state of equilibrium will always be the result of increased surface absorption/ reduced radiative reflection, for whatever reason.

2. Santa Baby says:

Is this the same as the Iris effect? Prof Richard Lindzen

3. Bad amatuer…BAD BAD AMATUER…shades of Tom Edison, Michael Faraday, and (horrors) the Wright Brothers. Shame on you for making primates out of the Phd’s. Your punishment, watching Lady Gaga, Al Gore, and Ahhhnold Schwartneger give talks on AWG. (Wait, that’s right, under the current administration, “enhanced interrogation” is not allowed. I guess you get by this time!)

4. Steve Keohane says:

Cool Willis. Thanks for your work.

5. Kevin Kilty says:

Very interesting. I’m not surprised at the result. A large fraction of reflected SW outgoing suggests dense clouds with high tops, which in turn are unusually cool, and which as a result have a smaller than average LW outgoing.
Here is what I see as two issues to examine.

1) This data doesn’t related directly to the problem of increasing GHGs because that is a long-term trend. This data, I think, exhibit the effect I summarize above, which may or may not result from what you propose. How can you demonstrate that the different time scales involved (GHGs versus your data) are not important?

2) You have shown the correlation, but what can you do to establish causation? You need to show that there is a time lag or something–effect follows cause.

6. Geoff Sherrington says:

Maybe there is some clarification from the observation of “yellow” areas that seem as if they are pressed against the west sides of continents. Maybe this is a location with different cloud formation properties than other ocean.
I’m a little concerned that -0.65 is still a weak correlation, but then weather data are typically noisy.
The CERES SW window really has a lot of near IR with it (0.3 to 5 micron) and the IR window is close at 8-12 micron, so it’s interesting that you find the 2 bands so negatively correlated.
Maybe a better correlation exists in the more raw data, because you are offered temporally smoothed monthly data. The radiation could well change from orbit to orbit and show as smeared in the final assembled data. Can you get pairs of simultaneous point observations to check this?

7. Charlie A says:

Shouldn’t the right hand box of Fig 1 show 390W/m2 ?

8. Willis

Can you please define the terms SW and LW (I know that it is short wavelength and long wavelength). What I want to know is what is the definition of the wavelengths involved.

Any increase in CO2, and CH4 must, by definition, have an increased absorption waveband and I have yet to see this quantified adequately. Also, from the equations involved, absorption is both temperature and pressure dependent, I have never ever seen any of these models deal with this type of dependency.

9. bones says:

Thanks, Willis. Nice work, very clear, however, your results are showing a negative feedback mechanism that tends to stabilize the system. It does not directly address the effect of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, or have I missed something?

10. RokShox says:

bones, he addresses the effect of adding greenhouse gases indirectly. We know they have been added, but the negative correlation between LW and SW persists.

11. dalyplanet says:

I believe your third cartoon “My View” should have 390 as the surface radiation.

Interesting post Willis

12. Charlie A says: January 7, 2014 at 9:35 pm
Shouldn’t the right hand box of Fig 1 show 390W/m2 ?

Yes, Charlie is correct. To correspond to Willis’ narrative that an increase in GHG causes a change in albedo rather than a change in surface temperature, the upward LW radiation from the surface should be the same as the “Equilibrium” left panel before the increase in GHG. The GHG absorption in the left panel is 150 W/m2 (ie, 390-240), and is 152 W/m2 is the middle panel that has increased GHG, an increase of 2 W/m2. The right panel is supposed to have the same GHG absorption as the middle panel, but with the incorrect number it has 392-238 = 154 W/m2, or an increase of 4 W/m2 over the left panel case. Correcting the upward LW to 390 W/m2 in the right hand box will make the increased GHG absorption over the left panel case equal 2 W/m2.

13. Willis Eschenbach says:

dalyplanet says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:21 pm

I believe your third cartoon “My View” should have 390 as the surface radiation.

Interesting post Willis

[Thanks, fixed. -w.]

14. You have a major error here. You have conserved energy flux, whereas you should conserve energy. The area of the incoming flux is the cross-sectional area of the earth. The area of outgoing flux is the earth’s surface area, which is a factor 4 smaller.

Willis,
with regard to the cloud thermostat, the time of day that clouds form is a factor even if the amount of cloud is only marginally increased. Earlier cloud formation leads to greater cooling even if cloud mass is not greatly increased.

Increased radiative gases should cause clouds to form a few minutes earlier after dawn over the oceans in the ITCZ.

16. Been puzzling lately about an aspect of the greenhouse effect as taught me in college many solstices ago. The story was that greenhouse glass (or gas) was permeable to shortwave incoming radiation but blocked outgoing longwave , and that the shortwave was somehow “converted” to longwave after it was absorbed inside.

Being young and impressionable and knowing well how hot my car got in Davis summers when the windows were closed, I was convinced.

Materials generally emit radiation wavelengths according to their temperature, but different materials have very distinct preferences for wavelengths and tend to both absorb and emit in the same bands. Outside these bands they seemingly ignore the radiation.

How then does a material convert shortwave to longwave?

Water (both surface and clouds), water vapor, and ice all have similar optical properties. they just luuuuv longwave radiation. CO2 loves it as well. They don’t care a fig about shortwave. Except for strong reflectance from clouds in the visible range (an unrelated property), they let it pass through.

All this may be a propos in a roundabout way because to examine the relationship between reflected shortwave and “upwelling” longwave, one must consider the sources. About half of TSI is longwave in the first place. The clouds, water vapor, atmospheric ice, and greenhouse gasses catch it and start flinging it around. The ocean surface catches all that comes its way in the first millimeters and flings it back.

If the extreme negative correlation in the tropical oceans means greater cloud reflectance and less escaping longwave, it could be that the LW escape is short circuited in a more intense photon food fight between the ocean and clouds and the reflection is incidental.

Unless you can explain to me how SW is “converted” to LW…

17. Willis Eschenbach says:

phillipbratby says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:42 pm

You have a major error here. You have conserved energy flux, whereas you should conserve energy. The area of the incoming flux is the cross-sectional area of the earth. The area of outgoing flux is the earth’s surface area, which is a factor 4 smaller.

In the CERES data, both the incoming flux and the outgoing flux are averaged 24/7 over their particular gridcell. They are not general measurements of the total global flux. As a result, there is no such error as the one you imagine.

And in general in other datasets, all incoming and outgoing fluxes are calculated on a 24/7 basis, and are adjusted for the situation that you mentioned.

Scientists may be wrong, and often are. But when you think you’ve uncovered a “major error”, something really obvious, well, you should check your facts very carefully before uncapping your electronic pen …

w.

18. Tim Groves says:

I also have a layman’s question that I’m sure someone has the answer to but I haven’t noticed it being discussed. The simplified explanations of “the Greenhouse Effect” talk about the Earth absorbing incoming solar SW radiation and emitting LW radiation, some of which is absorbed by “greenhouse” gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide, which retards the escape of this LW radiation into space and thereby warms the Earth. My question concerns incoming solar LW radiation. Common sense suggests that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also absorb incoming LW, thereby preventing it from reaching and warming the ground. If the concentration of greenhouse gases rises, they should absorb more of this incoming LW and prevent that from reaching the ground, resulting in cooling.

I’d like to know whether the total amount of LW at frequencies that can be absorbed and emitted by CO2 reaching the top of the atmosphere from the Sun is greater than the total emitted from the Earth’s surface over an equivalent period and whether this could lead to increasing “greenhouse” cooling rather than warming. And I’d like to know how the absorption and emission of this radiation is accounted for by conventional atmospheric greenhouse theory.

19. Edim says:

Where’s the non-radiative surface cooling by the atmosphere?

Surface heat exchange (cooling side)
Convection and evaporation (sensible and latent): 59%
Radiation (incl. directly to space): 41%

20. Richard111 says:

Sorry, I have to ask this. How does CO2 absorb long wave radiation from the surface?
CO2 in the atmosphere is warmed by kinetic collisions with other molecules to local air temperature. The properties of CO2 indicate that the CO2 will be RADIATING over some 3,800 lines covering 13 to 17 microns. This same band of radiation is emitted from the surface.
If the CO2 happened to absorb some of that radiation when it has already emitted an equivalent amount of radiation then there will be no change to the energy levels in the CO2.
My understanding is that the surface does not emit in 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands so there is no effect there.
Please, just what energy is CO2 absorbing from the surface? Reflected sunlight? I really would like to know as all my studies just leave me more baffled.

21. Willis said:

“When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave radiation decreases because more is absorbed. In response, the albedo increases proportionately, increases the SR. This counteracts the decrease in upwelling LW, and leaves the surface temperature unchanged”

All my work since 2008 has been based on that proposition and I have stated it multiple times in multiple locations.

Where we differ is that I see the ultimate determinant of the set point surface temperature as atmospheric mass held within a gravity field and irradiated from an external source.

Is the reason for that difference that Willis still gives undue prominence to the assumed need for GHGs to initiate the necessary convective overturning ?

It isn’t a matter of ‘pressure’ since ‘pressure’ is merely a proxy for the combined effect on density of mass and gravity.

It is varying mass densities caused by uneven surface heating that sets up the convective circulation which then applies the negative system response whenever the combined thermal effect of radiation and conduction goes out of line with the amount of energy required to maintain radiative balance for the whole system.

GHGs and especially water vapour are merely lubricants for the convective process.

The visible climate response from our perspective is shifting climate zones but the effects of variations from sun and oceans are so huge that we could never identify our miniscule contribution.

This post from Willis is the ultimate logical conclusion to be derived from his initial thermostat hypothesis (which was limited to tropical convection) but still requires recognition of the physical processes behind it all.

22. Greg says:

This is good demonstration Willis. Probably the most direct evidence yet of regulation happening.

Perhaps a finer colour scale would help the colour guide jumps from -0.6 to -1 which is a huge difference and makes it a but hard to judge how well it correlates.

I’m not surprised though , this is very much in line with what my volcanic stack plots showed (though this is much more concrete proof). I showed it was mainly tropical ocean with ex-tropics showing less recovery and stability. I also showed NH was less stable and linked this to larger land area.

The volcanic data is a nice complement to this though because it shows the response to a strong and specific perturbation, not some hypothetical degree of centennial scale change.

http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=310

What did surprise me in your graph is four decorrelated areas against the major continents. The Peruvian region is readily understood as upwelling cold water of La Nina providing a strong (non radiative) external input the disrupts the broader correlation.

However, the other three did surprise me, seeming just a clear and strong.

There would seem to be a relationship with the major ocean gyres pulling down colder polar waters into the loop. This again would suggest that the feedback is primarily sensitive to impinging radiation than SST itself.

I think these four zones that you have found demonstrate and importan phenomenon and should provide key insight into how this regulator works.

Nice work.

23. John West says:

”In the consensus view, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation decreases because more LW is absorbed. In response, the entire system warms until the longwave gets back to its previous value, 240 W/m2. That plus the 100 W/m2 of reflected solar shortwave radiation (SR) equals the incoming 340 W/m2, and so the equilibrium is restored.”

While this is perhaps the most succinct explanation of the consensus view I have ever seen it glosses over several key points that expose some of the additional problems with the view:

In the consensus view, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation decreases and downwelling IR increases because more LW is absorbed. The increased downwelling radiation decreases the surface net radiation transfer to the atmosphere by radiation. Assuming no other energy transfers from the surface to the atmosphere increase, the surface warms and due to the Stephan-Boltzmann Law must emit more radiation. The entire system warms until the longwave gets back to its previous value, 240 W/m2. That plus the 100 W/m2 of reflected solar shortwave radiation (SR) equals the incoming 340 W/m2, and so the equilibrium is restored.

This portion seems to be shared by both views:
”the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation decreases because more LW is absorbed”
Is there any real world evidence for this?

Another view:
When GHGs increase, both the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation and downwelling longwave (LW) radiation increase because more LW is absorbed therefore more LW is emitted, not being a black or grey body GHGs emit what they absorb* (as opposed to emitting in proportion to their temperature). The increased downwelling radiation decreases the surface net radiation transfer to the atmosphere (slows the cooling) by radiation causing more energy to be transferred to the atmosphere by other processes like evapotranspiration thus keeping the surface temperature relatively unchanged since it is temperature gradients that drive heat transfer not radiation balances. The increased water cycle activity (i.e.: evaporation) increases the albedo of the atmosphere decreasing the solar energy absorption thus leaving the temperature of the atmosphere relatively unchanged as well (the increase in LW is offset by the decrease in SW). So, if there were a panel in figure 1 for this view the numbers would be around 101,241, & 390.

* More technically correct would be to say they may emit IR due to energy gained by absorbing IR or through collisions depending on a host of variables.

24. Schrodinger's Cat says:

I favour your explanation. I have always had grave doubts about the claimed amplification of CO2 warming by water vapour since this would be potentially dangerous for our water planet. Any forcing that raised the temperature and resulting evaporation could trigger runaway warming by means of this positive feedback loop. Given that our climate is remarkably stable, positive feedback seems very unlikely.

Water vapour is a GHG, so there must be another mechanism to limit or prevent the amplification scenario. This is cloud formation which acts as a cooling sun shade through reflection of incoming shortwave. Furthermore, cloud formation removes water vapour GHG from the atmosphere. This, I think, is the GHG warming limiter or thermostat.

I guess the GHG induced warming increases water vapour but also convection, transporting the vapour to higher in the atmosphere where it condenses to form clouds. In a dynamic process, this may not even be noticeable.

25. Schrodinger's Cat says:

The GHG model predicts the famous hot spot over the tropics and increased humidity, neither of which have ever been found. This alternative mechanism has no need for these effects.

26. Note that beneath a completely transparent atmosphere the job of adjusting albedo is dealt with by winds causing the uplift of surface dust.

We can see some evidence for that on Mars which lacks water.

Periodically, the Martian winds become strong enough to create planet wide dust storms. That is the convective adjustment process in action on a dry planet.

27. TimTheToolMan says:

Willis writes “In the consensus view, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation decreases because more LW is absorbed. In response, the entire system warms until the longwave gets back to its previous value, 240 W/m2.”

Although this description isn’t strictly incorrect it is simplified to the point where it is misleading. You only need to change it a bit to actually make it the consensus view, however. Something like this…

In the consensus view, the system works as follows. When the GHGs increase, the TOA upwelling longwave (LW) radiation decreases because the average altitude increases at which it can leave and this greater altitude is colder.

In response, the entire system warms until the temperature of the new higher average altitude is such that the LW leaving gets back to its previous value, 240 W/m2.”

Personally I think the consensus view itself is a crock because its just one part of a complex process that naturally maximises its entropy and hence “the whole system” doesn’t want to warm.

28. bit chilly says:

great work again willis . the climate “scientists” will not like it though.far too simple and no funding required for carrer extending “research”.

29. On Lovelock’s Daisy world the white daisies are favored as radiative forcing rises because they reflect more sunlight thereby maintaining surface temperatures.

Clouds are the white daisies on Earth.

30. TomVonk says:

All 3 diagrams are wrong.
Let us consider the system called “GHGs” in the pictures. According to the pictures it absorbs 390 W/m² and emits 240W/m² (averaged values over 24 hours).
Therefore it “keeps” 390 – 240 = 150.
Where can this “kept” power (W/m² is a power unit) go ?
Well the only place is the heating of the whole atmospheric column.
An atmospheric column of 1 m² with a pressure of 1 atm weighs about 10 000 kg.
The specific heat capacity of air at 0°C is Cp ~ 1000 J/kg/K. We neglect here the variation with temperature because we only want an order of magnitude.

So in 1 second (1 W = 1 J/s) the atmospheric column with base of 1m² will increase its temperature by 150/(1000 x 10000) = 0.000015 °C.
Using here dQ = Cp . m . dT.
How long would it take for the column to reach 450 °C where it would basically burn everything and boil the oceans ?
Well 450/0.000015 = 30 000 000 seconds = 1 year.
As the oceans are obviously not boiling, the pictures are wrong and in reality if the ground emits 390 W/m², then whatever the GHG emit (here 240 W/m²) is also what they absorb (here 240 W/m²)

31. Up until now I knew negative feedbacks would dominate because the climate signal appeared to me to have the features I expect from a system with strong negative feedback. There was no concrete proof I was right, but experience and judgement told me I was.

Now you have shown me that there really is proof for what I would at best describe as a “well founded hunch”.

I’ve recently been working on uclimate.com and through that work I’ve not only discovered just how many sceptics are actively blogging, but as the “links” page shows, sceptics are far more active than warmists. That backs up my perception that the warmists have gone into retreat.

32. Greg says:

Willis, your code ran a treat, no messing, very nice. I see you’ve change the range of colour scale which is better, but it would be much better with more than six fixed increments. It can’t see where to change that. Is it hard-coded in the map library you use?

33. Mike Ozanne says:

Willis, you’ve made the same mistake again, using real data and finding a stable system. You need a proper model where any stability is just the the Global Warming Tiger lulling you into a false sense of security before it pounces….

34. richard verney says:

Willis

In your diagrams you depict in coming solar as being reflected off the top of the cloud.

You depict incoming solar as reflecting off the surface and then it appears that it passes straight through the cloud and out into space..

Why is not some part of the solar that is reflected off the surface onto the underside of the cloud, reflected back off the underside of the cloud downwards back to the surface.

If a cloud, its top, can reflect incoming solar back out to space, why cannot a cloud, its underside, reflect reflected solar from the surface back towards the surface?

After all even on a cloudy day with low level cloud it is not dark which suggests that solar is being rflected from the underside of a cloud back towards the surface. Further when a cloud interrupts solar, it is not pitch black in the shaddow area of the cloud. This suggests that either some part of the incoming solar penetrates its way through the cloud, or some solar that has been reflected from the surface, interacts with the underside of the cloud and is re-reflected back towards the surface thereby illuminating the surface in a diffused manner.

35. TimTheTolMan said:

“In response, the entire system warms until the temperature of the new higher average altitude is such that the LW leaving gets back to its previous value, 240 W/m2.”

Yes, as I’ve said so many times, the higher radiating altitude becomes warmer and so lets energy out faster whereas the AGW view is that the higher radiating altitude is colder and so lets energy out more slowly.

The higher, warmer, radiating point removes the need for any significant surface warming but does involve circulation adjustments.

36. MikeB says:

About half of TSI is longwave in the first place

You probably say this because someone told you that half of the incoming solar radiation is in the infrared. But this is the near infrared, it is not longwave infrared. The proportion of solar radiation with wavelength greater than 5 microns is negligible in comparison to the radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface itself. It’s safe to say that if we detect radiation shorter than 4 microns then it is from the Sun (or a rocket engine or a furnace) and that infrared radiation above 5 microns is from the Earth or its atmosphere.

All warm bodies emit electromagnetic radiation. The distribution of that radiation accords with Planck’s Law and depends only on the body’s temperature and its emissivity. To find where the peak emission will be simply divide body’s absolute temperature into 3000. For example, a body at a typical Earth temperature of 300K will have a peak emission of 3000/300 = 10microns. On the other hand the Sun, with a surface temperature of 6000K, will emit its peak radiation at 3000/6000 = 0.5 microns. This is Wien’s Law (or more exactly an approximation to it. Use 2897 instead of 3000 for a precise answer).

How then does a material convert shortwave to longwave?

You can see from the above that a material will emit according to its own temperature. Since the Sun at 6000K does not manage to heat the Earth to 6000K but only to, say, 300K, then the Earth radiation will be LW and the Sun’s radiation is SW.

37. In Willis’s Fig 1 diagrams just replace the vast majority of what he terms GHG absorption with conductive absorption by the mass of the atmosphere and then there you have it.

If there is too much atmospheric absorption the surface radiates more out than comes in so the system cools and if there is too little atmospheric absorption the surface radiates less out than comes in and the system cools.

Convection changes to negate the thermal changes either way.

You have to consider the system as a whole and not just the surface because the practical effect of atmospheric mass floating above the surface is to ‘smear’ the location of the surface up through the vertical column.

That is why you cannot apply S-B at a surface beneath an atmosphere containing any mass at all.

38. Whoops, a typo:

if there is too little atmospheric absorption the surface radiates less out than comes in and the system WARMS.

39. Greg says:

“if there is too little atmospheric absorption the surface radiates less out than comes in and the system WARMS.”

That’ll that new “convection absorption” I presume. So once the surface warms due to lack of “convection absorption”, according to S-B it will emit LWIR which will get conventionally absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated.

We are back to the usual physical description.

40. MikeB says:

StephenWilde, as always, I find it very difficult to understand what you are trying to say. What for example is ‘conductive absorption’, a term meaningless to me?
The important thing to understand is that the radiation from the surface of the Earth, or anything else for that matter, depends only on that body’s own temperature and emissivity. Nothing else! It doesn’t care what is happening in the atmosphere somewhere else. It is not effected by convection, evaporation etc., just its own intrinsic properties of temperature and emissivity. It’s quite simple really, why make it more complicated.
By the way, what is meant by “an atmosphere containing any mass at all”. Are there some atmospheres with no mass?

41. Greg says:

richard verney says:
In your diagrams you depict in coming solar as being reflected off the top of the cloud. ….

Once it interacts with Earth , rather than flying past, SW will either be reflected (after one or many reflections) or be absorbed. In the latter case it ends up as heat. You don’t need a ray diagram for each photon.

42. ‘conductive absorption’ (not convective absorption) is just conduction but I added the term ‘absorption’ to match the term ‘GHG absorption’ used by Willis.

Gases absorb energy by conduction from a surface and such absorbed energy is not available for radiation out whilst it remains absorbed.

The length of time that energy is stored by the atmosphere’s mass before it is returned to the surface determines the scale of the mass induced greenhouse effect.

Convection both takes away upwards the energy conducted to the air at the surface and then returns it again on the descent half of the cycle for a zero net energy exchange with the surface.

The time taken for the convective cycle creates the greenhouse effect and radiative gases speed that cycle up so as to offset the slowing of energy transmission caused by their re-radiation back to the surface.

Exactly as proposed by Willis but he doesn’t seem to acknowledge the role of conduction.

43. “By the way, what is meant by “an atmosphere containing any mass at all”. Are there some atmospheres with no mass?”

I was pointing out that the amount of mass is not critical but that some mass is needed for the conductive interaction with the surface.

When one considers concepts such as a perfectly transparent atmosphere then that is implicitly an atmosphere with no mass at all because any mass at all prevents perfect transparency.

It was not me who first started using such unrealistic terminology.

44. Kelvin Vaughan says:

At noon I am measuring a clear sky at -30°C, the ground is 7°C and the air temperature is of 9°C. When it is cloudy at Noon the cloud temperature is 5°C and the ground and air temperatures are 8°C.

A big change in sky temperature doesn’t make a lot of difference to the ground and air temperature.

45. cba says:

phillipbratby says:
January 7, 2014 at 10:42 pm
You have a major error here. You have conserved energy flux, whereas you should conserve energy. The area of the incoming flux is the cross-sectional area of the earth. The area of outgoing flux is the earth’s surface area, which is a factor 4 smaller.

You’ve got it backwards. Incoming flux is like sunlight hitting a disk of radius R, area PI*R^2, while outgoing flux is from the whole surface of a sphere, 4*PI*R^2.

46. TheBigYinJames says:

That’s a lot of words to say “heat causes clouds”. This is hardly a new hypothesis for us on this side of the fence.

47. cba says:

Willis,
One of the things I’ve noticed is that when one goes to the simplified Stefan’s law model concepts, they fail to realize that for a given altitude ‘shell’ of atmosphere, when additional GHGs are added, not only is more radiation absorbed, but also the emissivity increases, requiring less temperature to emit the same amount of power. What’s more, that radiation amount is increased for upward as well as downward, requiring more energy transport to that shell in order to maintain the same temperature. Finally, that shell is not really like a solid surface at a given temperature but has only a very small amount of absorption and emission according to the spectrum of the combined GHGs and its temperature so adding GHGs require the increase in the emissivity factor – which is really just an engineering kludge when what is really happening is highly wavelength dependent.
Note that the increased radiation does not totally compensate for the added GHG absorption. Also, what is absorbed tends to be absorbed quickly and emitted quickly so far as distances go. Strong absorption areas of the spectrum have very short paths anyway. As one travels upwards though the pressure drops and the spectral lines get narrower, affecting a smaller amount of the spectrum.

Your basic model idea is very much along the ideas I’ve concluded (and have not had any time to work on for a few years now – which is along Lindzen’s IRIS theory ). Keep up the good work, I think you’re on a roll.

48. Bill Illis says:

Cloud feedback is Negative.

The -1.0 W/m2/century SW reflectance trendline on a temperature change calculated of 0.3C/century signals a feedback value of -3.33 W/m2/K. The IPCC AR5 report put the cloud feedback at +0.7 W/m2/K.

Using this -3.33 W/m2/K value for the cloud feedback drops CO2 climate sensitivity to 0.75C per doubling from the theory’s 3.0C per doubling.

49. Joe Born says:

Suppose that the bulk of the inter-month cloudiness-anomaly variation is random. A consequent reflected-short-wave-radiation variation and, I assume, opposite surface-temperature anomaly variation would likely result in the negative correlation between upwelling long- and short-wave variations that Mr. Eschenbach illustrates.

And that would occur even in the absence of any dependence of albedo on temperature.

Of course, this causation-direction assumption ignores Mr. Eschenbach’s previous observations concerning earlier tropical-thunderstorm occurrence on hotter days. Still, there must be some random (or at least chaotic, which is the same thing for present purposes) component to the albedo signal.

I assume there’s no really good way of teasing these different-causal-direction effects apart, but perhaps someone can see how the data’s time scales might tend to favor one over the other?

50. Edim says:

“Gases absorb energy by conduction from a surface and such absorbed energy is not available for radiation out whilst it remains absorbed.”

I think this is convection. Normally, convection includes advection and diffusion. The latter is neglibile – still air is a very fine insulator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection

There’s no conduction in the atmosphere, stop the movement of air and heat transfer reduces drastically (basically stops), except for evaporative or radiative transfers.

51. Gail Combs says:

Max Hugoson says: @ January 7, 2014 at 8:49 pm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It could be worse. Listening to This could be the punishment.

52. Rob Ricket says:

Willis,
I hope you will address MikeB’s comments, as they form the basis for practical infrared thermometry and photography, which in turn, is verified through contact thermometry. Specifically, what is the mechanism behind this shift in wavelength?

Scientists on both side of the debate are focused on understanding the role of cloud formation in regulating the energy budget. Unless I’m mistaken, none of these studies postulate that increased cloud formation causes a shift in the wavelength of emitted energy.

53. Greg says:

Kelvin Vaughan says:

At noon I am measuring a clear sky at -30°C, the ground is 7°C and the air temperature is of 9°C. When it is cloudy at Noon the cloud temperature is 5°C and the ground and air temperatures are 8°C, A big change in sky temperature doesn’t make a lot of difference to the ground and air temperature.

And what is the sky temperature on a clear, dry day? (Well away from direction of sun)

54. cba says:

“Gases absorb energy by conduction from a surface and such absorbed energy is not available for radiation out whilst it remains absorbed.”

Energy is energy. Some energy absorbed by a molecule due to heat or thermal collisions will be radiated. Some energy absorbed by a molecule as radiation will be converted to thermal and not be radiated. How a gas acquires energy does not determine how that gas radiates energy.

55. Robert Clemenzi says:

Richard111 says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:02 am

My understanding is that the surface does not emit in 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands so there is no effect there.

Actually, the surface emits at all frequencies, but the relative amount in those 2 bands is insignificant when compared to the amount at 15 microns.

Please, just what energy is CO2 absorbing from the surface?

CO2 both absorbs and emits in the same frequency band – IR at about 15 microns. When the temperature of the air is lower than the temperature of the surface, CO2 absorbs more than it emits. When the ground is cooler, then the CO2 emits more than it absorbs. What most people miss is that the majority of the radiation is absorbed less than one foot from the surface.

56. Gary Pearse says:

Kevin Kilty says:
January 7, 2014 at 9:20 pm

“Very interesting. I’m not surprised at the result.”

Comon’ Kevin, you’re not surprised because you’ve had a good education on the subject from Willis over the years. It’s not being trumpeted by the mainstream of climate science. Basically no one in the IPCC cadre is buying into this – it kills the golden goose. Willis’s theory has caused a lot of heartburn in the “community”.

57. Phil. says:

I think there is a misunderstanding in Willis’s CERES analysis. The upwelling LW channel produced by CERES is Surface IR which is confined to the window wavelength range of 8-12 μm, this range is unaffected by GHGs. The expectation is therefore that if the cloud concentration goes up backscatter to space of incoming SW will increase but backscatter of LW towards the surface and absorption of the surface LW by the water droplets in the cloud will also increase. This means that the presence of the clouds will reduce the upwelling LW at the same time as it increases reflected solar leading to the negative correlation. This effect has nothing to do with GHGs.

58. Schrodinger's Cat says:

Just thinking aloud… Condensed water vapour can form a dispersion of sub-micron liquid droplets. which would appear invisible or very slightly misty at most. These would no longer have the GHG properties of the water vapour. They would still scatter incoming solar radiation. So although we talk about clouds, these are collections of much larger droplets and may not form unless there is appropriate seed particles for nucleation to occur. The point is that I don’t think you need actual clouds to achieve the effect that Willis describes. You just need to block or scatter the incoming SW.

59. Phil. says:

Robert Clemenzi says:
January 8, 2014 at 6:22 am
Richard111 says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:02 am

My understanding is that the surface does not emit in 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands so there is no effect there.

Actually, the surface emits at all frequencies, but the relative amount in those 2 bands is insignificant when compared to the amount at 15 microns.

Please, just what energy is CO2 absorbing from the surface?

CO2 both absorbs and emits in the same frequency band – IR at about 15 microns. When the temperature of the air is lower than the temperature of the surface, CO2 absorbs more than it emits. When the ground is cooler, then the CO2 emits more than it absorbs.

Not correct because the emission by the CO2 is not immediate and is orders of magnitude slower than loss of energy by collisions to surrounding molecules when in the lower troposphere. In that region of the atmosphere CO2 always absorbs more than it emits.

60. gbaikie says:

What is meant by surface.
Surely it’s not skin surface. It’s not being measured. It’s not increasing.
If what is meant is surface air temperature. Highest surface temperature is
not increasing.
So that leaves higher average surface air temperature. Which is increases in
average in higher air temperature and/or less cooling of coldest/colder air temperature.
The fact that one isn’t getting highest *ever* air temperatures nor highest *ever* skin
surface indicates problem with idea surface getting warmer. Which leaves us with reduction
coldest ever coldest air/skin surface temperature and/or less cooling of average cool
temperature.
And it doesn’t seem this the argument which is being made and until make this the argument
they wasting their time. Or there is no evidence of anything else.

61. Felix says:

An increase in clouds, whatever the cause, results in blocking surface IR and increasing reflectivity. The negative correlation says nothing about the greenhouse effect.

62. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

Hi Willis,
Very nice graphics. A couple of comments:

1. High latitude regions in winter have zero upwelling short wave (24/7 darkness). The correlation between SW and LW should then fall to zero, because upwelling LW would depend only on surface temperature and the the presence/absence of clouds. Right?

2. High latitude regions with snow/ice cover during the non-winter months will have high albedo, even with a clear sky, so the SW/LW correlation again will drop, since albedo (upwelling SW) will not be as much influenced by cloud cover, while upwelling LW will be.

3. Land areas outside the polar regions will have somewhat lower correlation because the clear-sky surface albedo is greater than the clear sky ocean albedo (which is very low); once again the influence of clouds is somewhat reduced compared to most ocean areas.

63. “Gases absorb energy by conduction from a surface and such absorbed energy is not available for radiation out whilst it remains absorbed.”

Huh? It certainly is “available” for radiation, but that radiation (should it happen) will be in accordance with the material properties of the gas, or liquid, or solid; far more important than the Plank temperature in this context.

Pretend that we know what happens to all the incident LW, that it gets absorbed and involved in a food fight between atmospheric and surface H2O, which happens to adore it, until scraps fly back to space.

What of the SW? It’s a lot more skittish. Most (?) of it gets reflected off clouds and ice and bright land and various shiny things. Water in its various forms does not absorb it efficiently. Does anything? Dirt? The ground and metals certainly warm in the sun but is that from LW or SW?

So now the SW enters the ocean where it passes through some 100 meters but is refracted, reflected, prismaticly separated, and generally dissipated by dissolved and suspended stuff. Perhaps the oceans are the SW-LW converters?

64. Good work, Willis.

The phrase “removal of the seasonal signal” begs the question of what the data looks like seasonally. Would it be possible to see the correlation map for Dec-Jan, Mar-Apr, and/or June-July?

I am also concerned about the blending of all 24 hrs into one graphic. Your thermostat hypothesis operates on a time scale as short as 15 minutes. Reflected solar SW is a daylight process. Emitted Longwave is a 24 hrs, with power that veries by temperature. Integrating the fluxes over the day ought to give a good answer, but I still have the question whether we are missing something important at hourly scale. But given CERES data isn’t hourly, (only the GOES-converted data is hourly), the data may not be available.

On the diagram, I bristle at the Trenberth diagram which uses clouds as a one-way mirror on the SW ray path. LW is also affected by clouds. LW is absorbed by clouds and emitted by clouds. Clouds have a thickness and a temperature difference across the top and bottom. Maybe as viewed by the CERES instruments, integrated across the 24 hrs, it make no difference to your work.

You keep on driving nails to shut down the CAWG coffin.
Your graphs show that anti-correlation is the dominating norm between incoming SW and outgoing LW. More evidence that there is at least one regulator (governor, thermostat) in our climate system. Lindzen pointed to another. Probably there are more, but we are too invested in throwing money after CO2 as a the direct control for global temperatures to let it go.

66. Willis Eschenbach says:

TomVonk says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:00 am

All 3 diagrams are wrong.
Let us consider the system called “GHGs” in the pictures. According to the pictures it absorbs 390 W/m² and emits 240W/m² (averaged values over 24 hours).
Therefore it “keeps” 390 – 240 = 150.
Where can this “kept” power (W/m² is a power unit) go ?

Tom, it appears you haven’t realized that those are by no means the total system diagrams, so let me be the first to inform you—there was no attempt to cover anything but the two outgoing radiation streams (LW and SW) and the incoming radiation.

So no, the diagrams are not wrong, they were never meant to show the other details.

w.

67. @Geoff Sherrington:

The “yellow” areas near continents are places where the respective ocean gyres puts cold water off shore. Very low evaporation. Leads to very low rainfall in the land next to them and sometimes a Mediterranean or desert climate zone. I would interpret this as saying that very cold water areas can’t make much cloud.

@Greg:

I can attest from personally jumping into it that the yellow area off of N. California is darned cold. The temps run about 45 F on a warm day… It’s the return path of polar cold water toward the equator for another round of heating and recirculation…

@Gymnosperm:

The way SW is converted to LW is that a molecule has several “modes” of oscillation. Especially those with three atoms in them. A SW is absorbed, and sets the whole thing wobbling and spinning and even the ends bouncing in and out. Some of those modes have lower energy levels than the original SW. They can emit a LW photon of that sized energy package.

Also note that an atom or molecule could absorb a SW and be unable to emit LW (say, being a He atom) and yet it could whack into an Ozone or CO2 or H2O and transfer some of the energy to that other molecule, which could then emit a LW photon to dump that part.

It is more rare, but also possible for two LW photons to be absorbed, then one SW photon emitted.

68. Willis Eschenbach says:

Greg says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:15 am

Willis, your code ran a treat, no messing, very nice. I see you’ve change the range of colour scale which is better, but it would be much better with more than six fixed increments. It can’t see where to change that. Is it hard-coded in the map library you use?

The colors are set in the file “CERES Functions.R”. It’s not part of the map library, it’s set by statements like:

colorlist=(c(“blue”, “green”,”yellow2″,”orange”,”red”,”red4″))
color.palette = colorRampPalette(colorlist)
mycolors=color.palette(100)

Chop and change as you wish …

w.

69. Weather Dave says:

Willis, As always I’m glued to your dissertations. As a long retired military forecaster I have a direct question for you. To keep my hand in this I’ve purchased one of Anthonys touted Davis Instruments, a fairly sophisticated one. I measure incoming shortwave radiation everyday. Here in New Zealand it’s fascinating to watch how it changes with not only higher relative humidity (downward), high cirrus (downward) and general cloud cover (downward). Should you graph the values they go up and down like a yo-yo. My question concerns the values. On a low humidity day and cloudless sky, readings of 1500 w/m2 are common; much higher than what you indicate and many texts indicate. Why the discrepancy?

70. Willis Eschenbach says:

richard verney says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:40 am

Willis

In your diagrams you depict in coming solar as being reflected off the top of the cloud.

You depict incoming solar as reflecting off the surface and then it appears that it passes straight through the cloud and out into space..

Why is not some part of the solar that is reflected off the surface onto the underside of the cloud, reflected back off the underside of the cloud downwards back to the surface.

It’s just a simplistical diagram. You are right, there is scattering both on the downwards and upwards paths. Numbers quoted are therefore net numbers …

w.

71. Retired Engineer John says:

It is interesting that most of the -1 areas in figure 2 are between the horse latitudes and generally follow the upper flows of the Hadley cells.

72. Phil. says:

gbaikie says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:57 am
What is meant by surface.

As far as the surface IR measured by CERES it refers to the temperature of the solid/liquid surfaces of the earth, it does not refer to atmospheric emission (which doesn’t exist in this wavelength range except for ozone which is corrected for using other satellite measurements of ozone).

73. Willis Eschenbach says:

Rob Ricket says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:53 am

Willis,
I hope you will address MikeB’s comments, as they form the basis for practical infrared thermometry and photography, which in turn, is verified through contact thermometry. Specifically, what is the mechanism behind this shift in wavelength?

Yes, and I hope that when people ask me questions, they quote whatever they are talking about. Both of us look to be disappointed in this interchange.

Look, Rob, I run on limited time. I have a day job, I do the scientific research, I write it up, and I answer questions. Somewhere in there I sleep, but not much.

So if you, or anyone else, want to get a comment from me, then you need to quote, cite, or otherwise indicate what you are talking about. I’m not going to run off and root through MikeB’s comments, and reply to one of them, only to find out that the comment I replied to wasn’t the comment that you were referring to.

I’m doing the hard part in this game, folks, the least you can do is do your damn homework, identify whatever it is you are talking about, and cite, quote, or otherwise identify it.

w.

74. Willis Eschenbach says:

Robert Clemenzi says:
January 8, 2014 at 6:22 am

What most people miss is that the majority of the radiation is absorbed less than one foot from the surface.

I don’t believe that for one minute. Citation?

My bible in these matters, “The Climate Near The Ground” by Geiger, says that going the other way, downwelling radiation, the situation looks like this:

Layer thickness Percent share of downwelling radiation

1st 87 metres above the ground — 72%
Next 89 metres above the ground — 6.4%
Next 91 metres above the ground — 4%

So the majority (72%) of the downwelling radiation comes from the first 300 feet of atmosphere above us, and 82% comes from the first thousand feet. Given that, the idea that the upwelling radiation is absorbed in a single foot of atmosphere seems highly unlikely.

w.

75. Willis Eschenbach says:

Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:33 am

I think there is a misunderstanding in Willis’s CERES analysis. The upwelling LW channel produced by CERES is Surface IR which is confined to the window wavelength range of 8-12 μm, this range is unaffected by GHGs.

Nonsense. If that were the case, the upwelling radiation measured by CERES would be on the order of 390 W/m2, the average radiation of the surface.

But the CERES data says the outgoing IR totals 240 W/m2, not 390, and that’s just what we’d expect. And I can produce for you a very nice map showing exactly how much of the surface radiation is absorbed in different parts of the world. It matches very nicely with the amount of our favorite GHG, water vapor.

Sorry, but you seem to have misread something, because your claim is completely false.

w.

76. Dave Dardinger says:

“I hope that when people ask me questions, they quote whatever they are talking about”
I agree. Of course I don’t care much for the way many of the websites work. People should be able to highlight some words and then go something like CTL r and have the quote appear in the reply box. Maybe there’s a way to do that here, but I don’t know what it might be.

77. Trick says:

Willis top post: ”In response, the albedo increases proportionately, increases the SR. This counteracts the decrease in upwelling LW, and leaves the surface temperature unchanged.”

This would imply in effect the Tmean is forever fixed at ~288K (the thermostat set point) and anomaly about the set point would be zero mean with fixed hysteresis. Thermometer evidence shows Tmean is not a fixed set point. Anomaly reports show monthly differences unlike thermostat fixed hysteresis.

78. Willis Eschenbach says:

Stephen Rasey says:
January 8, 2014 at 8:42 am

… On the diagram, I bristle at the Trenberth diagram which uses clouds as a one-way mirror on the SW ray path.

As you are the second person to comment on this, I’ve changed the diagrams for greater clarity.

w.

79. Willis Eschenbach says:

Dave Dardinger says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:18 am

“I hope that when people ask me questions, they quote whatever they are talking about”
I agree. Of course I don’t care much for the way many of the websites work. People should be able to highlight some words and then go something like CTL r and have the quote appear in the reply box. Maybe there’s a way to do that here, but I don’t know what it might be.

Highlight the words you are interested in, press CONTROL-C, go down to the comment box, press CONTROL-V …

w.

80. Willis Eschenbach says:

Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:20 am

Willis top post:

”In response, the albedo increases proportionately, increases the SR. This counteracts the decrease in upwelling LW, and leaves the surface temperature unchanged.”

This would imply in effect the Tmean is forever fixed at ~288K (the thermostat set point) and anomaly about the set point would be zero mean with fixed hysteresis. Thermometer evidence shows Tmean is not a fixed set point. Anomaly reports show monthly differences unlike thermostat fixed hysteresis.

I would comment, but I’m totally unclear what you mean. Bear in mind what I said above:

This is a great simplification, but sufficient for this discussion.

w.

81. Greg says:

“Chop and change as you wish …”

Thanks, I added two more colors but I still only get six in the legend range, yet I can’t see where the number of intervals is assigned.

However, I see the legend numbers are not too accurate, lots of crude rounding going on.
maxcolor=.25,mincolor=-1,roundto=2,legendlabel=””

There is a world of significance difference between -0.6 and -1, can you say exactly what interval is getting coloured as “-1” in your graph?

I think this would really be a lot better if it had a continuous colour scale (or at least 10-20 nuances). As it stands it could be over-selling the result.

No knocking it, there is clearly some good information presented but I’m sure you don’t want to give a false impression that there are large swathes with CC near -1 if that’s not the case.

82. Alec Rawls says:

Isn’t there a question here about the direction of causality? Willis is interpreting the anti-correlation between upwelling SW and LW as support for his theory about cloud formation acting as a thermostat (a theory that I find compelling). But there is also a simpler explanation for this anti-correlation. Where clouds block incoming solar the planet below warms less, leading to less outgoing LW. It seems likely to me that this direction of causality (where cloudiness is the initiating cause) dominates the data, making it hard to say anything about what causality might be going on in the other direction (where cloudiness is the effect).

Would be similar to the correlation between temperature and CO2, where the paleo-data is dominated by the direction of causality where rising temperatures cause CO2 to bubble out of the oceans, making it difficult or impossible to discern causality in the other direction. CO2 certainly COULD be having a warming effect, and we know on theoretical and experimental grounds that it should have a small forcing effect, but the paleo-data gives us almost no information about its net effect.

I think the thermostat hypothesis is correct but I’m not sure that this particular anti-correlation provides much or perhaps even any evidence for it.

83. Greg says:

“This would imply in effect the Tmean is forever fixed at ~288K”

Do you understand what correlation coefficient means. If not, you will need to understand the post and the graph.

84. Rob Ricket says:

Willis, as per your request, this is the comment from MikeB that I was referring to:

About half of TSI is longwave in the first place

You probably say this because someone told you that half of the incoming solar radiation is in the infrared. But this is the near infrared, it is not longwave infrared. The proportion of solar radiation with wavelength greater than 5 microns is negligible in comparison to the radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface itself. It’s safe to say that if we detect radiation shorter than 4 microns then it is from the Sun (or a rocket engine or a furnace) and that infrared radiation above 5 microns is from the Earth or its atmosphere.

All warm bodies emit electromagnetic radiation. The distribution of that radiation accords with Planck’s Law and depends only on the body’s temperature and its emissivity. To find where the peak emission will be simply divide body’s absolute temperature into 3000. For example, a body at a typical Earth temperature of 300K will have a peak emission of 3000/300 = 10microns. On the other hand the Sun, with a surface temperature of 6000K, will emit its peak radiation at 3000/6000 = 0.5 microns. This is Wien’s Law (or more exactly an approximation to it. Use 2897 instead of 3000 for a precise answer).

How then does a material convert shortwave to longwave?

You can see from the above that a material will emit according to its own temperature. Since the Sun at 6000K does not manage to heat the Earth to 6000K but only to, say, 300K, then the Earth radiation will be LW and the Sun’s radiation is SW.

Are you saying that cloud formation changes the frequency of the Earth’s emitted energy, or are you simply saying more clouds reflect solar SW radiation, but are transparent to emitted LW radiation?

85. Phil. says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:16 am
Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:33 am

“I think there is a misunderstanding in Willis’s CERES analysis. The upwelling LW channel produced by CERES is Surface IR which is confined to the window wavelength range of 8-12 μm, this range is unaffected by GHGs.”

Nonsense. If that were the case, the upwelling radiation measured by CERES would be on the order of 390 W/m2, the average radiation of the surface.

No, because the window wavelength range of 8-12 μm is only part of the emissions from the surface. CERES explicitly states: “Each CERES instrument measures filtered radiances in the shortwave (SW; wavelengths between 0.3 and 5 μm), total (TOT; wavelengths between 0.3 and 200 μm), and window (WN; wavelengths between 8 and 12 μm) regions.” They also perform numerous calculations on the raw data so there is scaling going on.

But the CERES data says the outgoing IR totals 240 W/m2, not 390, and that’s just what we’d expect. And I can produce for you a very nice map showing exactly how much of the surface radiation is absorbed in different parts of the world. It matches very nicely with the amount of our favorite GHG, water vapor.

They term it “Surface Upwelling Longwave Radiation (rlus) Wm-2” so it is not subject to absorption by GHGs.

Sorry, but you seem to have misread something, because your claim is completely false.

Not according to the CERES site. Perhaps you’re using a different product, which data are you using?

86. rgbatduke says:

Using this -3.33 W/m2/K value for the cloud feedback drops CO2 climate sensitivity to 0.75C per doubling from the theory’s 3.0C per doubling.

Which is right at the lower bound, from the sound of it, of the new values snuck into AR5.

I’d suggest that this be stated, however, as a range. $0.75 \pm 0.75$ degrees kelvin. Natural variability alone per century is at least this much, and we don’t know how to predict the background natural variation “at all”.

This is the sort of thing that one does have to wonder about. Again, looking at the fluctuation-dissipation theorem one should actually be able to find the time-signature of causality in this, although it is going to be much more difficult because heating in one place (say, the tropical ocean) can easily cause cooling somewhere else because of lateral transport of the water vapor before the clouds form. This is obviously the case for nearly all of the clouds forming over the land masses, for the monsoon, etc. There is substantial bulk transport of both latent heat, LWIR emission (rom the clouds “created” from warmed ocean water elsewhere) and albedo.

The best place to look for the signal probably is the monsoon. Those are persistent long-time scale phenomena, and one would expect to see a consistent variation of SW/LW radiation from precisely this lagged heat transport from their primary oceanic vapor sources. Of course extracting any kind of signal from their substantial chaotic variation would be very difficult, and there could easily be other factors that are equally important obscuring the signal).

My recollection is that this is very much like what Roy Spencer did in a short time study of much the same thing (but only in the context of specific regional weather). There the causal time signature was very clear, and he also found the negative lagged correlation suggesting natural negative feedback. It would be interesting to see if this holds globally — instead of doing static correlation do lagged correlation and see if fluctuations are correlated in a lagged manner.

rgb

87. Greg says:

“I think the thermostat hypothesis is correct but I’m not sure that this particular anti-correlation provides much or perhaps even any evidence for it.”

Since >SST will cause evap, will cause cloud, it’s rather chicken and egg.

The primary driver must be changes in isolation even in the tropics. Perhaps something can be gained for looking at the annual cycle rather than dumping it. If more cloud happens when there’s more insolation, it implies a feedback.

Otherwise we could look at non seasonal changes in insolation:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=310

88. Willis Eschenbach says:

Greg says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:38 am

However, I see the legend numbers are not too accurate, lots of crude rounding going on.
maxcolor=.25,mincolor=-1,roundto=2,legendlabel=””

“Not too accurate”? “Crude rounding”? Take a breath, old son, and back off the insults, your complaint generator is set way too high. I’m happy to field comments and questions, that’s what science is about … but calling my work “not too accurate” and “crude”? Not polite, particularly when you don’t understand what you are looking at.

I use “roundto” to set the number of decimals displayed in the legend. If you don’t do that, you get numbers on your graph like “0.1544398264” in the display, and a graph containing something like that looks … well … crude. However, the variable “roundto” doesn’t affect the calculations, just the display.

In addition, if you think increasing the number of decimals displayed would make the slightest difference to the legend in Figure 2, think again. See below for why.

There is a world of significance difference between -0.6 and -1, can you say exactly what interval is getting coloured as “-1″ in your graph?

Consider Figure 2 above. The legend is accurate to 2 decimals. In fact it’s accurate to a hundred decimals, because when you divide the given range (from -1 to 1) into 5 equal intervals, you get 0.4000000… for the width of each interval. Since R doesn’t print trailing decimal zeros, this comes out at “0.6”, “0.2”, etc. So changing the roundto to 5 wouldn’t change the displayed output.

Regarding your other question, the colors show points on the scale, not intervals. The legend (with colors for say 1, 0.6, 0.2, etc) shows the color that is associated with that specific number.

All the best,

w.

89. Michel says:

If there would be only albedo increase as a feedback to the forcing induced by more longwave absorption then the model presented here could be valid. But there are other phenomena that need to be taken into account in the feedback mechanisms such as Planck’s response, change of lapse rate, water vapour, cloud coverage.
Anyway, it’s good to see that as much goes out as comes in, otherwise we would be freezing or frying.

90. JDN says:

@Willis:
I’m getting the picture from your comments that you can’t use CERES data for an energy balance, but your comment:
“In the CERES data, both the incoming flux and the outgoing flux are averaged 24/7 over their particular gridcell. They are not general measurements of the total global flux. As a result, there is no such error as the one you imagine.”

also doesn’t make much sense in this context. Isn’t the reason that there is an energy imbalance because the observations don’t cover all wavelengths? If not, then there has been a major error in communication of your results, because I doubt most people just from reading this article could could pass a quiz on where the energy is going, or even if CERES data indicates and energy imbalance. Further clarification may be required vis-a-vis why an energy imbalance in CERES data isn’t an imbalance in total solar energy flux for the earth’s surface.

91. Willis Eschenbach says:

Rob Ricket says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:57 am

Willis, as per your request, this is the comment from MikeB that I was referring to:

Are you saying that cloud formation changes the frequency of the Earth’s emitted energy, or are you simply saying more clouds reflect solar SW radiation, but are transparent to emitted LW radiation?

Thanks, Rob. I don’t know that I explicitly said any of those, but in order:

• Cloud formation does indeed change the frequency of the emitted energy.

• More clouds do reflect more SW

• However, clouds are the opposite of transparent to emitted LW. In fact, they are generally considered as blackbodies for IR purposes, as they absorb ≈ 100% of incident longwave radiation.

w.

92. Phil. says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:35 am

• However, clouds are the opposite of transparent to emitted LW. In fact, they are generally considered as blackbodies for IR purposes, as they absorb ≈ 100% of incident longwave radiation.

Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.

93. rgbatduke says:

However, clouds are the opposite of transparent to emitted LW. In fact, they are generally considered as blackbodies for IR purposes, as they absorb ≈ 100% of incident longwave radiation.

And they strongly emit LWIR as well, and do so high in the atmosphere where there is much less of a GHG “blanket” between them and the TOA/space. As such they are active transport heat sinks: LWIR incident on the ocean surface is absorbed in the top millimeter, transformed almost entirely into latent heat by causing surface evaporation. The evaporated water vapor with its latent heat is vertically transported and cools via conduction with the lapse rate of the surrounding air and via radiation. When it condenses into clouds it gives off the latent heat, now much higher up in the atmosphere. In the case of upper troposphere clouds, the latent heat is relatively quickly lost. Down lower it may still have a substantial amount of atmosphere and lapse rate to work through.

This is why simple one slab or two slab atmospheric models don’t do very well. From some papers recently reported on WUWT, GCMs substantially underestimate the cooling potential of e.g. thunderstorms via the mostly neglected mechanism of direct, rapid transport of head-laden warm moist air aloft to where it is rapidly lost via radiation on the top of most of the GHG layer. Plus, of course, the modulation of albedo, plus the additional latent heat removal at the warmed Earth’s surface when rain falls and re-evaporates from the ground beneath. It’s basically a heat engine and runs by transporting heat from down low to up high.

rgb

94. Kelvin Vaughan says:

Greg says:

January 8, 2014 at 6:01 am
And what is the sky temperature on a clear, dry day? (Well away from direction of sun)

That is away from the sun. The sun is low on the horizon and I measured directly above.

95. Greg says:

Don’t take offence Willis, I’m trying to make a suggestion to improve what you are showing , not to give offence.

“Regarding your other question, the colors show points on the scale, not intervals. The legend (with colors for say 1, 0.6, 0.2, etc) shows the color that is associated with that specific number.”

I realise what the scale shows , my question is what the graph shows. Clearly it is not just the points that get exactly -1.00000000, that R wants to print as “-1” that get coloured blue.

It seems that the legend label “0.6” is a truncated 2/3 , so what I was wondering was what _interval_ of values get the coloured on the graph.

My guess is -0.67<x<-1 but it could be perhaps half way between -0.67 and -1

I doubt any of the cells actually correlate at -1.0 , so it would be more informative and perhaps less misleading (depending upon exactly what the values turn out to be) to have more graduations.

If I could fix it easily I would have done it and posted the result for you to check out but R is a bitch to work with and I don't have a day free to waste on it's enigmatic and incomplete documentation, to fix something you can probably do in two minutes on code you wrote.

Neither do I have time couch everything in flowery language and conditionals , so please take comments in the spirit they are intended and not get shirty. As you know, I am supportive of what you are suggesting, I'm not trying criticise it other than to improve it and make it more convincing to others who will want to break it.

best regards.

96. Trick says:

Willis 9:33am: “..I’m totally unclear what you mean. Bear in mind what I said above: This is a great simplification, but sufficient for this discussion.

Global surface temperature 1.5F increased since 1880:

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Thermometer measured surface Tmean isn’t observed unchanged; interested in comments on why there isn’t compensation by albedo observed per your view top post Fig. 1: ”In response, the albedo increases proportionately, increases the SR. This counteracts the decrease in upwelling LW, and leaves the surface temperature unchanged.”

97. Greg says:

Kevin, “That is away from the sun. The sun is low on the horizon and I measured directly above.”

Well since you said you’d measured cloud, it would not seem to be the “clear dry day” I mentioned. OK, I’ll spell it out. We know emissions are proportional to T^4 where T is absolute temperature.

Space is about 3 kelvin. The difference between -30 C (~243)^4 and and 273^4 is not so great compared to 3^4. Now the atmosphere will still be emitting more than 3K but you can start to get my point. On _dry_ day (not just a gap between clouds on a day with high humidity) the sky can be much colder that what you related. A lot of what you measured as “-30” was thermal emission from water vapour a potent greenhouse gas.

Also there is substantial thermal inertia in the ground , so even when the sky clears don’t expect its temp to plummet in 10 minutes and start to draw conclusions about downward radiation.

98. Mark Bofill says:

Trick,

I sort of doubt Willis is proposing that it’s impossible for global surface temperatures to change at all, merely that there are mechanisms which regulate temps and keep them within certain boundaries.

99. Willis Eschenbach says:

Greg says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:25 am

Don’t take offence Willis, I’m trying to make a suggestion to improve what you are showing , not to give offence.

Actually what you did was accuse me of using “crude rounding” and say my work was “not too accurate”. Hardly “suggestions”, and not that charming.

“Regarding your other question, the colors show points on the scale, not intervals. The legend (with colors for say 1, 0.6, 0.2, etc) shows the color that is associated with that specific number.”

I realise what the scale shows , my question is what the graph shows. Clearly it is not just the points that get exactly -1.00000000, that R wants to print as “-1″ that get coloured blue.

It seems that the legend label “0.6″ is a truncated 2/3 , so what I was wondering was what _interval_ of values get the coloured on the graph.

My guess is -0.67<x<-1 but it could be perhaps half way between -0.67 and -1

Take a range from -1 to 1. Divide it into 5 equal intervals. Two of them fall at plus and minus 0.600000000000 …

As I said before, they do not fall at 0.67. Now you’re just guessing, and I’ve already told you the answer. The colors in the legend are the colors of that point EXACTLY. I use a 100-point color lookup table that goes evenly from one end to the other through all six colors. I sample it at the stated point, and that is what shows up in the legend. On the graph, I use exactly the same procedure. If the correlation is +.36, it gets that color from the lookup table.

I doubt any of the cells actually correlate at -1.0 , so it would be more informative and perhaps less misleading (depending upon exactly what the values turn out to be) to have more graduations.

You say that … and other people have told me that I should have less than six colors. In any case, the interval from say -1 to -.6 goes evenly between the two colors shown in the legend. And yes, there are lots of results in the high 90s.

Now, on the Figure 2 graph I could have set the color range from -0.97 to +0.25, because that’s the actual range of the data. However, it is misleading because then the reds start in the negative correlations at about -0.5. So for correlations, I always keep the same color range, from -1 to +1.

If I could fix it easily I would have done it and posted the result for you to check out but R is a bitch to work with and I don’t have a day free to waste on it’s enigmatic and incomplete documentation, to fix something you can probably do in two minutes on code you wrote.

I started programming computers in 1963. I speak half a dozen computer languages fluently, and another half dozen haltingly. I learned R maybe eight years ago. The idea that R is an “enigmatic” computer language is risible. It is the easiest languages to write and debug that I know of.

For example, in languages like C or Fortran or Basic or many others, if I want to add “1” to each cell in a map called “themap”, I do this:

For thelatitude = 1 to 180
For thelongitude = 1 to 360
themap[thelatitude, thelongitude] = themap[thelatitude, thelongitude] + 1
Next thelongitude
Next thelatitude

I have to go and manually add one to each cell. In R, on the other hand, you simply say

themap = themap + 1

Which one is “enigmatic” on your planet? Which is easier to write and debug?

Neither do I have time [to] couch everything in flowery language and conditionals , so please take comments in the spirit they are intended and not get shirty. As you know, I am supportive of what you are suggesting, I’m not trying criticise it other than to improve it and make it more convincing to others who will want to break it.

Greg, I don’t care about “flowery language”. But when you don’t know what variables do, accusing me of using “crude rounding” doesn’t cut it. If you don’t know, ask.

Finally, you say that I know that you are “supportive of what [I am] suggesting” … sadly, I know no such thing. Are you the same “Greg” that was “Greg” last time? There are so many players and so many aliases, I don’t try to keep people identified. I react comment by comment. And normally, I just look at an accusation that I’m making mistakes, from someone who admittedly hasn’t parsed the code, and go “BZZZZT! Next contestant, please”.

But actually, in your case, I guessed that you were that Greg and not any of the many other Gregs on my many posts, and so I answered your boorish accusations that I’d made some crude error. Otherwise, I’d have just skipped over it. I’ve got little time for people who accuse me of errors without reading the code. I repackaged it and parsed it and cleaned it up so it could be usable, and I’m willing to answer questions about it.

But claims I’ve made a “crude” error when you haven’t read the code? Sorry, not on.

w.

PS—Plus, I don’t often make crude errors. In the spirit of full disclosure I must confess that I have made sophisticated, far-reaching, subtle, and too often devastatingly bad errors … but they are rarely crude.

100. Greg says:

Phil says: “Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.”

Cool that makes 200% then. Let’s call this Light Amplification by Simulated [sic] Emission of Radiation.

Wow! LASER clouds, I’d always wondered what all those lines in the sky were when I’d eaten mushrooms ;)

101. Willis, I feel so sorry that you constantly fall into the traps of AGW and this post is a good
example that you are unwilling to learn!
Two points, 1.) you employ the 340 W/m2 value as a fixed value (which is 1361 W/m2 divided by 4), but this TSI-value is an artifical construct for the solar OUTPUT, and the real Earth solar INPUT varies between 1318 and 1408, changing daily).
The IPCC agreed in 2006 to drop the SPIRAL advance of the elliptic Earth´s orbit around the Sun, fixing the OUTPUT of the Sun as the averaged INPUT (Insolation on Earth), which is not a, but THE major lie of the IPCC.
Therefore, in YOUR argument, you keep the effect of the Earth orbit as irrelevant or as Zero.
2.) as CERES shows, [and soon as the launch of the new RAVAN satellite in 2015 will show], there is a greater heat loss (outwelling from Earth into space) than solar inwelling. The increasing solar inwelling since the LIA (17.century) , due to a favourable Earth orbit closer to the Sun (a centuries long warming run of Earth around the Sun), stipulated the IPCC imagination that there has to be an equilibrium between inwelling and outwelling….. another false assumption, which both the measurents of CERES and of the Stockholm insolation of 50 years do not confirm.
Willis, free yourself from Warmist manure and keep going with critical eyes…Cheers JS.

102. Trick says:

Mark 11:46am: Then the center panel of Fig. 1 would apply. I’m interested in the view developed in top post resulting in the right most Fig. 1 panel. The mechanism of albedo change compensation in developing that view is interesting for discussion.

103. Michael J. Dunn says:

Alas, I do not have time to read the entire discussion to this point, but it seems that something has been missed or misunderstood at the outset. Basically, any “greenhouse” gas functions as a beamsplitter, reradiating any absorbed radiation both upwards and downwards. When there is scarcely any GH gas, there is no impediment. When the GH gas is “saturated” (no further addition will significantly alter the effective width and amplitude of the absorption spectrum, which is total for the defined width), the split will be 50-50. Intermediate values give intermediate results. Willis’s diagrams do not show this.

I used to work problems in radiative heat transfer when analyzing effects of high energy laser weapons, and the physics are the same. (By the way, a similar process occurs in the shortwave spectrum for blue, indigo, violet, and ultraviolet light, which is sent both up and down by Rayleigh scattering. If you don’t believe in down-scattered shortwave radiation, walk outside and check the color of the sky.)

104. “Anyhow, that’s today’s news from CERES … the longwave and the reflected shortwave is strongly negatively correlated, and averages -0.65 globally. This strongly supports my theory that the earth has a strong active thermoregulation system…”

Phil. is right on this one. The negative correlation is just a matter of the arithmetic used. Here is just one of many accounts on what CERES measures. It says:
“Each CERES instrument measures filtered radiances in the shortwave (SW; wavelengths between 0.3 and 5 µm), total (TOT; wavelengths between 0.3 and 200 µm), and window (WN; wavelengths between 8 and 12 µm) regions…”
“Since there is no LW channel on CERES, LW daytime radiances are determined from the difference between the TOT and SW channel radiances.”

IOW, what you are describing as upwelling LW is just (SW+LW)-SW. And since upwelling (SW+LW) pretty much balances incoming SW (solar constant), negative correlation comes from that arithmetic.

105. Bulsit says:

In atmosphere temperatures gases dosen’t practically emit or absorb any heat radiation (emission/absorbing factor 0,002 aprox), only in higher temperatures over 600C you can measure something like 0,05, in 1500C something like 0,2. Gases emits radiation only when they burn, basic thermodynamics, look Hottel tables. Tiny water droplets (humidity) is water and they absorb and emits much much better. There is norhing like greenhousegases in atmosphere as someone thinks. Heat transfer between ground and air is well over 99% only by conduction. Learn how heat transfers between different materials.

106. Greg Goodman says:

Willis, I did not say you’d made “crude errors” I said crude rounding. I don’t think there is an error just a lack of clarity. Maybe I should have said not precise rather than not accurate but something that is not precise when a precise value is available is not accurate.

The point was that from 0.6 to 1.0 is a big jump in correlation coeff.

I may be mistaken but all I see are the six individual colours on the graph. Any impression of nuance is adjacent pixels giving a blended effect.

regards. Greg.

107. Mark Bofill says:

Trick,

Then the center panel of Fig. 1 would apply.

How do you figure that? I must be misunderstanding you. You appear to be saying that either temperatures are absolutely fixed in place or that they must be completely unregulated. I don’t understand what basis you have for making that assertion. Well, that or I simply don’t understand what you’re saying.

108. Greg Goodman says:

Could you suggest how I can get more than the six graduations on the temp scale ?

109. Trick says:

Michael 12:13pm: Willis has written above his diagrams are simplified, not showing some things.

BTW, all else equal, if earth had a pure argon atm., and you then walked outside from your proper environmental hut in a clear helmet spacesuit and checked the color of the sky, what color would you observe?

******

Mark 12:18pm: The albedo doesn’t compensate (392 changes up from 390) in center panel. In the right panel the albedo does compensate (390 unchanged). What is the interesting mechanism for this albedo compensation making 390 unchanged?

110. Mark Bofill says:

Trick,

Perhaps the cloud albedo compensation mechanism is imperfect one that does not completely compensate for changes, yet retards them to a large extent nonetheless. Who the heck knows?

111. Trick says:

Mark 12:35pm: “Who the heck knows?”

112. Robert Clemenzi says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:12 am

Robert Clemenzi says:
January 8, 2014 at 6:22 am

What most people miss is that the majority of the radiation is absorbed less than one foot from the surface.

I don’t believe that for one minute. Citation?

Sorry – I misspoke. At 14,981.2nm, 63% of the IR energy is absorbed in 0.259 meters. However, that is the CO2 peak, not the average. The average is more inline with the numbers you provided.

For water vapor at 60%RH, in the 42 to 200 um band 63% absorption is typically in less than 2 meters, but with many spikes going to an inch or less. However, this again is not the overall average for the full spectrum – 4 to 500 um.

For these numbers I use a program that computes the spectrum using the HITRAN data. I apologize for not checking the graphs before making the post.

113. Willis:

My bible in these matters, “The Climate Near The Ground” by Geiger, says that going the other way, downwelling radiation, the situation looks like this:

Layer thickness Percent share of downwelling radiation

1st 87 metres above the ground — 72%
Next 89 metres above the ground — 6.4%
Next 91 metres above the ground — 4%

So the majority (72%) of the downwelling radiation comes from the first 300 feet of atmosphere above us, and 82% comes from the first thousand feet. Given that, the idea that the upwelling radiation is absorbed in a single foot of atmosphere seems highly unlikely.

w.

I’ve got an old Meteorolgy Text which has the citation for some work done in the 60’s using a tall tower in Texas that shows this conclusion to have merit. I’ll try to find the citation for you! (When I’m home. I’m working now to…doing FEA work, runs that take 15 minutes to 45 minutes. You probably have an idea of how complicated they are! BUT they are also backed by a variety of “reality checks”…)

114. Phil. says:

Greg says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Phil says: “Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.”

Cool that makes 200% then. Let’s call this Light Amplification by Simulated [sic] Emission of Radiation.

No it’s standard light scattering, that’s exactly what happens nothing to do with emission or lasers (which are phenomenally inefficient by the way).
Read page 130 of this text for example:
http://www.che.utah.edu/~ring/ChE-6960/Chapter_5_Ring.pdf
The classic text on the subject is by van der Hulst which is extensively referred to in this reference. As far as I know it’s out of print now.

Wow! LASER clouds, I’d always wondered what all those lines in the sky were when I’d eaten mushrooms ;)

Stay away from those mushrooms!

115. Greg Goodman says:

Nick Stokes: “IOW, what you are describing as upwelling LW is just (SW+LW)-SW. And since upwelling (SW+LW) pretty much balances incoming SW (solar constant), negative correlation comes from that arithmetic.”

Sounds like reasonable argument, if that is the case, so in that case how can you explain the vast areas with low correlation? Everything should necessarily have strong neg. correlation.

116. Greg Goodman says:

Phil says: “Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.”

I don’t know what you though you were saying but that is patent nonsense, you can not both absorb and scatter 100% of anything.

Neither have you understood the pdf that you refer me to.

One thing I have done in the past is worked on numerical modelling of scattering of E-M radiation by atmospheric aerosols, rain, hail, sleet and slightly melted hail with a liquid surface….. heavy rain light rain, mixed rain with various models of raindrop size distribution, etc, etc. Our results were within 10% of empirically measured results.

But you don’t need professional experience to realise you can’t have your cake and scatter it.

117. Robert Clemenzi says:

Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:54 am

Robert Clemenzi says:
January 8, 2014 at 6:22 am
Richard111 says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:02 am

Please, just what energy is CO2 absorbing from the surface?

CO2 both absorbs and emits in the same frequency band – IR at about 15 microns. When the temperature of the air is lower than the temperature of the surface, CO2 absorbs more than it emits. When the ground is cooler, then the CO2 emits more than it absorbs.

Not correct because the emission by the CO2 is not immediate and is orders of magnitude slower than loss of energy by collisions to surrounding molecules when in the lower troposphere. In that region of the atmosphere CO2 always absorbs more than it emits.

Whether or not the emission is immediate is not relevant. Over land, it is fairly common for the atmosphere to be warmer than the surface. As a result, when there is a temperature inversion, CO2 emits more IR radiation than it absorbs.

118. michael hammer says:

As you say, the cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis is that increasing GHG reducs outgoing longwave radiation ot space (OLR). ONe of the most repoutabel sites for climate data is NOAA. They publish a month by month record of the measured OLR since 1980. I have downloaded and analysed this data as have others. It shows that between 1980 and 2010 OLR increased by 2.5 watts/sqM. To put the magnitude of this into perspective, a half doubling of CO2 (which is what we have since about 1900) would have reduced OLR by about 1.5 watts/sqM so the 2.5 increase is far from trivial. That, all by itself is enough to cast serious doubt on the entire theory of AGW. Jennifer Marohasy has been kind enough to post an article by me which covers this in somehwat more detail. Article title “AGW Falsified: NOAA Long Wave Radiation Data Incompatible with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming”

119. Willis Eschenbach says:

Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:42 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:35 am

• However, clouds are the opposite of transparent to emitted LW. In fact, they are generally considered as blackbodies for IR purposes, as they absorb ≈ 100% of incident longwave radiation.

Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.

Huh? Typo on your part? You can’t both scatter and absorb 100%. Scatter is reflection. If you reflect 100% there’s nothing to absorb.

Next, clouds both absorb and reflect a variable amount of light, depending on the type and the thickness of the cloud. In no case is it anything like 100% for either one.

In any case, we were discussing longwave (IR) radiation, not light radiation.

Best regards,

w.

120. Greg Goodman says: January 8, 2014 at 1:03 pm
“Sounds like reasonable argument, if that is the case, so in that case how can you explain the vast areas with low correlation?”

I said “pretty much balances”. It’s globally constrained by conservation of energy. But there can be temporary storage of energy by cooling or warming the atmosphere (and the ocean, on a slower timescale). And spatial deviations due to circulation patterns moving heat around (so energy from incoming SW is still emitted, but not all where it entered).

121. Willis Eschenbach says:

J.Seifert says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:05 pm

Willis, I feel so sorry that you constantly fall into the traps of AGW and this post is a good
example that you are unwilling to learn!
Two points, 1.) you employ the 340 W/m2 value as a fixed value (which is 1361 W/m2 divided by 4), but this TSI-value is an artifical construct for the solar OUTPUT, and the real Earth solar INPUT varies between 1318 and 1408, changing daily).

Do your homework first, J. The code is posted. Nowhere in the entire analysis do I “employ the 340 W/m2 value as a fixed value”. In fact, this analysis doesn’t use the CERES solar dataset at all, so your entire claim is a total fabrication, BS stem to stern.

In other words, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about, but you insist on your right to tell me I’m wrong. You are a pathetic SIF, a “single interest fanatic” who tries to relate everything to one issue. In your case, the one issue relates to the fact that you don’t seem to understand the concept of averaging … but you’re willing to tell everyone they are wrong about averaging the solar radiation, EVEN PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF WHO ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOWNWELLING SOLAR RADIATION AT ALL.

So let me request that you go find some thread that actually relates to your fanaticism, and leave me alone.

w.

122. Willis Eschenbach says:

Michael J. Dunn says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:13 pm

Alas, I do not have time to read the entire discussion to this point, but it seems that something has been missed or misunderstood at the outset.

Thanks, Michael. It would help if you told us what you think you missed or misunderstood …

Basically, any “greenhouse” gas functions as a beamsplitter, reradiating any absorbed radiation both upwards and downwards. When there is scarcely any GH gas, there is no impediment. When the GH gas is “saturated” (no further addition will significantly alter the effective width and amplitude of the absorption spectrum, which is total for the defined width), the split will be 50-50. Intermediate values give intermediate results. Willis’s diagrams do not show this.

Which “this” are you referring to that should show up in my graphs? And why would you expect whatever “this” is to show up in my analysis?

My analysis above relates to the changes in IR compared to the changes in reflected SW … where do you see anything about beamsplitters, or saturation, or what the amount of the split either is or should be? I could analyze that, it’s worth doing, actually I’ve done it and not published it … but that’s not this analysis.

w.

123. Willis Eschenbach says:

Stephen Rasey says:
January 8, 2014 at 8:42 am

Good work, Willis.

Thanks, Stephen.

The phrase “removal of the seasonal signal” begs the question of what the data looks like seasonally. Would it be possible to see the correlation map for Dec-Jan, Mar-Apr, and/or June-July?

There seems to be some confusion, my responsibility. By the “seasonal signal” I meant the month-by-month average variations in the signal, also called the “seasonality” or the “climatology”.

To remove the seasonal signal, I average the data by month, express the averages as an anomaly around zero, and subtract the corresponding monthly average from each month’s worth of data.

In response to your question, if you don’t remove the month-by-month averages (the “seasonal signal) from the data, you get the following map:

Curious, huh? I suspected that this mostly reflected the seasonal changes rather than what happens in a month where it is warmer or cooler than average. So I removed the seasonality from the signal.

Thanks,

w.

124. Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 10:35 am
“Huh? Typo on your part? You can’t both scatter and absorb 100%.”

Not perfectly expressed, but the idea is right. Here is the vander Hulst relation. For long wavelength, Q is 2. That is the sum of absorption (1) and scattering, as a fraction of absorption. The amount of incident light scattered is equal to that absorbed. That includes light that was not going to hit the particle directly.

125. Willis Eschenbach says:

Nick Stokes says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:15 pm

The negative correlation is just a matter of the arithmetic used. Here is just one of many accounts on what CERES measures. It says:
“Each CERES instrument measures filtered radiances in the shortwave (SW; wavelengths between 0.3 and 5 µm), total (TOT; wavelengths between 0.3 and 200 µm), and window (WN; wavelengths between 8 and 12 µm) regions…”
“Since there is no LW channel on CERES, LW daytime radiances are determined from the difference between the TOT and SW channel radiances.”

IOW, what you are describing as upwelling LW is just (SW+LW)-SW.

Gosh, you mean that LW is equal to SW + LW – SW? Gotta say that’s a real shock, right up there with 4 = 7 + 4 – 7 … what’s your point?

And since upwelling (SW+LW) pretty much balances incoming SW (solar constant), negative correlation comes from that arithmetic.

You say that incoming solar is about equal to upwelling SW + LW. While this is generally true for the planet when averaged on a yearly basis, it is not true in any sense for the individual gridcells. On a gridcell y gridcell basis, the range for (solar – longwave – reflected) ranges from -200 W m-2 to + 200 W m-2. Not only that, the interquartile range is from -110 W/m2 to +60 W/m2 … and you call that “pretty much balances”???

Run the numbers first before bothering us with your theories, there’s a good fellow. Right now, I’m doing your homework for you and finding your errors, which doesn’t do your reputation any good.

w.

126. timetochooseagain says:

Willis, I am trying to better understand your position based on the diagram you have offered. It *appears* that:

Your expectation is that any change in the strength of the planet’s greenhouse effect is reacted to directly by the planet’s albedo, in an equal and opposite direction, the end result being that the surface temperature will be the same as it was before. But having left the passage of time out of this analysis leaves the question whether you expect this to occur instantaneously or…? On some unspecified timescale? At any rate: based upon this it appears your contention is that: the same absolute surface temperature could sustain a higher or lower albedo, and the albedo is, in effect, determined by the strength of the greenhouse effect, not the surface temperature. Is this correct?

127. Interesting to see how the various commenters are beginning to diverge.

Willis is right in his observations and he realises the practical implications but IMHO still needs to do a bit more thinking to see the mechanisms involved. He is currently ‘stuck’ on GHGs as being necessary for a convective cycle whereas they are not needed at all. They just help to ‘lubricate’ the convective cycle.

The usual ‘warmist’ proponents are making more and more picky points about irrelevant aspects and are avoiding the main issues.

Some, like rgb, are getting very close to envisioning the reality. He sees the effectiveness of the hydrological cycle as a system lubricant but has yet to realise that the convective cycle can do the job for a relatively non-radiative atmosphere even if the albedo changes can only be effected by wind kicking up dust from a dry surface.

The simplest description is that the sum of convection and radiation must leave the correct amount of thermal energy (KE) at the effective radiating height to match energy in with energy out. Otherwise no atmosphere.

If it does not, then convection moves energy around (KE to PE and back again) as necessary and the less radiative gases there are in an atmosphere the harder the convective cycle has to work to maintain equilibrium.

The convective cycle will alter albedo by whatever means are available even if that involves merely violent winds whipping up dust from the surface as seen on Mars.

Interesting times :)

128. Willis Eschenbach says:

Bulsit says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:15 pm

In atmosphere temperatures gases dosen’t practically emit or absorb any heat radiation (emission/absorbing factor 0,002 aprox), only in higher temperatures over 600C you can measure something like 0,05, in 1500C something like 0,2.

Dear heavens, the fog is thick out there today.

Yes, Bulsit, there is an emissivity for gases … but no, it’s not 0.002. For any particular gas, he emissivity depends on the frequency of the radiation, and varies from 0 to about 1. See the flux emissivity tables and discussion here.

And don’t try to impress us with your wisdom until you have some. Your claim is patent nonsense that any serious researcher would just laugh at.

w.

129. Nick Stokes says:

Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 2:06 pm

The point is that what you have described as LW is not an independent measure of upwelling LW, according to CERES. It is obtained by subtracting measured SW from measured total upwelling. And since total upwelling is constrained to balance TSI (cons en), with temporary variations due to environmental heating/cooling and spatial fluctuations due to heat circulation, the variation of “LW” is mainly determined by SW, and so must correlate (negatively).

130. Matthew R Marler says:

That’s nice. With the seasonal effects removed, I was surprised by the large size of the correlation.

131. Willis Eschenbach says:

Greg Goodman says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:17 pm

Willis, I did not say you’d made “crude errors” I said crude rounding. I don’t think there is an error just a lack of clarity. Maybe I should have said not precise rather than not accurate but something that is not precise when a precise value is available is not accurate.

Greg, you came in the door and rather than saying something like “I didn’t bother reading your code, so I have a question about rounding”, which would be passable, you said my numbers were “not too accurate” and that I had engaged in “crude rounding” … both of which were nonsense and a complete fabrication on your part. I did neither one.

I’m just saying that if you don’t know something, ASK. You didn’t have a clue what the “roundto” variable did, but despite that you accused me of using “crude rounding” … and all the while, my legend numbers were accurate to 100 decimal places.

You should ask if you don’t understand, because falsely accusing me of putting out inaccurate numbers and using “crude rounding”, when NEITHER ACCUSATION CONTAINED A SHRED OF TRUTH, will not win you any bonus points.

Best regards,

w.

132. Matthew R Marler says:

Nick Stokes: The point is that what you have described as LW is not an independent measure of upwelling LW, according to CERES. It is obtained by subtracting measured SW from measured total upwelling. And since total upwelling is constrained to balance TSI (cons en), with temporary variations due to environmental heating/cooling and spatial fluctuations due to heat circulation, the variation of “LW” is mainly determined by SW, and so must correlate (negatively).

Clearly that is an important issue that must be resolved. Willis, is Nick correct about how LW is measured?

133. 1sky1 says:

Willis:

You’re on the right track in recognizing that increased LWIR absorption by the atmosphere need NOT necessarily lead to increased surface temperatures. The “homeostatic” regulating mechanism, however, is not likely an increase in planetary albedo, as you speculate in apparent contradiction of your own findings from CERES data. Far more fundamental is the reduction in the insolation available for thermalization near the surface. A dusty atmosphere reduces the power density by tens of W/m^2 and a cloudy one by hundreds, thereby cutting the core supply of solar energy to the surface. As I’ve been trying to get across in my comments on your series of recent posts, what happens high aloft in the planetary “energy budget” is not the critical factor. It’s the near-surface processes that matter most!

134. Willis Eschenbach says:

Nick Stokes says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:18 pm

Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 2:06 pm

The point is that what you have described as LW is not an independent measure of upwelling LW, according to CERES. It is obtained by subtracting measured SW from measured total upwelling.

Thanks, Nick. I thought I went over this. Yes, the LW is equal to SW + LW – SW.

And yes, 4 is equal to 7 + 4 – 7 … again, what is your point? Does that make 4 the wrong answer?

And since total upwelling is constrained to balance TSI (cons en), with temporary variations due to environmental heating/cooling and spatial fluctuations due to heat circulation, the variation of “LW” is mainly determined by SW, and so must correlate (negatively).

No, no, no, there is no constraint that either the gridcells or the total radiation balance at any instant that we might care to measure them. The calculation LW = Overall (LW+SW) – SW is done on the instantaneous measurements, not on global annual averages. Thus, there is no constraint.

The CERES data doesn’t measure total radiation. It only measures gridcell by gridcell radiation. And that data is not constrained in the slightest, as I pointed out.

If your claim were true, then the LW-SW correlation would be the same everywhere, because it would be constrained … but it isn’t that way at all. Instead, the gridcell correlation ranges from -0.97 to + 0.25, and the gridcell “balance” ranges from -200 to + 200 W/m2 … so please, give up the claim that the gridcells are “constrained to balance”.

Finally, month-by-month the net TOA data are also characterized by imbalance, not balance. In June the net is minus ~10 W/m2, and in January it’s about -10 W/m2.

So at no point in time are either the individual gridcells or the overall total constrained to balance.

w.

135. Greg Goodman says:

here is the graph rescaled to clarify the range -0.5 to -1 . This is not supposed to be better or replace fig 2 but give a more detailed look at part of it. A finer colour scale over the range +0.25 to -1 would be better.

Now we need to know what sort of correlation coeffs can considered significant.

Each cell has 13 years of monthly data. but this has been ‘deseasonalised’ which is crude kind of 12m low-pass filter and effectively reduces the number of degrees of freedom by a factor of twelve, so we are back to 13 independent readings.

with N=13:
-1.0/N+2.0/sqrt(N) = 0.48

So anything out of the red can be considered with 95% confidence to show correlation that is non random. So that means that the four regions close to land that were comment on by myself and others, are showing no significant correlation. Willis’ dark blue contour is quite close to showing the limit of significant correlation.

Since Willis understands the arcane workings of R far better than I , perhaps he can clarify how the colour banding works. I’m guessing that anything blue here is between -0.9 and -1.0 , though it could be 0.75 to 0.85.

136. Hm, I don’t see want to be all negative, but do you have any explanation, or at least an idea/ hypothesis to what the cause of this increased reflection can be?

To me it seems like you have just shown the obvious fact that increased SW warms the surface which gives increased LW, and vice versa. Or am I missing something?

/Jan

137. Willis Eschenbach says:

Nick Stokes says:
January 8, 2014 at 1:56 pm

Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 10:35 am
“Huh? Typo on your part? You can’t both scatter and absorb 100%.”

Not perfectly expressed, but the idea is right.

Nick, Phil claimed that clouds absorbed and scattered 100% of the light.

Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:42 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:35 am

• However, clouds are the opposite of transparent to emitted LW. In fact, they are generally considered as blackbodies for IR purposes, as they absorb ≈ 100% of incident longwave radiation.

Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.

Now, there is likely an idea somewhere kinda sorta near to what Phil said that is right.

But no, Nick, Phil’s idea is not “right” as you claim. It is called “wrong” when someone claims that clouds both absorb and scatter 100% of the light.

As to what idea similar to Phil’s might be right … what does that have to do with the topic of the thread, or with my comment on IR that Phil was ostensibly answering to … and why should I care?

w.

138. Willis Eschenbach says:

Matthew R Marler says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:27 pm

Nick Stokes: The point is that what you have described as LW is not an independent measure of upwelling LW, according to CERES. It is obtained by subtracting measured SW from measured total upwelling. And since total upwelling is constrained to balance TSI (cons en), with temporary variations due to environmental heating/cooling and spatial fluctuations due to heat circulation, the variation of “LW” is mainly determined by SW, and so must correlate (negatively).

Clearly that is an important issue that must be resolved. Willis, is Nick correct about how LW is measured?

He is right about how Lw is measured, but that is meaningless. Whether it is measured directly or indirectly, so what?

He is wrong, however, about constraints. There is no constraint that there be a net TOA balance at any given instant at either the local or global level … and we are dealing with a string of instantaneous measurements.

w.

139. Greg Goodman says:

It seems that the red areas are being decorrelated by the influence of cooler waters being dragged in by the major ocean gyres , as I suggested earlier.

It may be worth checking this against a graph of mean SST but it seems there is a temperature limit below which this regulatory effect does not work. Since it’s all based on evaporation, clouds and storms that is probably consistent with Willis’ hypothesis.

If too much of the SST in a region is below that ‘trigger’ value, the feedback won’t happen.

140. Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 2:51 pm
“Yes, the LW is equal to SW + LW – SW. And yes, 4 is equal to 7 + 4 – 7 … again, what is your point? Does that make 4 the wrong answer?”

It makes it something you can’t usefully correlate with 7. “LW”=Tot-SW. Tot and SW are independently measured, with independent errors. You’re correlating “LW” with something (SW) that was used in the arithmetic from which it is derived.

If you correlate daily T_SFO with T_LAX, it will probably be positive. If it’s warm in SFO, it’s more likely than not to be warm in LAX. But if you correlate with T_LAX – T_SFO, that will likely be negative. T_LAX is partly correlated, but -T_SFO totally.

I’ve emphasised that TOT is subjected to a global energy constraint. But even if it weren’t, it’s the arithmetic link between “LW” and SW which makes correlation with SW unwise.

141. Greg Goodman says:

To me it seems like you have just shown the obvious fact that increased SW warms the surface which gives increased LW, and vice versa. Or am I missing something?

/Jan

In a word, yes. The correlation is _negative_ ie. increased SW produces LESS LW out , if you want to see the causation the way around. That means more the surface heats more it retains that heat. sounds like run-away warming tipping points to me.

However, if conditions which produce more LW out also produce a reduction in incoming SW, that causality would be a stabilising negative feedback.

So do we see run away warming in tropics when sun is overhead or do we see a fairly hard limit on max SST in tropics. Which interpretation fits the facts?

142. Willis Eschenbach says:

1sky1 says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm

Willis:

You’re on the right track in recognizing that increased LWIR absorption by the atmosphere need NOT necessarily lead to increased surface temperatures. The “homeostatic” regulating mechanism, however, is not likely an increase in planetary albedo, as you speculate in apparent contradiction of your own findings from CERES data. Far more fundamental is the reduction in the insolation available for thermalization near the surface. A dusty atmosphere reduces the power density by tens of W/m^2 and a cloudy one by hundreds, thereby cutting the core supply of solar energy to the surface. As I’ve been trying to get across in my comments on your series of recent posts, what happens high aloft in the planetary “energy budget” is not the critical factor. It’s the near-surface processes that matter most!

Thanks, sky. It is true that something on the order of 80 W/m2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. It is also true that energy absorbed in the atmosphere cools the system compared to the same energy hitting the surface.

However, as my series of articles on volcanoes shows, the global temperature is remarkably insensitive to dust in the air. I hold that this is because as soon as the planet starts to cool, the tropical albedo drops, and thus more energy enters the system to restore the equilibrium.

We know that this is true from the correlation of albedo with temperature in the tropics, which is strongly positive—the warmer it gets, the higher the albedo gets from increased clouds, and vice-versa. So when the earth cools from e.g. airborne dust, we get less tropical clouds, and thus more sunlight to compensate for the loss.

So I fear to say, the “critical factor” as you call it is not the amount of sunlight intercepted by dust. The critical factor is that there is a thermoregulatory system in place which keeps the temperature from varying much, despite large variations in radiation due to things like the amount of atmospheric dust.

w.

143. Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm
“Nick, Phil claimed that clouds absorbed and scattered 100% of the light.”

No, he said:
“Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.”
and that’s true in the van de Hulst formula, large radius limit (not large wavelength, as I wrongly said).

As to why you should care, I don’t know. Greg cares. I’m just noting what the formula says.

144. Greg Goodman says:

Nick , in what way is SW + LW – SW correlated to SW ?

145. Greg Goodman says:

” I’m just noting what the formula says.”
the formula says 50%=50% not 100%+100% . What Phil said was confused and wrong. If he had said 50% absorbed and as much scattered, no one would have commented. It would have been correct but irrelevant.

I tried to point out his error in a light-hearted way but he didn’t get it. Too subtle I suppose. Can we drop that now?

146. Greg Goodman says:

Nick , in what way is SW + LW – SW necessarily correlated to SW ?

147. Willis Eschenbach says:

Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:56 pm

Hm, I don’t see want to be all negative, but do you have any explanation, or at least an idea/ hypothesis to what the cause of this increased reflection can be?

To me it seems like you have just shown the obvious fact that increased SW warms the surface which gives increased LW, and vice versa. Or am I missing something?

/Jan

Jan, the SW in question is upwelling SW reflected from the clouds.

HTH,

w.

148. Greg Goodman says:

Alec Rawls: “But there is also a simpler explanation for this anti-correlation. Where clouds block incoming solar the planet below warms less, leading to less outgoing LW. ”

Same error as Jan it seems. Positive correlation.

149. mellyrn says:

I wish someone would address Tim Groves’ comment of 1/7/14 11:41pm. I too see it as just logic that CO2 would block incoming LW just exactly as it blocks “upwelling” LW. Please advise?

150. 1sky1 says:

Willis:

You say: “So I fear to say, the “critical factor” as you call it is not the amount of sunlight intercepted by dust.”

I cited insolation-reducing dust only as an example of a factor aloft. Although it does reduce daytime surface temperatures when encountered, nowhere did I refer to it as a CRITICAL factor on any climatic time-scale.

151. Jim Butts says:

We have three measured quantities, energy incident on the earth from the sun (downwelling solar= constant= 340 w/m2) , visible wavelength energy reflected (upwelling solar ), and upwelling LWIR. Since for equilibrium, downwelling solar= upwelling solar + upwelling LWIR, and since downwelling solar is constant, the upwelling components must be negatively correlated; that is when one goes up the other must go down. Not surprising that the data show this.

However, this says nothing about the average surface temperature of the earth or global warming. The greenhouse effect is real—- have you not noticed the temperature of your car when you leave the windows up on a sunny day. I believe, however, the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant — generally agreed to be only about 1 deg K with a doubling of CO2.

152. Greg Goodman says: January 8, 2014 at 3:31 pm
“Nick , in what way is SW + LW – SW correlated to SW ?”

By arithmetic. If LW=measured Tot – measured SW, and you correlate LW with SW, you’re measuring how changes in SW match changes in LW. But if SW rises by 1 unit, for whatever reason, , that guarantees a drop component of 1 unit in LW, to which is added a statistical change in Tot. That guaranteed component (via -SW) weighs heavily and artificially in the correlation.

153. rgbatduke says:

I’ve emphasised that TOT is subjected to a global energy constraint. But even if it weren’t, it’s the arithmetic link between “LW” and SW which makes correlation with SW unwise.

No interest in playing referee here, but I don’t quite understand this. Suppose we measure an aggregate quantity. Total income of humans in various geographic cells. We also measure the total income of women in those same geographic cells in a separate measurement (we can imagine both are measured to reasonable precision by independent sampling). We can then infer the total income of men by subtracting the total income of women from the total income. This measurement/inference is, no doubt, less precise than either the measurement of total income or the measurement of the income of women, but I see no justification for an assertion that the correlation between women’s income and men’s income will be negative as an artifact of the measuring process. Especially when it is not, in fact, uniformly negative on the sample space.

So you’ll have to explain this. Lower precision, sure. But since the total energy per cell is not constrained to any particular value, I’m not sure that I agree with your assertion that there is a necessary, or even probable, anticorrelation.

rgb

154. Eric Barnes says:

Another excellent article. Thanks Willis! :)

155. phlogiston says:

Willis’ hypothesis and that also of Bill Illis and others of negative thermal feedback by cloud SW albedo is strongly supported by the negative correlation nicely shown by CERES exactly where it would be expected, i.e. the equatorial oceans.

There are a couple of factors that make me feel that there may be additional LW negative feedback:

1. One classic aspect of AGW theory is that CO2 cools the stratosphere decreasing the LW emission height. But a decreased emission height must also mean an emission height with a higher density of air molecules meaning, in turn, increased LW emission.

2. Turbulence and surface area – this is an argument from geometry. It has been stated upthread that both radiative and convective heat transfer in the atmosphere depend on temperature gradient. They must equally depend on the surface area over which this temperature gradient exists. What is this surface area? Is it just assumed to be 4 pi r sqrd at the emission height? This would be wrong if the surface with gradient (boundary between warm and cold) is complex – folded and crinkly – rather than smooth.

Two things will increase the surface area of the emission surface: (1) increased heat input to the atmosphere from CO2 IR will increase turbulence, increasing the emission surface area; (2) decreasing the emission height to a lower altitude that will also be more turbulent, will also increase the emission surface area.

Thus there may be LW as well as SW negative feedback in response to CO2 atmospheric warming.

156. janus says:

Wikipedia:
“…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation. At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, with more than three times the fraction of ultraviolet (UV), with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically-damaging shortwave ultraviolet.[3][4][5]…”

You state:
“…the incoming radiation, 340 watts per metre squared (W/m2)…”

Can you explain to an ignorant where the difference comes from?

157. Phil. says:

Greg Goodman says:
January 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Phil says: “Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.”

I don’t know what you though you were saying but that is patent nonsense, you can not both absorb and scatter 100% of anything.

Actually you do, it is the Fraunhofer limit of particle size large wrt the wavelength scattering is equal to absorption and the extinction coefficient is equal to 2.0. You should have read the material I referred you to.

Neither have you understood the pdf that you refer me to.
I certainly did I’ve written something similar about 20 times in publications on the subject!
It’s not difficult when it opens with:
“For particles much larger than the wavelength of the incident light, the scattering efficiency approaches 2. That is, a large particle removes from the beam twice the amount of light intercepted by its geometric cross-sectional area. What is the explanation for this paradox?”

One thing I have done in the past is worked on numerical modelling of scattering of E-M radiation by atmospheric aerosols, rain, hail, sleet and slightly melted hail with a liquid surface….. heavy rain light rain, mixed rain with various models of raindrop size distribution, etc, etc. Our results were within 10% of empirically measured results.

But you don’t need professional experience to realise you can’t have your cake and scatter it.

Apparently you do and I guess mine trumps yours.

158. Phil. says:

Robert Clemenzi says:
January 8, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:54 am

“Not correct because the emission by the CO2 is not immediate and is orders of magnitude slower than loss of energy by collisions to surrounding molecules when in the lower troposphere. In that region of the atmosphere CO2 always absorbs more than it emits.”

Whether or not the emission is immediate is not relevant. Over land, it is fairly common for the atmosphere to be warmer than the surface. As a result, when there is a temperature inversion, CO2 emits more IR radiation than it absorbs.

It’s very relevant because the energy absorbed by the CO2 molecule remains in an excited state for long enough for it to be deactivated collisionally and that is the primary mode of energy transfer from the excited molecule in the lower atmosphere. CO2 does not emit more IR radiation than it absorbs.

michael hammer says:
January 8, 2014 at 1:26 pm
—————————————
Michael,
in your 2013 analysis of OLR at Jennifer Marohasy’s site you concluded –

“The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory
of AGW. It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW
is very severely flawed.”

I would point out that while inconsistent with AGW pseudo science, your analysis is entirely consistent with my claim that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability and that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is radiative cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

1. The net effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling.

2. The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is LWIR to space from radiative gases.

It really is that simple. AGW is a physical impossibility.

160. Phil. says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Nick Stokes says:
January 8, 2014 at 1:56 pm

Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 10:35 am
“Huh? Typo on your part? You can’t both scatter and absorb 100%.”

Not perfectly expressed, but the idea is right.

Nick, Phil claimed that clouds absorbed and scattered 100% of the light.

No Willis, I said that the droplets in the cloud scattered an equal amount of light to that absorbed, this is a fact. Intuition by the lay man doesn’t always get the right answer, particularly when quantum effects are involved. In fact while Q=2 is true for particles large wrt the wavelength for particles approximately equal to the wavelength it can be as high as 4. The light that is passing close to the drop has no waves downstream to interact with (because of absorption) and is scattered as a result.

161. timetochooseagain says:

Nick seems to be assuming that Total radiation is constant, in which case the correlation of SW with LW would be exactly -1 everywhere and always.

It’s not, because it’s not.

Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:39 pm
“CO2 does not emit more IR radiation than it absorbs.”
———————————-

Perhaps you might reconsider that claim.

The atmosphere is heated by –
-intercepted outgoing LWIR from the surface
-surface conduction
-release of latent heat

However there is only one effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere –
-LWIR to space from radiative gases

From the mid to upper troposphere radiative gases are emitting TWICE the energy to space than both the net flux of IR into the atmosphere and intercepted solar radiation combined.

CO2 is not just emitting to space energy it acquires by intercepting radiation, but also energy it acquires conductively.

163. 1sky1 says:

You’re taking a simple argument regarding radiative gases a bridge too far. ALL matter above zero Kelvin emits some radiation in the EM spectrum. This includes the nominally “inert” components of air: nitrogen, argon and oxygen. These bulk components are heated from below by conduction and convective eddy diffusion, as well as by molecular collisions with LWIR absorbent components. Adding radiative trace gases or–far more importantly–water vapor to the atmosphere does retard the radiative cooling of the surface by the corresponding back-radiated amount. It is the interplay of all these factors, along with cloud formation and dissipation, that makes the problem far more complex than you allow.

164. timetochooseagain says: January 8, 2014 at 5:59 pm
“Nick seems to be assuming that Total radiation is constant, in which case the correlation of SW with LW would be exactly -1 everywhere and always.”

That’s the extreme. But short of that, the fact that LW has an arithmetical component of SW is a strong push toward negative correlation. See next.

rgbatduke says: January 8, 2014 at 4:55 pm
“I’m not sure that I agree with your assertion that there is a necessary, or even probable, anticorrelation.

Two coins, A and B. Score 1 for heads, 0 for tails. After many simultaneous tosses, you find near zero correlation.

Now correlate A with C=B-A. Correlation coef about -1/sqrt(2). But nothing is physically correlated. It’s just the arithmetic.

165. timetochooseagain says:

@Nick Stokes-

If:
T = S + L
then making a linear model for S based on L if T is constant results, of course, in;
L = -1*S + C where C is a constant

Therefore deviations of the coefficient from -1 are indications that T is not constant.

But it appears to me that Willis’s hypothesis is equivalent to the idea that T should be approximately constant. If T was *so* inconstant as to make the correlation between S and L near zero, this would probably be evidence against Willis’s hypothesis. To the extent that the correlation deviates little from -1 it would tentatively constitute support for Willis’s hypothesis.

If the correlation had been -1 everywhere and always that would have been definitive proof of his hypothesis.

1sky1 says:
January 8, 2014 at 6:46 pm
—————————————————-
I would agree with much of what you have written.

“ALL matter above zero Kelvin emits some radiation in the EM spectrum. This includes the nominally “inert” components of air: nitrogen, argon and oxygen.”
Correct, and more important than most realise. If you remove strongly radiative gases from the atmosphere, air masses at altitude could no longer lose energy, buoyancy and subside. Full convective circulation in the Hadley Ferrel and Polar cell would then stall. The poorly radiative gases stagnated at altitude would then be subject to radiative superheating, just as in the thermosphere.

“These bulk components are heated from below by conduction and convective eddy diffusion, as well as by molecular collisions with LWIR absorbent components.”
You should also add that radiative gases are also absorbing energy by conductive contact with other gases that they then radiate to space .

“Adding radiative trace gases or–far more importantly–water vapour to the atmosphere does retard the radiative cooling of the surface by the corresponding back-radiated amount.”
Only 29% correct. Downwelling LWIR has no real effect over the oceans. Incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.

“It is the interplay of all these factors, along with cloud formation and dissipation, that makes the problem far more complex than you allow.”
The problem is far simpler than you would ever believe ;-)

Climate pseudo scientists calculated the black body surface Tav for an earth without an atmosphere as -18C then claimed a radiative greenhouse effect would raise this to the observed 15C surface Tav. But the ocean is a fluid body in a gravity field, and SB equations alone cannot derive its temperature profile.

Without an atmosphere our oceans would boil into the vacuum of space. However imagine a force field retaining them in the absence of an atmosphere. Now the ocean can be heated at depth by SW and only cool by outgoing LWIR from the surface. A desert may have a Tav of -18C without an atmosphere, but would this hold true for the oceans? Would they freeze over as climate scientists claim? If you have some “dark money” or a spare “big oil cheque” you can build an experiment to check this claim.

This experiment prevents evaporative cooling and almost prevents conductive cooling of a water sample heated below the surface by an intermittent high power SW source. LWIR back radiating onto the surface is virtually eliminated.

1sky1,
With a starting temperature of 15C, will the water sample freeze or will it reach around 80C?

If the sample heats to near 80C then AGW is a physical impossibility. The net effect of the atmosphere would then be surface cooling and the only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases.

What do you think the water sample will do?

167. Phil. says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 2:51 pm

The CERES data doesn’t measure total radiation. It only measures gridcell by gridcell radiation. And that data is not constrained in the slightest, as I pointed out.

According to CERES that’s exactly what they do!
“Each CERES instrument measures filtered radiances in the shortwave (SW; wavelengths between 0.3 and 5 μm), total (TOT; wavelengths between 0.3 and 200 μm), and window (WN; wavelengths between 8 and 12 μm) regions. To correct for the imperfect spectral response of the instrument, the filtered radiances are converted to unfiltered reflected solar, unfiltered emitted terrestrial longwave (LW) and window (WN) radiances (Loeb et al. 2001). Since there is no LW channel on CERES, LW daytime radiances are determined from the difference between the TOT and SW channel radiances.”

The calculation is as Nick pointed out as you can see above.
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/cmip5-data/Tech-Note_CERES-EBAF-Surface_L3B_Ed2-7.pdf

168. Trick says:

Konrad 7:48pm: “Climate pseudo scientists calculated the black body surface Tav for an earth without an atmosphere as -18C.”

Not without an atm.; simply theoretically reduced existing atm. global emissivity from ~0.79 to near 0, water and solid surface emissivity & net solar held steady.

Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 8:33 pm
————————————–
Trick,

With a starting temperature of 15C –
A. will the water sample freeze?
B. will it reach around 80C?

Can you even answer A or B?

Will it be the usual round of nit picking hand-waving and bafflegab?

Do I need an ISO certified kitchen with brushed stainless German tap-ware to run this one?

You can’t answer because I haven’t properly defined the unicorn/rainbow ratio?

What will be you glorious excuse for being unable/unwilling to answer this time…

170. Steven Mosher says:

“Scientists may be wrong, and often are. But when you think you’ve uncovered a “major error”, something really obvious, well, you should check your facts very carefully before uncapping your electronic pen ”

The irony burns.

171. Willis Eschenbach says:

Nick Stokes says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:06 pm

timetochooseagain says: January 8, 2014 at 5:59 pm

“Nick seems to be assuming that Total radiation is constant, in which case the correlation of SW with LW would be exactly -1 everywhere and always.”

That’s the extreme. But short of that, the fact that LW has an arithmetical component of SW is a strong push toward negative correlation. See next.

rgbatduke says: January 8, 2014 at 4:55 pm

“I’m not sure that I agree with your assertion that there is a necessary, or even probable, anticorrelation.

Two coins, A and B. Score 1 for heads, 0 for tails. After many simultaneous tosses, you find near zero correlation.

Now correlate A with C=B-A. Correlation coef about -1/sqrt(2). But nothing is physically correlated. It’s just the arithmetic.

I see the problem. You’ve assumed that the measurement creates the reality. In your example, you are assuming that the underlying physical relationship is that the independent variables are variable A, AND THE TOTAL B, with the other variable C=B-A dependent on the other two.

But in the real world, it works the other way around. In the real world if A is one independent variable and C is the other independent variable (as in your example), then the causation runs the other direction. C is not defined as B-A, it has independent physical identity as does the variable A. As a result, rather than C = B-A being the governing equation, the physical reality is that the total B = A + C. In other words, the physical reality is that the total is the sum of the parts.

As a result, the relationship between A and B is not changed by the way it is measured. If the two underlying physical phenomena were 100% correlated before the measurement, they will be 100% correlated after the measurement.

And if they were totally uncorrelated before we started they will be uncorrelated thereafter.

As an example, suppose two people step on a scale together. They weigh 280 pounds. Then we weigh one person and they weigh 160 pounds. From this, we conclude that the other one weighs 120 pounds.

If we do this a thousand times, will we find that the weights of the two people are correlated with a value of -1/sqrt(2)?

Absolutely not. If the peoples weights were correlated before weighing them, they will be correlated after we do the C=B-A calculation to figure both weights.

And if they were not correlated before weighing they won’t be correlated after the measurement.

The key issue is that the total is the mathematical sum of two physical measurements, which may or may not be correlated. The fact that if we know one variable and we know the total we can calculate the value of the other variable does NOT mean that that the two variables are therefore correlated.

w.

172. Phil. says:

Greg Goodman says:
January 8, 2014 at 3:36 pm
” I’m just noting what the formula says.”
the formula says 50%=50% not 100%+100% . What Phil said was confused and wrong. If he had said 50% absorbed and as much scattered, no one would have commented. It would have been correct but irrelevant.

I tried to point out his error in a light-hearted way but he didn’t get it. Too subtle I suppose. Can we drop that now?

No because you’re wrong, in the case referred to above to which I replied, for an absorbent drop all the incident light on the drop is absorbed, additionally an equal amount of light is scattered resulting in twice the incident light being removed from the beam. This is correctly stated in the reference I cited:
“For particles much larger than the wavelength of the incident light, the scattering efficiency approaches 2. That is, a large particle removes from the beam twice the amount of light intercepted by its geometric cross-sectional area. What is the explanation for this paradox?”

The error is yours, do yourself a favor and actually read the material I cited.
As I pointed out in my reply to Willis under conditions of anomalous diffraction the number can be as high as 4 times the incident light.

173. Trick says:

Konrad 8:44pm: “What will be you glorious excuse for being unable/unwilling to answer this time…”

Not glorious. Just the ordinary CERES observations of LWIR data posted and discussed by Willis show your small experiments don’t resolve for the earth system at large. In the past, I’ve responded with links to papers and texts showing you the physical reasons.

174. Willis Eschenbach says:

1sky1 says:
January 8, 2014 at 4:17 pm

Willis:

You say:

“So I fear to say, the “critical factor” as you call it is not the amount of sunlight intercepted by dust.”

I cited insolation-reducing dust only as an example of a factor aloft. Although it does reduce daytime surface temperatures when encountered, nowhere did I refer to it as a CRITICAL factor on any climatic time-scale.

Sky, sorry if I misunderstood you. You said:

As I’ve been trying to get across in my comments on your series of recent posts, what happens high aloft in the planetary “energy budget” is not the critical factor. It’s the near-surface processes that matter most!

Since you gave airborne dust as an example of just such a “critical factor”, I was merely saying that no, airborne dust was not in any way critical. As the volcanoes have demonstrated, airborne dust does little to the global temperature.

w.

175. Phil. says:

January 8, 2014 at 6:02 pm
Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:39 pm
“CO2 does not emit more IR radiation than it absorbs.”
———————————-

Perhaps you might reconsider that claim.

Certainly not, though you perhaps should consider reading the context in which it was made.

Trick says:
January 8, 2014 at 8:56 pm
“Not glorious. Just the ordinary CERES observations of LWIR data posted and discussed by Willis show your small experiments don’t resolve for the earth system at large. In the past, I’ve responded with links to papers and texts showing you the physical reasons.”
———————————————————————————

You were right about that, not glorious at all. Rather pathetic really.

You were asked a specific question about a specific experiment and you come up with some waffle about “the earth system at large”.

Again I ask if you can give a clear and direct answer to the question. A or B. Will the water in the experiment either –
A. freeze
or
B. rise toward 80C?

Perhaps another reader can help Trick out?

177. Willis Eschenbach says:

janus says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm

Wikipedia:
“…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation. At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, with more than three times the fraction of ultraviolet (UV), with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically-damaging shortwave ultraviolet.[3][4][5]…”

You state:
“…the incoming radiation, 340 watts per metre squared (W/m2)…”

Can you explain to an ignorant where the difference comes from?

While there are ignorant people, the only ignorant questions are the ones you don’t ask, they are the questions that keep people ignorant.

First, as to the difference, my value is the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) measurement averaged over the surface of the earth. The earth absorbs radiation based on its cross-section. However, the surface area is four times the cross-sectional area, so the total amount needs to be divided by four to give a global 24/7 average.

At the TOA, the “solar constant” is about 1360 W/m2. But since the surface area is four times the area intercepting the 1360 W/m2, the global average is a quarter of that, 340 W/m2.

As to the Wiki quote, they are not looking at a global 24/7 average value as I was. The are looking at a tropical noon-time instantaneous value. As they point out, that’s about a kilowatt per square metre.

However, things are nowhere near as accurate as Wiki claims. The proportions of UV/Near IR/Visible Light are about right, but the amount of energy received at ground level varies greatly with the transmissivity of the atmosphere. Something on the order of 80 W/m2 are absorbed in the atmosphere on a global 24/7 average, but in the tropics, because the downwelling amount is greater and it is an instantaneous measurement, the absorption is greater. As a result, it’s unusual to see noontime values over a kilowatt, although they definitely do occur. My point is, it’s not “1005 W/m2” as the wiki says.

w.

178. Willis Eschenbach says:

Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:39 pm

… CO2 does not emit more IR radiation than it absorbs.

The GHGs definitely emit more IR radiation than they absorb. This is because the atmosphere is warmed by four different sources—absorbed light (~80 W/m2), sensible heat from the surface (~80W/m2), latent heat from the surface (~100 W/m2), and radiation from the surface (~350 W/m2).

This is a total of 610 W/m2 being absorbed by the atmosphere (global 24/7 averages), of which 350 W/m2 comes from radiation absorbed by the GHG (mostly water vapor and CO2).

Of course, since the gaining 610 W/m2 constantly, the atmosphere has to also lose 610 W/m2 constantly

But all of that energy is lost from the atmosphere by radiation. And all of the radiation is coming from GHGs.

As a result, we can say that atmospheric GHGs including CO2 most assuredly are radiating more energy than they are absorbing, in the ratio of 610 / 350.

w.

Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:04 pm
————————————–
I see that Willis has added a little more “context” ;-)

180. Willis Eschenbach says:

Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:33 pm

… “For particles much larger than the wavelength of the incident light, the scattering efficiency approaches 2. That is, a large particle removes from the beam twice the amount of light intercepted by its geometric cross-sectional area. What is the explanation for this paradox?”

Ah, I finally see the problem. The meaning of “incident” was unclear. To everyone out here, the “incident light” is all of the light that is affected by the object in question, and “non-incident light” is the light that is unaffected by the object.

To you, “incident light” is the NOT the amount of light intercepted by the actual phenomenon. Instead, it is just a number, it’s the light intensity times the cross-sectional area of the particle. As such, to you the incident light does NOT include all of the light affected by the phenomenon. In your terminology, some “non-incident light” is also affected.

It’s a problem with specialists, they forget that the words that have special meaning within a discipline do not have the same meaning to the general public.

Because to us, if light is getting either scattered or absorbed by a particle, then perforce it is “incident light”, and the light that is not scattered is not incident light.

But to you, the light being scattered by a particle is NOT incident light.

As a result, when you say that a particle can absorb 100% of the incident light and also reflect 100% of the incident light, folks like myself say “huh”?

Since you are the specialist, this misunderstanding is on you. When you use a term in some non-standard way, you owe it to your readers to point that out … because there’s no way that your readership can be expected to understand your non-normal use of the term.

Thanks for persevering, I finally got the answer to my “huh”?

w.

181. Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 8:47 pm
“I see the problem. You’ve assumed that the measurement creates the reality. In your example, you are assuming that the underlying physical relationship is that the independent variables are variable A, AND THE TOTAL B, with the other variable C=B-A dependent on the other two.”

Correlation works on the numbers as measured. That’s A and B, or SW and Tot. The point of the coin example is that you get a negative correlation with B-A which does not tell you about the reality of anything. The coins have no correlation.

Just the same arithmetic is done with SW and Tot. If the coins with no correlation gave a neg correlation for the difference, you can’t infer any useful relation between SW and “LW” from exhiibiting the same behaviour. You don’t know a priori about any underlying reality – you’re trying to infer it from the correlation. Measurement is all you have.

182. Willis Eschenbach says:

People keep making the claim that if on average the anomalies of LW and SW sum to zero, that A and B must perforce be negatively correlated. Nick even put forth a flawed attempt at a proof. However, it’s not true.

Consider the result of the following series of paired observations, which are randomly generated pseudo-anomalies of LW and SW.

LW, SW
-2.9, -2.2
-14.2, -13.0
5.3, 7.2
0.5, 0.4
2.9, 1.8
2.6, 1.5
-2.4, -3.0
2.7, 2.7
2.4, 2.2
3.1, 2.3

Here’s the oddity. They sum to zero … but their correlation is 0.98. Why? Because basically they move together, but their overall mean is zero.

In other words, even if the sum of two anomalies is physically constrained to be zero over a sufficiently long period of time, there is no special requirement that the two anomalies be negatively correlated.

The data was generated by the following R code:

# generate ten random numbers
LW = rnorm(10, sd=4)

# generate ten more random #s, with the mean of each random number generation
# equal to the corresponding value of LW
SW = rnorm(10, mean=a)

In other words, all I did was require that SW anomalies be correlated to LW anomalies, and as long as the mean of the LW anomalies is zero, the mean of the sum will be zero.

But wait, as they say on TV, there’s more. Here’s another example:

# generate 100,000 random normal pseudo-longwave
# radiation observations, mean 240, standard deviation = 42
# mean and sd values from CERES LW data

LW = rnorm(100000, mean=240, sd=42)

# 100,000 random pseudo-shortwave radiation observations, mean 100, std. dev. = 72
# mean and sd values from CERES SW data
SW = rnorm(100000, mean=100, sd=72)

mean(LW+SW)
# 339.998

cor(LW,SW)
# -0.0014

You see what I’m getting at? The fact that in the long run the longwave (avg. 240 W/m2) and shortwave (avg, 100 W/m2) are constrained to sum to the solar value (avg. 340 W/m2) does NOT mean that they have to be negatively correlated. They can be positively, negatively, or un-correlated and still sum to the solar value.

w.

183. @Willis Eschenbach at 8:47 pm reply to Nick Stokes
You’ve assumed that the measurement creates the reality.

It is possible you and Nick are both correct.
CERES data from the TERRA, AQUA, AURA satellites may record the individual components of the flux and the correlations are real and not mathematical artifacts.

But again, let’s remember the provenance of the CERES dataSET. It is mostly GOES-MODIS data that is calibrated (SOMEHOW!!) into a CERES look-alike data format. It is also “Adjusted”

Willis Jan 5: So, the CERES folks have gone for second best. They have adjusted the CERES imbalance to match the Levitus ocean heat content (OHC) data. And not just any interpretation of the Levitus data. They used the 0.85 W/m2 imbalance from James Hansen’s 2004 “smoking gun” paper. Now to me, starting by assuming that there is a major imbalance in the system seems odd.

To me it is an open question whether the GOES data recalibration into CERES-like data might create a non-zero, and likely negative correlation coefficient. If the correlation is not generated from the GOES conversion, it might still result from the adjustments they made to close the 5 W/m2 gap in the total.

So, Willis your B = A + C example may be correct if the CERES dataset was pure CERES collected data. But it isn’t. CERES instruments are in solar synchronous orbits, in just two orbital planes. CERES instruments cover no more than 4 out of the 24 hours of the day. The rest of the dataset comes from GOES+mathematical magic.

Nick Stokes may have a point given how much of the CERES dataset comes from some fuzzy GOES recalibration process and fuzzier adjustments to partially close a gap.

184. Willis Eschenbach says:

Nick Stokes says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:20 pm

Willis Eschenbach says: January 8, 2014 at 8:47 pm

“I see the problem. You’ve assumed that the measurement creates the reality. In your example, you are assuming that the underlying physical relationship is that the independent variables are variable A, AND THE TOTAL B, with the other variable C=B-A dependent on the other two.”

Correlation works on the numbers as measured. That’s A and B, or SW and Tot. The point of the coin example is that you get a negative correlation with B-A which does not tell you about the reality of anything. The coins have no correlation.

Thanks, Nick. You are confusing the reality with the measurements. Let me try it again with your coin example.

I’m flipping two coins. I dub one of them LW and the other SW. I flip both of them at once, and in my notebook I write down a pair of values plus their total. I get something like this:

   LW,    SW,    TOT
1,     0,     1
0,     1,     1
0,     0,     0
1,     1,     2
0,     1,     1
1,     0,     1
1,     1,     2
0,     1,     1
1,     1,     2
0,     0,     0 

Now, I send the notebook page to you … but unfortunately, it gets caught in a letter-sorting machine and torn in half, and all that you receive is the following:

    SW    TOT
0,     1
1,     1
0,     0
1,     2
1,     1
0,     1
1,     2
1,     1
1,     2
0,     0 

You, being Nick Stokes, are not so easily deterred. You know that you can reconstruct the value of the LW observation from the total and the SW observation. So in each case you calculate the value of the LW as the Total minus the value of the SW coin.

Now … does the fact that you are calculating the value of LW as (Total minus SW) imply that the values are negatively correlated?

I say no. I say that the reality is not affected by how you calculate it. If LW and SW are correlated in reality, then the calculation of LW will reflect that. The reality is not driven by the calculation method.

Having read your posts for some years now, however, I strongly suspect that even this clear exposition plus the computer code above plus the post from Dr. Robert Brown from Duke (rgbatduke) will fail to convince you. After all, they don’t call you “Racehorse Stokes” for nothing—as far as I know no one has ever actually witnessed you admitting that you were in error … but that doesn’t matter, I’m writing for the lurkers.

w.

185. Willis,
“there is no special requirement that the two anomalies be negatively correlated.”

Indeed. The formula for correlation of A with B-A is
ρ=(σ_B ρ_AB-σ_A)/sqrt(σ_A^2+σ_B^2)
ρ corr coef, σ sd

So yes, you can get positive correlation with large positive ρ_AB (and negative with negative). But you’re reasoning the other way around. The two quantities don’t have to be negatively correlated. But they can be without it meaning what you want it to mean.

186. TimTheToolMan says:

Mosher writes “The irony burns.” in response to Willis’

“Scientists may be wrong, and often are. But when you think you’ve uncovered a “major error”, something really obvious, well, you should check your facts very carefully before uncapping your electronic pen ”

Well I think its a major error to be relying so heavily on GCMs for “science”

Things that make you go hummmm include the following extract from CMIP3 model constant section.

http://map.nasa.gov/ModelE_html/html_code/src/CONST.f.html#CONSTANT

!@param lhe latent heat of evap at 0 C (2.5008d6 J/kg)
real*8,parameter :: lhe = 2.5d6
!@param lhm latent heat of melt at 0 C (334590 J/kg)
real*8,parameter :: lhm = 3.34d5

The Cloud module is FULL of unreferenced constants. Soon, I’ll be able to definitively say its a fit and document it but for now I’ll simply marvel at the sloppiness of the implementation.

Will that count as an “uncovering” ?

187. Willis Eschenbach says:

Stephen Rasey says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:45 pm

@Willis Eschenbach at 8:47 pm reply to Nick Stokes
You’ve assumed that the measurement creates the reality.

It is possible you and Nick are both correct.
CERES data from the TERRA, AQUA, AURA satellites may record the individual components of the flux and the correlations are real and not mathematical artifacts.

But again, let’s remember the provenance of the CERES dataSET. It is mostly GOES-MODIS data that is calibrated (SOMEHOW!!) into a CERES look-alike data format.

Not sure where you got that idea. Actually, the CERES instruments are flying on four different satellites, Aqua, Terra, TRMM, and Suomi NPP. Three of these have polar sun-synchronous orbits, with different equator-crossing times. They are at 750 km altitude and scan limb-to-limb. The fourth one, TRMM, flies at 350 km altitude at a 35° inclination to the poles.

Next, since they image limb-to-limb, that means that the three polar satellites are each sampling a swath ≈ 6,000 km across. And as you pointed out, they are sun-synchronous, one orbit per day. This means that each one of the three satellites images about half of the planet every day.

In other words, most of the input to CERES is from the four CERES satellites, and there is terabytes of it..

As to your question about how the MODIS and GOES satellite data is integrated in the data processing, there’s a good overview here.

w.

188. Alec Rawls says:

Jan made the same point I did:

To me it seems like you have just shown the obvious fact that increased SW warms the surface which gives increased LW, and vice versa. Or am I missing something? /Jan

Jan, the SW in question is upwelling SW reflected from the clouds.

Greg Goodman offers a similar reply:

Alec Rawls: “But there is also a simpler explanation for this anti-correlation. Where clouds block incoming solar the planet below warms less, leading to less outgoing LW. ”

Same error as Jan it seems. Positive correlation.

I think Willis and Greg need to look at this again. The more SW is reflected back into space by clouds the less reaches and warms the planet’s surface, reducing the amount of upwelling LW. Thus clouds should be expected to CAUSE the negative correlation between upwelling and SW and upwelling LW that Willis has found. (In other words, Jan and I have this right: we are talking about upwelling SW and we are talking about its negative correlation with upwelling LW, as documented by willis.)

Cloudiness could also be an effect of increased GHGs (Willis’ thermostat hypothesis). The extra heat trapping (lower upwelling LW) causes increased evaporation and increased cloudiness that reflects more SW back into space. This direction of causality also produces anti-correlation between upwelling SW and LW. My initial suggestion was that the causality in the first direction (where clouds are a cause rather than an effect) probably dominates, obscuring what causality may be going on in the other direction. As I said before:

I think the thermostat hypothesis is correct but I’m not sure that this particular anti-correlation provides much or perhaps even any evidence for it.

189. Willis Eschenbach says:

Steven Mosher says:
January 8, 2014 at 8:45 pm

“Scientists may be wrong, and often are. But when you think you’ve uncovered a “major error”, something really obvious, well, you should check your facts very carefully before uncapping your electronic pen ”

The irony burns.

Unlike most folks, I have actually uncovered major errors by other scientists. Take the claim of the cancellation of LW and SW in the tropics as one example.

And yes, I’m damn careful when I think I’ve found something like that.

However, unlike you, I actually do make mistakes.

Not only that, unlike you and most scientists, I work in total isolation, with no co-workers or associates or graduate students or anything. As a result, the errors that slip by me don’t get caught privately by discussing it with someone. They get caught publicly, and it’s damn embarrassing to me when they do.

But it’s rarely because I didn’t check my facts.

So yes, Steven, I’ve made some very public errors. That’s how science works. People put their work out in public, and other people try to falsify it. And sometimes they do. And when they do falsify my work, unlike many folks, I admit it freely, and science moves on.

Now, it seems that you want to be a total jerkwagon about that process, and accuse me in one of your ugly one-line drive-by shootings of not checking my facts … bullshit. I put hours and hours into checking my facts, and then I re-check them … and I still make mistakes. So what? Does that mean I shouldn’t advise others to check their facts?

Yes, I make mistakes, unlike you, I assume from your snide comment … you know, Steven, many times on the web I’ve gone out of my way to support you and defend you when you’ve been attacked by others.

But in this case? You’ve gone out of your way to be nasty, spewing pure childish spite, and that’s not doing your reputation a damn bit of good.

w.

190. Matthew R Marler says:

Willis: He is right about how Lw is measured, but that is meaningless. Whether it is measured directly or indirectly, so what?

The problem is not that it is “indirect”, but that is it the difference between one measurement and another: a – b = c. The difference will be correlated with the terms of which it is made: a is positively correlated with c, and b is negatively correlated with c. The constraint of which Nick Stokes wrote is non-constant because a and b are random variables.

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:55 pm
“…After all, they don’t call you “Racehorse Stokes” for nothing..”
———————————————————————————–
Fast, but not fast enough.

Makarieva et al 2010 discussion paper….

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it”

There is no escape from the Following Dark.

192. Matthew R Marler says:

Willis: Nick Stokes wrote: Willis,
“there is no special requirement that the two anomalies be negatively correlated.”

Indeed. The formula for correlation of A with B-A is
ρ=(σ_B ρ_AB-σ_A)/sqrt(σ_A^2+σ_B^2)
ρ corr coef, σ sd

So yes, you can get positive correlation with large positive ρ_AB (and negative with negative). But you’re reasoning the other way around. The two quantities don’t have to be negatively correlated. But they can be without it meaning what you want it to mean.

That is something that I think you need to study. Nick has identified what might be called “a rookie mistake”, though you are more than a “rookie”, and it is a mistake that I missed by being less familiar with the measurements. It is not necessarily the case that your conclusion is wrong, but it is unjustified unless you can get truly independent measures of what I have called a, b, and c. As long as one is measured as the difference of the other two, you will obtain correlations that have not any firm theoretical significance.

193. Myrrh says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:14 pm
janus says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm

However, things are nowhere near as accurate as Wiki claims. The proportions of UV/Near IR/Visible Light are about right, but the amount of energy received at ground level varies greatly with the transmissivity of the atmosphere.

========

In the proportions given by wiki it does not say that it is shortwave infrared making up the whole infrared amount…

The AGW meme actually claims it is mostly visible light and insignificant amounts of infrared (around 1%), so the wiki quote contradicts that too.

Here: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_3.shtml
“The incoming energy from the Sun to Earth is mainly visible sunlight, called the �visible portion of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.� We perceive visible sunlight as colors from violet (short-wave radiation) to red (long-wave radiation). … A relatively minor amount of energy leaves the sun as radiation with shorter wavelength (�ultraviolet�) and as radiation with longer wavelength (�infrared� or �heat radiation�).”

The AGW claim is that we do not get heat radiation, longwave infrared, from the Sun.
The wiki quote says over half as measured at the surface is infrared.

So which is it?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
“The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a transparent medium and are absorbed, but the longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from the heated objects are unable to pass through that medium.”

The second reason AGW gives of no longwave infrared heat from the Sun reaching us.

Willis, we cannot feel shortwaves from the Sun, that is simply a physical fact. Shortwaves are incapable of raising the temperature of matter, it takes the bigger heat energy of longwave infrared to move molecules of matter into vibration, which is kinetic energy, heat. Heat heats matter.
We cannot feel visible light as heat, because it cannot heat us up. Visible light, shortwaves, affect matter on the electronic transitional level, not the vibrational level of heat.

Your comparisons do not make sense because you are using AGW ‘physics’, now ubiquitous throughout the general education system because the traditional teaching has been systematically removed to promote AGW.

This is traditional teaching now removed from direct NASA pages: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control. ”

Shrug, I’ll stick with traditional teaching which knows the difference between heat and light.

Which if you go back to my first quote you will notice that they say our perception of visible light is as colour…, we do not perceive visible light as heat as they well know.

194. Willis Eschenbach says:

Matthew R Marler says:
January 9, 2014 at 12:14 am

Willis: Nick Stokes wrote:

Willis,

“there is no special requirement that the two anomalies be negatively correlated.”

Indeed. The formula for correlation of A with B-A is
ρ=(σ_B ρ_AB-σ_A)/sqrt(σ_A^2+σ_B^2)
ρ corr coef, σ sd
So yes, you can get positive correlation with large positive ρ_AB (and negative with negative). But you’re reasoning the other way around. The two quantities don’t have to be negatively correlated. But they can be without it meaning what you want it to mean.

That is something that I think you need to study. Nick has identified what might be called “a rookie mistake”, though you are more than a “rookie”, and it is a mistake that I missed by being less familiar with the measurements. It is not necessarily the case that your conclusion is wrong, but it is unjustified unless you can get truly independent measures of what I have called a, b, and c. As long as one is measured as the difference of the other two, you will obtain correlations that have not any firm theoretical significance.

Oh, good, someone accusing me of rookie mistakes, that’s always fun.

Matthew, neither you nor Nick have dealt with my example. I will repeat it.

I have a scale and I’m weighing married couples. They both get on the scale, and I record the weight. Then the woman steps off the scale, and I weigh the man. I do this for 1000 couples.

Next, I calculate the woman’s weight in each case as the total minus the man’s weight.

Note that this is exactly the method used by CERES. They measure the total radiation, and they measure part of the radiation. They calculate the value for the rest of the radiation by subtracting one measurement from the other.

Does this method of calculation mean that the weight of the man and the woman are negatively correlated, as you and Nick claim?

No. The method of calculation of the woman’s weight, whether direct or indirect, has no effect on whether or not their weights are correlated.

For example, if we were to do the experiment, since larger men tend to marry larger women and 5’2″ guys rarely marry 6’2″ women, their weights will have a positive correlation. That’s the real correlation, and it has nothing to do with how we measure their weights.

Are you seriously arguing that because of the way that we’ve calculated the woman’s weight, as the total weight minus the husband’s weight (just as CERES does it), that the real-world positive correlation of the couples’ weights will suddenly become negative? Because that is what you and Nick are claiming …

There is a rookie mistake here … but it ain’t mine …

w.

195. The NickStokes “arithmetic correlation hypothesis” for Dummies:
(a definitive experiment?)
A) create a blank spreadsheet of , eg, 100 rows
B) fill column LW with randomly-generated numbers between ,eg, [200 .. 300]
C) fill column SW with randomly-generated numbers between ,eg, [50 .. 150]
D) define column TOT as (LW + SW)
E) define column LWx as (TOT – SW) [ie: (LW+SW) – SW ]
F) define column SWx as (TOT – LWx) [ie, (TOT- (TOT-SW))]
G) calculate correlation coefs for this pair of series: (LW, SW)
(( i predict near-zero correlations betwixt random series))
H) calculate correlation coefs for each of these pairs: (TOT, LW) and (TOT, SW)
(( i predict non-zero correlations for these DEPENDENT arithmetically-related pairs ))
I) calculate correlation coefs for this pair: (LWx, SWx)
(( I predict the SAME near-zero result as for (LW, SW) —
despite the arithmetic derivations, the quantities remain INDEPENDENT ))
X) deduction: if LW and SW were generated with some non-zero correlation ,
[to simulate the Willis Hypothesis] ,
the (LWx , SWx) series pair would retain that same correlation.

196. Greg says:

Willis: “I’m just saying that if you don’t know something, ASK. You didn’t have a clue what the “roundto” variable did, but despite that you accused me of using “crude rounding” … and all the while, my legend numbers were accurate to 100 decimal places.”

In the code you provided in the link you had a different range for the colour legend and when I increased the number of sig figs in the legend 0.2 become 0.25 . While it is turns out that the range you used in fig 2 here the legend falls on exact 0.1 intervals and is accurate, that is what lead me to question whether 0.6 was not a truncated 0.67.

I don’t know why you always any critical comments as a personal affront. I was not “accusing” you, I was trying to discuss what you were presenting. That is what this blog is about. It’s not like you have a peer reviewed paper published and I’m rebutting it. It’s a discussion.

The main point, which I was trying to point out was the impression that the map itself was banding the values into intervals. These are the interval that I have been asking about but you have not understood what I was referring to. However, I have done a screen cap of the R plot and zoom it to 800% in Gimp and the visual impression I had about bands is not the case. There are colour nuances. The fact that this is not very clear is probably a function of the colour mapping in R . The help on that says it is sub-optimal and may not be very good in RGB space. So I guess we’re stuck with it.

This all comes back to what I originally suggested would be visually better and more informative would be a finer colour scale. I have not found out how to get more colours into the colour scale and you have not replied to my request for help on that.

You have your reasons to always use the same colour scheme but it is not the clearest scheme for this data. that is why I reworked the colour scheme to highlight the areas with significant correlation.

One omission in the article is a value of what CC may be considered significant and without that it is difficult to know how to interpret the graph. I find a value of 0.48 which is fairly high due to short data and the smoothing and puts the coastal regions that stood out into ‘no significant correlation’.

I don’t know whether you have a different idea of what the significance level should be, stats is not my speciality. Maybe someone else could comment on that.

Best regards.

197. Willis,
“Does this method of calculation mean that the weight of the man and the woman are negatively correlated, as you and Nick claim?”

No, but I don’t claim it does. Incidentally, I don’t object to this as a way of getting the weight estimate. Your 7=(4+7)-4 is OK as far as the actual estimate (expected value) is concerned. The issue is trying to make inferences from the covariance, where independence etc matters.

Again, you’re turning the argument around. Yes, in the weighing you may not have negative correlation; in fact maybe none at all. But you are trying to infer something from an observed negative correlation of A and B-A. And my point is that the negative correlation is consistent with various possibilities, including, in the coins example, nothing meaningful at all. So you can’t deduce anything from it.

198. Greg says:

Alac Rawls: “I think Willis and Greg need to look at this again.”
Yes, Alec, that last comment was posted well past my bedtime ;) . Your comment made sence when I first read it as you see in my initial reply. I got a bit confused by Jan’s comment and forgot the SW was reflected, not incoming.

As I said originally, it’s a bit of chicken and egg situation. Direction of causation may need more digging.

199. Greg says:

Nick , sorry if you’ve replied and I missed it but I don’t think so. It seems the simplest way to ask the question is: why would the “arithmatic” produce a correlation between (LW+SW-SW) and SW ?

You suggested a neg. corr. was a necessary consequence of the arithmatic and thus had no significance. I don’t see that.

200. Joe Born says:

Alec Rawls: “I think Willis and Greg need to look at this again. The more SW is reflected back into space by clouds the less reaches and warms the planet’s surface, reducing the amount of upwelling LW. Thus clouds should be expected to CAUSE the negative correlation between upwelling and SW and upwelling LW that Willis has found. (In other words, Jan and I have this right: we are talking about upwelling SW and we are talking about its negative correlation with upwelling LW, as documented by willis.)”

As I implied above, I agree with Mr. Rawls. There may well be a good reason to ignore the causal direction to which Mr. Rawls refers, but I have seen no clear explanation on this thread of what it is.

201. Greg says:

Causal direction. If it’s cloud that causes LW change, it raises the question : what causes the cloud?

1. External eg. Svensmark, oceanic or atmospheric tides …
2. SST => Willis
3. mutually caused oscillation arising from chaotic variability: chicken and egg.

202. Frank says:

WIllis: I find this analysis very interesting, but have some concerns about working with monthly temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. Outgoing LWR varies with the fourth power of absolute temperature, not temperature anomaly. Temperature anomalies obscure relatively large seasonal changes in temperature. The mean global surface temperature is 3-4 degK higher in July, than in January, a roughly a 20 W/m2 seasonal difference in average surface emission. The roughly +/-1 W/m2 variation in LWR and SWR anomalies in your Figure 3 represents the small differences after correcting for much larger seasonal changes with anomalies.

A number of people have tried to calculate feedbacks using the seasonal change in surface temperature and TOA radiation. The latest effort (and references to earlier work) can be found at the link below. The paper looks at outgoing LWR and SWR from all skies, clear skies and cloudy skies and conclude that cloud radiative feedback is small. Interestingly, reflected SWR from CLEAR skies (and all skies) decreases 4-5 W/m2 as mean global temperature rises 3+ degK every year, probably due to less reflection from snow and ice-covered surfaces during summer in the NH. In contrast, reflected SWR from cloudy skies increases about 1 W/m2 as the global warms 3+ degK. (They don’t tell us how much the cloud fraction changes with the season, but the all-skies result shows that the most important SEASONAL change in SWR comes from clear skies.) None of my comments are meant to imply that your analysis is wrong; just that other interesting methods have been applied to the same data set you are using.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568.full

203. Greg says: January 9, 2014 at 1:41 am
“Nick , sorry if you’ve replied and I missed it but I don’t think so. It seems the simplest way to ask the question is: why would the “arithmatic” produce a correlation between (LW+SW-SW) and SW ?”

Well, I said above that the formula for correlation of A with B-A is
ρ=(σ_B ρ_AB – σ_A)/sqrt(σ_A^2+σ_B^2)

There’s an error in the denominator, which doesn’t affect the sign; it should be
ρ=(σ_B ρ_AB – σ_A)/sqrt(σ_A^2 + σ_B^2 – 2ρ_AB σ_A σ_B)
Setting the sd ratio r=σ_A/σ_B, that gives:
ρ=(ρ_AB – r)/sqrt(r^2 + 1 – 2ρ_AB r)

Now ρ_AB is between -1 and 1. If r>1, ρ must be negative. For any r, the centre case is ρ_AB=0, when ρ=-r/sqrt(r^2 + 1). The -r in the numerator is a consequence of the B-A “arithmetic”, and creates a tendency to negative ρ.

But again, I’m not claiming that ρ is always negative. I’m saying that it happens in so many cases that there’s nothing to be concluded just from a case where it proves to be so.

204. Greg says:

“the formula for correlation of A with B-A is”

but I don’t see A with B-A , I see A with B+A-A

205. Greg says: January 9, 2014 at 2:56 am
“but I don’t see A with B-A , I see A with B+A-A’

The original problem had measured Tot and SW. LW is calculated as Tot-SW, and was correlated with SW. That is, Tot-SW with SW. B-A with A.

206. Bill Illis says:

I say we either use the Ceres data or we get rid of all the people and the funding used in operating the instruments.

Whenever someone (Willis in this case) finds something particularly insightful with climate data or climate monitoring devices/systems, the pro-AGW’ers pile in and say you can’t use that particular system. A long series of mostly incoherent posts continue until that person loses faith in their newfound insight.

Meanwhile clime science goes on wasting millions of dollars per year continuing to operate the systems (that the pro-AGW’ers say we can’t use). And then the pro-AGW’ers continue on writing papers using the same data from the same systems.

This data presented by Willis is particularly insightful. It answers a huge question with respect to the theory. What do clouds do (or total SW reflectance which is more comprehensive than clouds by themselves anyway) when there is warming.

The feedback is negative and the data says it is a large negative. Opposite to the theory.

207. Greg says:

ρ=(σ_B ρ_AB – σ_A)/sqrt(σ_A^2 + σ_B^2 – 2ρ_AB σ_A σ_B)

I’m not sure how you derived that but by symmetry it looks like a term has been lost in denom:
ρ=(σ_B. ρ_AB – σ_A)/sqrt(σ_A^2 + ρ_AB^2.σ_B^2 – 2ρ_AB σ_A σ_B)

??

208. Greg says:

“Tot-SW with SW. B-A with A.”

I can see there could be problem with measurement errors and variation not related to SW,LW relation correlating, since both are surely present in large doses. But isn’t that the point of signif estimations?

Can you suggest a formula for 95% confidence value of correlation coeff ?

209. Phil. says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 9:45 pm
Phil. says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:33 pm

… “For particles much larger than the wavelength of the incident light, the scattering efficiency approaches 2. That is, a large particle removes from the beam twice the amount of light intercepted by its geometric cross-sectional area. What is the explanation for this paradox?”

Ah, I finally see the problem. The meaning of “incident” was unclear. To everyone out here, the “incident light” is all of the light that is affected by the object in question, and “non-incident light” is the light that is unaffected by the object.

To you, “incident light” is the NOT the amount of light intercepted by the actual phenomenon. Instead, it is just a number, it’s the light intensity times the cross-sectional area of the particle. As such, to you the incident light does NOT include all of the light affected by the phenomenon. In your terminology, some “non-incident light” is also affected.

It’s a problem with specialists, they forget that the words that have special meaning within a discipline do not have the same meaning to the general public.

Because to us, if light is getting either scattered or absorbed by a particle, then perforce it is “incident light”, and the light that is not scattered is not incident light.

But to you, the light being scattered by a particle is NOT incident light.

As a result, when you say that a particle can absorb 100% of the incident light and also reflect 100% of the incident light, folks like myself say “huh”?

Since you are the specialist, this misunderstanding is on you. When you use a term in some non-standard way, you owe it to your readers to point that out … because there’s no way that your readership can be expected to understand your non-normal use of the term.

Thanks for persevering, I finally got the answer to my “huh”?

Thank you for persevering too, to me the light incident on a droplet is as you say above the cross-sectional area multiplied by the light intensity. The explanation was included in the article I cited. The light scattered is additional to that so the drops remove more light from the beam than falls on that drop. The same phenomenon is observed in macroscopic objects, e.g. we know how much sunlight falls on the earth, it’s the cross sectional area multiplied by the solar irradiance, you’ve calculated it many times. However, if you were out at Jupiter’s orbit observing the sun and earth transited the sun the amount that the sunlight would reduce by is twice that value.
I disagree that my use of ‘incident’ is non-standard, the dictionary definition is:
“(esp. of light or other radiation) falling on or striking something.
“when an ion beam is incident on a surface””

As a scientist I use the language precisely, people reading what I write should take that into account (no criticism intended).
The original reason for my comment was that ‘clouds absorb all the IR incident on them’, the point of my comment was that this is impossible because half of the light incident on the cloud will be scattered and for drops smaller than the incident light wavelength half of that light will be backscattered out of the cloud. In that situation the maximum which could be absorbed would be 75%, I hope that’s clear?
That phenomenon is in fact how drop size in clouds can be measured by remote sensing of that backscattered light.
By ‘backscatter’ I mean light directed in the 180º back towards the observer.

210. Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 3:46 pm

Jan, the SW in question is upwelling SW reflected from the clouds.

Ok, but the important question to ask is why should the albedo increase, and I cannot find any reason for it to do that.

An alterative explanation for the correlation you have found is as follows:

I think we can take for granted that there is a very strong correlation between incoming SW and reflected SW. If the albedo is constant the correlation = 1.

I think we also safely can take for granted that there is a strong correlation between incoming SW radiation and temperature in both the atmosphere and the surface. More incoming SW gives more heating which gives higher temperature.

Likewise, there is of course a strong correlation between the surface temperature and the LW radiation. There is also a strong correlation between atmosphere temperature and LW radiation from the atmosphere.

Because incoming SW is correlated to reflected SW, and incoming SW is correlated to temperature, which is correlated to LW, we then have that reflected SW is correlated to LW.

/ Jan

211. Greg says:

“The original reason for my comment was that ‘clouds absorb all the IR incident on them’, the point of my comment was that this is impossible because half of the light incident on the cloud will be scattered”

cf
“Each droplet in the cloud will absorb ~100% of the incident light and also scatter an equal amount of the incident light.”

What you originally wrote was mis-worded. Whatever the complexity of the mechanisms involved it is incorrect to say ” absorb ~100%” and “scatter an equal amount” ie “~100%” of the same thing (whatever it’s called and how it is defined).

If you had originally said “half of the light incident on the cloud will be scattered”, I’m sure it would have been understood perfectly and would have effectively corrected whoever it was that said a cloud absorbed all incident IR.

This is quite a significant point because the downward LWIR from clouds is usually described as being re-emitted which implies assumptions about spectral content.

I would imagine that MODTRAN / HITRAN model this correctly, however, that some false assumptions are being made by climate modellers or in calibration and interpretation of satellite data seems quite possible. Could such an issue contribute to the CERES TOA budget imbalance?

Thanks for highlighting this important distinction.

212. rgbatduke says:

By arithmetic. If LW=measured Tot – measured SW, and you correlate LW with SW, you’re measuring how changes in SW match changes in LW. But if SW rises by 1 unit, for whatever reason, , that guarantees a drop component of 1 unit in LW, to which is added a statistical change in Tot. That guaranteed component (via -SW) weighs heavily and artificially in the correlation.

No, it doesn’t, that’s only true if the total is a constrained constant. Think of it the other way around. Suppose that one were directly measuring LW and SW and inferring the total, as it makes it easier to review the possibilities and is, of course, the exact same problem. We have four possibilities: LW and SW go up; LW goes up, SW goes down; LW goes down, SW goes up; LW and SW go down. In two cases LW and SW covary and are positively correlated, in two cases LW and SW countervary and are negatively correlated.

The total will, of course, go up and down more strongly with the positively correlated cases and will remain more nearly constant with the negatively correlated cases, but recall, it is not constrained to be constant and in fact it varies, strongly, all of the time everywhere.

I believe that this is Willis’ point. In fact the have a strong tendency to countervary and in fact are fairly decisively negatively correlated. This makes sense in a model that is essentially stable and I don’t find it surprising, but I don’t think it is in any sense “built in” to the numbers themseleves.

The big question is whether or not it is consistent with the positive feedback, high climate sensitivity models. There I am not convinced that the argument is sufficient, or even necessarily relevant. The problem I have comes from several issues — one is that Willis is using SW, if I understand it correctly, primarily as a proxy for the effect of high-albedo daytime clouds, snow, ice, and the lower amplitude modulation of albedo due to deciduous vegetation and cropland utilization. The Sun’s TOA insolation variability is, after all, nearly constant on a daily basis even though it varies substantially (91 W/m^2) over a year.

Suppose albedo varied completely randomly and due only to clouds. Then what would we expect that LW radiation to do? Well, one thing we would expect it to do is vary in any give cell completely in tandem with the seasons and average seasonal temperature. The way seasons work, we’d expect “ground” LW to vary the same way, but with a lag — it takes time to warm or cool any given parcel in response to a change in solar-inclination forcing, and of course a lot of the response comes not from a direct effect but from indirect effects like the delivery of a pre-cooled arctic air mass down to North Carolina that in no way reflects the actual solar-inclination local equilibrium. So there is a lot of energy transport and noise. Still, one major component of LW varies only with the ground temperature, and that co-varies with the seasonal SW. We’d expect a strong positive correlation between the two on the basis of this alone.

However, life is never that simple. First, the data is seasonally detrended. Basically, this means that this huge positive correlation is thrown away. Second — and remember, we’re still asserting completely random clouds here — LWIR doesn’t come just from the ground. Let’s assume that there are three components to the LWIR — one is direct ground radiation (clear sky). One is indirect radiation from greenhouse gases at a band of heights approaching the top of the troposphere and is temperature suppressed. The third is from the random clouds, which block the ground radiation and replace it with more weakly temperature suppressed broadband radiation from an intermediate height (but which also represent a substantial amount of latent heat carried aloft).

Let’s consider clear sky as the baseline. Albedo is low, SW emission is seasonally adjusted “normal”. LW is also seasonally adjusted “normal”. A random cloud wanders by. Albedo rises. SW increases. The cloud blocks LW from the ground, replaces it with LW from the cloud in the unblocked bands and alters a bunch of things nonlinearly in the air above the clouds but I would have to say that the net daytime effect is going to be a decrease in LW. Consequently, even if the clouds were 100% randomly generated, utterly decorrelated from any cause, I’d expect a general negative correlation between SW and LW (which could be overridden, one imagines, by nonlinear transport phenomena e.g. the movement of warm wet clouds into an area that would ordinarily be much colder, as will happen in a couple of days in NC when we get a warm air mass pulled up from the Gulf.

Hence my inclination is to say that what Willis is showing isn’t a demonstration of a causal connection, but something one would predict as a natural feature of “the way clouds work”. So I agree that there is some sort of problem here with the conclusion, but it isn’t because statistical differences of unconstrained quantities “have” to countervary — they don’t, and the result isn’t a statistical artifact — it is an expected feature of the radiation dynamics of clouds. Clouds almost always increase SW and decrease LW over their daytime area, so given that nearly all areas have some average cloud coverage, nearly all areas will exhibit a negative correlation once one has subtracted the probably dominant positive correlation between SW and LW due to seasonal variations out.

The test for this is simple enough. In the map Willis shows above, the areas with positive LW/SW correlation are — deserts. There there is no cloudiness, and LW and SW vary weakly together, even after seasonal adjustment. Where is it strongest over land masses? Places where there is lots of ice and/or are very elevated, and rain belts.

So I’m not at all convinced that the negative correlation is meaningful, but not for the reason you describe. It is because I don’t see how it could be otherwise, given the TOA spectrographs for cloud covered regions in e.g. Petty. It’s just the way clouds work.

I think what Willis WANTS to show is going to be more difficult to show than this. In fact, I think it can only be shown by searching for lagged dynamic fluctuation autocorrelation, not static correlation. It is the parcel that heats and then clouds appear to cool it that is what he is trying to show, but merely showing the clouds are correlated with increased SW and decreased LW does not accomplish it. We already know that.

rgb

213. Greg says:

Thanks, that clarifies a lot. Nice and clearly put.

I think Willis’ original post on this was looking at the hour of onset of cloud in a band across the equatorial Pacific. It is probably in high temporal resolution data that the phase response can be found to prove such an effect.

There’s generally too much detrending , deseasonalising and incorrectly sampled decimation and averaging going on in climatology. This probably fine if you start out prove everything is “stochastic” noise + CO2 , but often impedes a more serious system analysis.

214. Brian says:

…if the emitted radiation must equal the incoming radiation (so the earf does not experience an increase or decrease in temperature)… Then what energy forms all that corn, wood, grass, algae and other plant matter? Is that so trivial as to be negligible?

215. Joe Born says:

Stephen Rasey: “In the CERES dataSET 12 pm, 1 pm, 2pm, 3pm, etc. coverage comes from low resuolution geosynchronous MODIS data from GOES satellites, that are converted (SOMEHOW!!) into CERES data”

Willis Eschenbach: “[E]ach one of the three satellites images about half of the planet every day.”

Pardon me for kibitizing, but I had hoped that someone who’d slogged through the documentation could answer Mr. Rasey’s question question, and it’s not clear to me that Mr. Eschenbach did.

Mr. Rasey says there are only two sun-synchronous low-orbit satellites but that the data purport to give an output value for each hour at each location. Mr. Eschenbach says there are three such satellites. Given a 99-minute orbit and a horizon distance of about 2900 kilometers, it seems that each satellite would view every equatorial location for about a 13-minute stretch each day and about a 13-minute stretch each night, with higher-latitude locations getting more exposure because of path overlap: each satellite would see every location every twenty-four hours.

But even if there are three sun-synchronous satellites and they are optimally spaced, wouldn’t each equatorial site be visited only once every four hours?

216. Brian says:
January 9, 2014 at 8:09 am

…if the emitted radiation must equal the incoming radiation (so the earf does not experience an increase or decrease in temperature)… Then what energy forms all that corn, wood, grass, algae and other plant matter? Is that so trivial as to be negligible

Hi Brian

The thing is that energy cannot be destroyed; it can only be converted to another form of energy. That is one of the fundamental physical laws.

So all the energy that forms corn, grass and other biomass will be stored as chemical bound energy until that biomass is eaten, burned, rot or in other way disappears.

Then that chemically stored energy will be released as heat and radiated as longwave radiation back to space.

/ Jan

217. timetochooseagain says:

@Nick Stokes- Actually, them being negatively correlated (and the stronger, closer to negative one the better) means *exactly* what Willis “wants it to mean.”

What you are not grasping is that Willis’s hypothesis is essentially equivalent to dTot/dt = 0. Therefore he has devised exactly the right sort of test to see if that should be so, for the reasons he thinks.

The only real problem is, he should be testing to see if the correlation is significantly different from -1, not significantly different from 0. Because *if* dTot/dt = 0, always and everywhere, the correlation will be exactly -1, and if Willis *doesn’t* find that correlations are signficantly different from -1, he would *fail to reject his hypothesis* that dTot/dt = 0.

218. Phil. says:

Greg says:
January 9, 2014 at 6:59 am

If you had originally said “half of the light incident on the cloud will be scattered”, I’m sure it would have been understood perfectly and would have effectively corrected whoever it was that said a cloud absorbed all incident IR.

And as I pointed out above half of that would be backscattered under certain circumstances and so be downward LWIR. This is independent of any blackbody radiation emitted from the droplets which is another component of LWIR.

This is quite a significant point because the downward LWIR from clouds is usually described as being re-emitted which implies assumptions about spectral content.

These are two components to the LWIR, the backscatter would depend inter alia on the drop size distribution of the cloud, the emission will depend on the drop temperature.

219. Willis:
Willis Eschenbach Jan 8 11:39 pm
Not sure where you got that idea [that CERES data is mostly GOES]. Actually, the CERES instruments are flying on four different satellites, Aqua, Terra, TRMM, and Suomi NPP. Three of these have polar sun-synchronous orbits, with different equator-crossing times. They are at 750 km altitude and scan limb-to-limb. The fourth one, TRMM, flies at 350 km altitude at a 35° inclination to the poles.

Next, since they image limb-to-limb, that means that the three polar satellites are each sampling a swath ≈ 6,000 km across. And as you pointed out, they are sun-synchronous, one orbit per day. This means that each one of the three satellites images about half of the planet every day.

In other words, most of the input to CERES is from the four CERES satellites, and there is terabytes of it..

Here is where I got my facts:

NCAR: To minimize temporal sampling errors, the CERES team uses geostationary satellite imagers calibrated against MODIS and CERES to capture changes in clouds and radiation between CERES observation times. (NCAR, Guidance tab)

10/8 13:33 – Terra:
Period = t = 98.8 min
Distance to Horizon a Perigee = 2767. km
Distance between passes = Ve*t = 2737 km
Grid Cells between passes = 24.7 cells
Grid Cells between 45 deg oblique on each pass = 12.7
Descending pass at 10:30 am

So an equatorial grid cell will see Terra overhead at 10:30 am. Technically, it will see Terra on the horizon (of questionable usefulness), at 8:51 am and at 12:09 pm. Realistically a grid cell gets one overhead pass or two oblique passes per day from Terra.

As you point out, CERES flies on more than Terra. But Aqua, Auro, and Suomi NPP all have 13:30 equatorial passes. Aqua and Aura are in the same train, about 8 minutes apart. Suomi NPP is a few km higher with a period slightly longer, but with still maintains a 13:30 equator pass. So these three satellites are more redundancy than increased in temporal coverage.

TRMM flies below half the height of the others, so covers half the area per pass, so no oblique overlap. It is at an inclination of 35 deg so TRMM doesn’t see beyond 40 deg north and south.

So there you have it. If the CERES dataset has global hourly coverage, then most of it must come from the geostationary imagers. Each grid cell (in the tropics) sees the CERES instrumentation between 3 to 5 times out of 12 daylight hours per day. Likewise for the night hours. The other hours have to be filled from GOES.

All this is in support of the main question. “Is the CERES dataset what you think it is?” There has been a lot of processing, some infill to “minimize temporal sampling errors”, and that “smoking gun” adjustment to reduce a 5 W/m2 systemic error to Hansen’s 0.75 W/m2 hypothesized error. In all those passes through the black box, are some of the correlation mathematical artifacts? I BELIEVE the negative correlations are REAL; it makes sense. But I also believe the dataset is dirtier than it appears at first blush.

220. Matthew R Marler says:

Willis: I have a scale and I’m weighing married couples.

A thousand people enter a weight loss program, and we measure before and after weights and their difference: d = a – b (difference = after – before.) We discover that d is negatively correlated with b and infer, voila, that the weight loss is negatively correlated with initial weight, and positively correlated with final weight. Did the initially heavier people lose less weight, on average? or did the finally heavier people lose more weight? Maybe, maybe not. You have an equivalent example showing the maybe, which in my comment I admitted might be true in your energy flow analysis. But maybe not, and your energy flow analysis does not rule out the equivalent maybe not..

Do you want me to provide an example, or would you like to work one out on your own, as a challenge to yourself? I’ll let you think about it a while. The key is to think of a case in which the measurement error in a and b is large relative to the change d.

221. bulsit says:

Willis Eschenbach says:

January 8, 2014 at 2:17 pm

Bulsit says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:15 pm

In atmosphere temperatures gases dosen’t practically emit or absorb any heat radiation (emission/absorbing factor 0,002 aprox), only in higher temperatures over 600C you can measure something like 0,05, in 1500C something like 0,2.

Dear heavens, the fog is thick out there today.

Yes, Bulsit, there is an emissivity for gases … but no, it’s not 0.002. For any particular gas, he emissivity depends on the frequency of the radiation, and varies from 0 to about 1. See the flux emissivity tables and discussion here.

And don’t try to impress us with your wisdom until you have some. Your claim is patent nonsense that any serious researcher would just laugh at.

w.

Pretty strange that atmosphere behaves under different Physical laws than those coal fired power plant boilers. There is absolute nothing radiative heat transfer which we can use under 500 C fluegas temperatures. CO2 is approx 12%. And when we design those boilers we can do pretty good measurements how the heat transfers from fluegases to pipes and how we have managed to calculate heat transfer surfaces. i don’t know who laughs, boilers and how they work aren’t for sure nonsense.

222. @Willis Eschenbach at 1:55 pm
RE: PLOT: Seasonal Cycles removed Negative or weakly positive correlations worldwide.
PLOT: Seasonal Cycles Not Removed Strongly positive correlation above 35 deg latitude, strongly negative in tropics.

My apologies for missing that plot last night. Yes it is curious. I guess I can understand positive correlation poleward of the circles (Higher SW and Higher LW during polar daylight). I am surprised to see it that strong at 50 N and even a far south as offshore Baja California.

I’m not sure removal of the seasonal signal should be taken for granted. The story in the polar and high temperate regions might change.

But I gather these are still a full year’s data all lumped together. Is it easy to show this plot only for one or two months, such as Jun-July, Dec-Jan (polar extremes) or Mar-Apr (equinox)?

223. Greg says: January 9, 2014 at 4:36 am
“I’m not sure how you derived that but by symmetry it looks like a term has been lost in denom:”

I just took cov(A,B-A)=cov(A,B)-cov(A,A)
and juggled sd’s to convert to correlation coefs. The denominator is sd(B-A). I think it’s right (it’s like cos rule); your version is the sqrt of a perfect square.

rgbatduke says: January 9, 2014 at 7:02 am
‘That guaranteed component (via -SW) weighs heavily and artificially in the correlation.’
No, it doesn’t, that’s only true if the total is a constrained constant.

I think it does, and the formula I gave for corr(A,B-A) shows it:
ρ=(ρ_AB – r)/sqrt(r^2 + 1 – 2ρ_AB r), r=σ_A/σ_B
You’re saying it’s only true if σ_B=0 (r very large). Well, that certainly ensures ρ negative, but for that it’s enough that r>1, so certainly r>ρ_AB. The point is that having a -A in there by construction puts the -r in the numerator, which weighs heavily toward negative values.

224. Frank says:

Willis, Nick, Phil, Greg and others: Outgoing SWR + Outgoing LWR does NOT have to equal incoming SWR on a monthly time scale! We know that changes of 0.1 degC in any one month are commonly observed in surface and satellite temperature data. These monthly changes are the result of a large energy imbalances from month to month that tends to average out over a year. The average heat capacity of the air plus a 50 m mixed layer is 157,000 kJ/m2/degK, so an 0.1 degC change in one month requires 15,700 kJ/m2. 1 W/m2 is 2630 W/m2. Therefore an energy imbalance of about 6 W/m2 is driving the average monthly fluctuation in temperature anomaly. The monthly anomalies Willis shows in Figure 3 are about 1 W/m2. Outgoing SWR and LWR anomalies this small are mathematically free to VARY INDEPENDENTLY on a monthly time scale when the average monthly imbalance is this large.

When we work with temperature anomalies, we tend to forget that larger changes are happening to the planet. Due to the asymmetric distribution of land, the planet’s surface temperature as a whole warms 3-4 degC every year. This is partially balanced by the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit which changes incoming SWR and – along with albedo – outgoing SWR. The radiation anomalies we use are what is leftover when two much larger numbers are subtracted. See linked paper on seasonal changes in my earlier comment.

The negative correlation Willis has found does shows that changes in LWR and SWR do tend to compensate on a monthly time scale – the “thermostat” IS working in the right direction. The negative correlation doesn’t tell us how EFFECTIVELY it compensates. On the average, a 1 W/m2 increase in LWR could be associated with an 0.2, 0.5, 1, or even 2 W/m2 drop in SWR and we could observe the same amount of negative correlation in each case.

225. Phil. says:

rgbatduke says:
January 9, 2014 at 7:02 am
Second — and remember, we’re still asserting completely random clouds here — LWIR doesn’t come just from the ground.

The CERES product that Willis is using is as far as I’m aware Surface Upwelling Longwave Radiation (rlus) so this correlation is only with that component. Any effect of the clouds on the upwelling SW as asserted by Willis I would expect to have the opposite effect on surface LW and hence a negative correlation. More clouds means more upwelling SW and therefore less downwelling SW at the surface which implies less upwelling LW. That upwelling LW must then encounter those same clouds as discussed above there will be scattering and absorption which will further reduce the upwelling LW (if the rlus is indeed at the earth’s surface this won’t be a factor, but it will be important for the TOA statistic). So I would expect a negative correlation between these quantities which has nothing to do with GHGs.

Let’s assume that there are three components to the LWIR — one is direct ground radiation (clear sky). One is indirect radiation from greenhouse gases at a band of heights approaching the top of the troposphere and is temperature suppressed. The third is from the random clouds, which block the ground radiation and replace it with more weakly temperature suppressed broadband radiation from an intermediate height (but which also represent a substantial amount of latent heat carried aloft).

226. Phil. says:

Sorry the last para should have been indicated as being from rgbatduke.

227. Matthew R Marler says:

to continue, we don’t have a, b, and d (or c) = a – b. We have a + eps and d + del = d*, where eps and del are the measurement errors and other random variability independent of the mechanisms we are studying. So consider a weight loss program with a poor scale. Sam starts with a weight of 165, but weighs in at 163; Sam finishes with a weight of 164, but weighs out at 167. The estimated weight change (+4) does not even have the same sign as the true weight change (-1). Across a large number of samples where the measurement error in a and b is large compared to the true difference a – b, the measured difference d* is positively correlated with a + eps and negatively correlated with b + del, no matter what the true relationship of a and b are to each other or to anything else.

That is the possibility that Nick Stokes drew attention to that Willis Eschenbach’s analysis has not ruled out. This does not mean that Willis’ conclusion is false, it means that Willis’ conclusion is unsupported by the analysis and evidence he presented. What is needed is an estimate of d whose random variation is independent of the random variation of a and b.

228. phlogiston says:

Bill Illis says:
January 9, 2014 at 4:06 am

I say we either use the Ceres data or we get rid of all the people and the funding used in operating the instruments.

Whenever someone (Willis in this case) finds something particularly insightful with climate data or climate monitoring devices/systems, the pro-AGW’ers pile in and say you can’t use that particular system. A long series of mostly incoherent posts continue until that person loses faith in their newfound insight.

Meanwhile clime science goes on wasting millions of dollars per year continuing to operate the systems (that the pro-AGW’ers say we can’t use). And then the pro-AGW’ers continue on writing papers using the same data from the same systems.

This data presented by Willis is particularly insightful. It answers a huge question with respect to the theory. What do clouds do (or total SW reflectance which is more comprehensive than clouds by themselves anyway) when there is warming.

The feedback is negative and the data says it is a large negative. Opposite to the theory.

Bill is spot on – as usual. This thread has descended into accountancy, several here seem to have missed their true vocation in life.

The time to do thermal accountancy of climate is when we have total knowledge, even approximately, of all the heat ins and outs. When this time arrives the earth’s albedo will change again with the sky black with flying pigs. (/sarc – this means that time will never come.)

In the meantime, what you do is use some intelligence, look for trends, patterns and correlations. That’s if you’re a real climate scientist honestly seeking answers. But if you’re just an accountant please bugger off.

Leave maths to real mathematicians. They understand that it has nothing to do with the real world.

229. Ulric Lyons says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm
“I suspected that this mostly reflected the seasonal changes rather than what happens in a month where it is warmer or cooler than average. So I removed the seasonality from the signal.”

So you have removed the main signal for everywhere apart from the tropics.

230. 1sky1 says:

Willis:

“Since you gave airborne dust as an example of just such a “critical factor”, I was merely saying that no, airborne dust was not in any way critical. As the volcanoes have demonstrated, airborne dust does little to the global temperature.”

While pointing out what is “not [sic!] the critical factor,” I actually did NOT specify any such for “global temperature.” From the exemplary values presented for insolation reduction typically experienced in the field, I would have thought that it was obvious that a) these are local (not global) and measured (not climatic) values and that b) the effect of dust commonly encountered in deserts pales in significance relative to that of far-more-ubiquitous clouds. Apparently it’s not all that obvious to everybody.

231. 1sky1 says:

You claim that what I wrote is “Only 29% correct. Downwelling LWIR has no real effect over the oceans. Incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool.” But what I wrote is: “retard the radiative [sic!] cooling.” That statement is 100% correct, irrespective of any evaporative cooling. While the latter is indeed the PRINCIPAL mechanism of heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere and is largely sustained by back-radiation, the radiative transfer from the ocean surface is retarded nevertheless!

232. george e. smith says:

So I looked at your figure 1; all three panels, and I couldn’t believe my eyes. So
I looked again; in fact I looked again three times, and no there is NO mistake.

There’s not a jot of long wave radiation coming down from the atmosphere, or the clouds.

I thought that was how the greenhouse effect was supposed to cook the planet.

What gives ??

233. george e. smith says:

“””””……Phil. says:

January 9, 2014 at 9:25 am

Greg says:
January 9, 2014 at 6:59 am

If you had originally said “half of the light incident on the cloud will be scattered”, I’m sure it would have been understood perfectly and would have effectively corrected whoever it was that said a cloud absorbed all incident IR.

And as I pointed out above half of that would be backscattered under certain circumstances and so be downward LWIR. This is independent of any blackbody radiation emitted from the droplets which is another component of LWIR…….””””””

The optics of a spherical rain drop is well understood for drops approaching precipitable size. Even highly collimated beams become large angle refracted, inside the drop, so just a few droplets in series is enough to essentially render the flux isotropic. But that is mostly an effect in the visible range (of sunlight).

For the surface emitted LWIR, in the 5-50 micron range, the absortion coefficient of water is very high; between 1,000 and 8,000 cm^-1 (highest at 3 microns).

So I would expect that all but the smallest water droplets, are nearly totally absorbing of upward LWIR radiation. This would also imply, that they are quite efficient thermal radiators, with high emissivity at LW.

So I would agree with Phil, that he clouds basically absorb, and then radiate thermal IR spectra, and be quite isotropic at that.

1sky1 says:
January 9, 2014 at 4:35 pm
—————————————
Actually downwelling LWIR has no effect on the surface temperature of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. All it does is cause temporarily increased evaporation that offsets any temperature gain by IR photons absorbed in the skin evaporation layer. LWIR only penetrates about 10 microns into this layer. Not all molecules in water have the same energy state and the absorbed photons simply trip some water molecules into phase change slightly sooner than the otherwise would. Because LWIR does not effect the surface temperature of liquid water it does not change the rate of outgoing LWIR from the waters surface.

The experiment to prove that LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool is simple to build and run –

Simply start with 40C water under both strong and weak LWIR sources and record the cooling rate of each sample. There is no measurable difference. Now repeat the experiment with a thin film of LDPE floated onto each water sample surface. This prevents evaporative cooling but allows conductive and radiative cooling. Now the samples cool at different rates.

You can even use the set up to test other materials. Try warm sand. The sample under the strong LWIR source cools slower.

Just this one little experiment shows how flawed the “basic physics” of the “settled science” is.

Every single AGW model that shows LWIR slowing the cooling of the “surface” without distinction between land (29%) and ocean (71%) is wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.

When challenged no AGW believer on this blog, Jo Nova or Climate Etc. has ever been able to give an example of a simple experiment like this showing LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. Not one, not ever.

Funny thing that. It is easy to demonstrate LWIR having an effect on stone, metal, sand and other materials that do not evaporatively cool. No one can demonstrate this working on liquid water, but every climate model is built on the assumption that it slows the cooling rate of the oceans. Travesty Trenberth even claims that’s how his missing heat got into the oceans.

And now for the experiment that truly disproves the radiative greenhouse hypothesis –

This water sample has almost no ability to conductively or evaporatively cool. It is heated by SW and cooled by LW and has virtually no LW incident upon its surface. It is as if there were no atmosphere above the oceans.

My direct question to you 1sky1, will the sample –
A. Freeze
or
B. Rise toward 80C

A or B, 1sky1?

If the answer is B then AGW and it’s underlying radiative greenhouse hypothesis is disproved. Because a temperature so high would indicate that the atmosphere is cooling the ocean. And there is only one effective means of cooling the atmosphere. Radiative gases.

235. RM says:

I just like to point out that you can address Nick’s point with a simple experiment in Excel, and Nick is right – with random values for TOT and smaller random values for SW, the two are consistently poorly correlated (in my experiment, R-squared between -0.2 and 0.2). However, SW is strongly negatively correlated with TOT-minus-SW (R-squared between -.6 and -.8) . I ran multiple trials with over 100 faux datapoints, then tried adding more datapoints – the relationship holds up well. This also works if you vary the ranges selected for TOT and SW, if you decide to make the ranges the same etc. I suggest you try it for yourself. With any data product, you obviously have to look at how it was derived.

To get a true understanding of how radiative forcing affects cloud cover and albedo, of course you would need data on lateral energy movement (sideways from one grid cell to the next), cloud cover data, etc.

236. Willis Eschenbach says:

Phil. says:
January 9, 2014 at 11:05 am

rgbatduke says:
January 9, 2014 at 7:02 am

Second — and remember, we’re still asserting completely random clouds here — LWIR doesn’t come just from the ground.

The CERES product that Willis is using is as far as I’m aware Surface Upwelling Longwave Radiation (rlus) so this correlation is only with that component.

Thanks, Phil. I’m actually using the TOA numbers, not the surface numbers.

w.

237. Willis Eschenbach says:

Ulric Lyons says:
January 9, 2014 at 1:58 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm
“I suspected that this mostly reflected the seasonal changes rather than what happens in a month where it is warmer or cooler than average. So I removed the seasonality from the signal.”

So you have removed the main signal for everywhere apart from the tropics.

I guess maybe you never lived in the tropics. They have seasons there as well. In any case, I showed it without removing the seasonality upthread. Take your pick.

w.

238. TimTheToolMan says:

RM writes “with random values for TOT and smaller random values for SW, the two are consistently poorly correlated (in my experiment, R-squared between -0.2 and 0.2). However, SW is strongly negatively correlated with TOT-minus-SW (R-squared between -.6 and -.8) .”

OK, so to analyse why Willis was mistaken in his thinking… quite early on Nick specified that one value needed to be [reasonably consistently] larger than the other and Willis had two examples as counter arguments.

One was of coin tosses where the values flipped and one coin wasn’t producing larger values than the other (funnily enough) and the second was an example where the figures flip a little and mostly are quite similar in size. By comparison the LW vs SW is a factor of more than 2.4 difference and none of Willis’ example figures were anything like that. One was generally bigger for sure but never even a factor of 2.4 let along bigger still…

In short, I think Willis’ counter arguments were flawed and didn’t actually address the point Nick was making.

239. RM says:

TimTheToolMan writes: “OK, so to analyse why Willis was mistaken in his thinking… quite early on Nick specified that one value needed to be [reasonably consistently] larger than the other and Willis had two examples as counter arguments.”

In the coin toss scenario, the sum of the numbers is between 0 and 2, and the “missing” (LW) value could only be a 1 or a 0. This is difficult to simulate in my excel sheet, because if you set the random interval for TOT to 0 to 2 and the interval for SW to 0 to 1, occasionally the difference (LW) will be -1, an impossibility in coin world. I haven’t found a good way to model the coin situation that doesn’t involve flipping the LW coins before running the simulation.

I will note that if there were any random error in the SW coin data (there is usually some random error in large datasets like the CERES data) then those random errors would tend to cause a negative correlation between SW and LW amounts. On any given coin toss, if SW is “over-estimated” by 1, then LW will be “under-estimated” by 1. Likewise, random variability in TOT would tend to cause a positive correlation between LW and TOT. This effect would add or detract from any real correlation between LWR and SWR.

“What is needed is an estimate of d whose random variation is independent of the random variation of a and b.”

240. Ulric Lyons says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 1:04 am
“I guess maybe you never lived in the tropics. They have seasons there as well. In any case, I showed it without removing the seasonality upthread. Take your pick.”

There isn’t much difference between the two plots over the tropical oceans. The problem is that beyond the Tropics, the anomalies will tend to cancel each other out from summer to winter, and by removing the seasonal signal, it removes the annual balance.

241. @Ulric Lyons at 1:58 pm to Willis 1/8 13:55

“I suspected that this mostly reflected the seasonal changes rather than what happens in a month where it is warmer or cooler than average. So I removed the seasonality from the signal.”

UL: So you have removed the main signal for everywhere apart from the tropics.

I wouldn’t go that far, but the signal has been confused.
I think the statistical assumpiton being violated here is Homoscedasticity
The standard deviation of the signals during A) polar winter, B) polar spring, C) polar summer and D) polar autumn are obviously very different. So normalization of the data by removing the monthly mean will result in combining a wide summer or autumn cloud with a narrow winter cloud. If homoscedasticity is violated, the correlation coefficient on the combination of normalize populations with different standard deviations is of dubious value. Whatever we see will be dominated by the the population with the larger scatter, which in this case might be the Autumn.

More is to be gained, I think, by looking at the data in individual seasons. The more I consider the dynamics, NH Autumn (Sept-Oct) may be a key month with day-night in the polar regions and freeze up begining of the Arctic Ocean.

242. Trick says:

Konrad 9:16pm: “..record the cooling rate of each sample. There is no measurable difference.”

There is a difference even if not measurable by your instrumentation; the water cooling rate slows if the source T is .LT. 40c as entropy must increase in the universe due this process even if 1st law is satisfied. The 2nd law says no real process is reversible though ideally it is ok to hold entropy unchanged (adiabatic) for learning examples.

”The experiment to prove that LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool…”

Here you describe a reversible process so it is not real. LWIR to LH to LWIR 100% efficient. If you expand the real experiment and integrate over the ocean surface, then instruments can easily detect the slowed water surface cooling rate by LWIR from a cooler source as shown by Willis CERES data, text books and many supporting papers.

Was looking for 1sky1 to answer but this will do.

I note hedging words too…”no effect” changes to “..almost no ability…”, and “..virtually no..”. Konrad hedges showing reduced confidence; the only reason I can see Konrad doesn’t publish findings – plus they would repeal 2nd law. That would enable much enthusiasm as it constrains many perpetual motion salesmen today. They sort of died down after Clausius’ stuff was upheld. (Actually Carnot had it right too but he didn’t write it down.) If all real processes cannot go on forever, then they must stop – apology to Herb Stein.

Even Tyndall was tripped up on his small sample in the case of pure air scattering not recorded by his instruments. It happens.

243. 3x2 says:

Looking back ‘up-thread’ Willis, I’m surprised that you are so pleasant with all those ‘fucked up theory’ individuals whose main aim seems to be to de-rail whole the thread.

Seriously … Why do you spend your time replying to the likes of ‘Racehorse’ or ‘mono comment Mosher’? And … Does it really matter that some dick can’t work out that (s)he is talking about something that (s)he doesn’t understand and that their nonsense derails the thread by accident?

244. Willis Eschenbach says:

3×2 says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:11 am

Looking back ‘up-thread’ Willis, I’m surprised that you are so pleasant with all those ‘fucked up theory’ individuals whose main aim seems to be to de-rail whole the thread.

Seriously … Why do you spend your time replying to the likes of ‘Racehorse’ or ‘mono comment Mosher’? And … Does it really matter that some dick can’t work out that (s)he is talking about something that (s)he doesn’t understand and that their nonsense derails the thread by accident?

3×2, the problem is that when someone comes in with some off-the-wall theory, unless you stomp on it, six other people start nodding their heads and they all write in to agree with the nutso theory, and before you know it, we got ourselves a convoy of lunatics all racing in the same direction.

In addition, I feel a responsibility to the lurkers. There’s lots of folks reading these threads. When some charmingly innumerate anonymous fellow pops up to claim that pressure alone can warm a planet with a GHG free atmosphere, the lurkers have no way to know that that nonsense has been thoroughly discussed and falsified here on this website, among other places.

So, while I’d like to ignore the lunatic fringe, they have a great attraction for folks who don’t have a strong science background. Just take a look at some of the wacky “scientific” ideas which have wide circulation around the planet.

Or take a look at what happened here. Nick “Racehorse” Stokes claimed that how we measure two things determines if they are autocorrelated. Matt Marler believed Nick’s bull, and accuses me of a “newbie mistake”.

Now, if I let that kind of rubbish go on, between them Matt and Nick will soon have everyone convinced that if I measure the weight of a man and his wife on a scale together, then measure the man’s weight separately and calculate the wife’s weight from the difference … that this will somehow magically make their weights negatively correlated with a value of -.707.

Seriously. That’s what those idiots were claiming, and there’s lots of folks out there that would be convinced.

And as a result, I try to point out what’s beyond the fringe. Like you say, it may do nothing immediately visible. But that’s no surprise, because like I said, Racehorse Stokes has never been caught actually admitting he was wrong … and he hasn’t admitted it here either, despite his stupid mistake being obvious to anyone who looks.

But that doesn’t matter to me, because I’m writing for the lurkers.

w.

PS—I respond to Mosh because I know him, and despite appearances he’s both a very smart guy, and a friend of mine. Go figure …

245. Michael J. Dunn says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 8, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Willis, I know this is not the analysis you are performing. But no analysis is legitimate if it leaves out essential phenomena. Re-radiation is so immediate that the atmosphere’s temperature has no connection with it, except as how the air temperature might slightly alter the resonant frequency of the IR “absorptive” molecules (pressure broadening).

Yeah, I’ve read the argument that between absorption and re-radiation, the GH molecule has an opportunity to share its heightened energy with all the other molecules (heating). The problem with this argument is that it also works in the other direction: GH molecules that are naturally warmer than the mean temperature will spontaneously radiate (cooling), and they will be heat-replenished by any other “hot” molecule. The result is balance. There is no radiant accumulation of heat.

The air is a pass-through, insofar as radiation is concerned. It gets heated only from contact with Earth’s surface and the resultant convection mixing. (Now, it is true that you can heat a column of air by temporary absorption of a high-energy laser beam, but that is a non-equilibrium event. And even then, the air eventually “bleaches,” or becomes transparent to the radiation once it reaches equilibrium with the radiation.)

No misunderstanding on my part. I’ve been doing this professionally over the past 40 years.

246. Willis Eschenbach says:

Michael J. Dunn says:
January 10, 2014 at 1:26 pm

… The air is a pass-through, insofar as radiation is concerned. It gets heated only from contact with Earth’s surface and the resultant convection mixing. (Now, it is true that you can heat a column of air by temporary absorption of a high-energy laser beam, but that is a non-equilibrium event. And even then, the air eventually “bleaches,” or becomes transparent to the radiation once it reaches equilibrium with the radiation.)

We know the temperature at the surface. From that we know the amount of upwelling longwave radiation from the ground. We also can measure the upwelling longwave at the top of the atmosphere.

Then, using only the clear-sky data, we can subtract the TOA longwave from the surface longwave to see how much of the radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. When we do that, as has been known since the ERBE experiments decades ago, we get something like this:

As you can see, globally the clear air absorbs an average of about 130W/m2. And as Ramanathan pointed out some years ago, what you’re looking at there is essentially a map of the location of water vapor in the air.

So I think we can agree that the atmosphere actually absorbs longwave radiation, and that water vapor is the variable regarding how much is absorbed.

Now, your argument seems to be that somehow this absorbed radiation is re-emitted instantaneously, with no net effect on the atmospheric temperature. If I understand what you are saying, you think the radiation just stops momentarily, then goes onwards to space.

And if that were the case, all the radiation leaving the ground would reach space unaltered. If that were the case, then TOA radiation would be the same as the surface radiation … but it’s not.

Or if you don’t like CERES, we can show this another way.

We know the temperature of the surface, which gives us the upwelling longwave from the surface by the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship. If we average it out 24/7 annually we get 400 W/m2 of upwelling radiation from the surface. We’ve known that for a while.

But we also know that averaged globally 24/7, the sun only provides us ~ 340 W/m2 of incoming energy, and of that about 100 W/m2 is reflected back to space. That means the average constant input energy is about 240 W/m2.

Given that we’re neither roasting nor freezing, the average output has to equal the input … and that’s 240 W/m2. If the atmosphere is a “pass-through, insofar as radiation is concerned” as you say, then the 400 W/m2 should be passing through.

And that would mean that the planet would be constantly receiving 240 W/m2 and radiating 400 W/m2 to space … sorry, we’d have frozen long ago if that were true.

So both these different methods establish that the atmosphere is not in any sense a “pass-through” for radiation.

No misunderstanding on my part. I’ve been doing this professionally over the past 40 years.

Michael, I should warn you that here on WUWT, appeals to authority just get laughed at … particularly when, by some amazing coincidence, the claimed authority is the person who is appealing to authority.

Best regards,

w.

247. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 9, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Actually downwelling LWIR has no effect on the surface temperature of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. All it does is cause temporarily increased evaporation that offsets any temperature gain by IR photons absorbed in the skin evaporation layer. LWIR only penetrates about 10 microns into this layer. Not all molecules in water have the same energy state and the absorbed photons simply trip some water molecules into phase change slightly sooner than the otherwise would. Because LWIR does not effect the surface temperature of liquid water it does not change the rate of outgoing LWIR from the waters surface.

The experiment to prove that LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool is simple to build and run –

Simply start with 40C water under both strong and weak LWIR sources and record the cooling rate of each sample. There is no measurable difference. Now repeat the experiment with a thin film of LDPE floated onto each water sample surface. This prevents evaporative cooling but allows conductive and radiative cooling. Now the samples cool at different rates.

Konrad, what results did you get when you ran the experiment with the fans turned off?

Also, if you wish to emulate the ocean, you’ll need to emulate the night-time overturning.

Finally, I would be shocked if the only mechanism in action were the one that you propose, viz: “Not all molecules in water have the same energy state and the absorbed photons simply trip some water molecules into phase change slightly sooner than the otherwise would.” The idea that the IR would be entirely absorbed by that mechanism doesn’t pass the laugh test. Some IR must strike some low-energy water molecules and be absorbed as heat.

And in fact, this is strongly borne out by the observational data. Globally, the downwelling IR at the surface is on the order of 320 W/m2. Hang on, let me see what CERES says … CERES gives a slightly larger number, 345 W/m2.

However, we also know that the total amount of energy that goes into evaporation globally is less than a third of that, about 100 W/m2. So we know for a fact that an absolute minimum of 2/3 of the incident IR is absorbed as heat, and in all probability it is much more than that.

As a result, your claim that the IR doesn’t get absorbed by the ocean because it goes into evaporation is falsified.

Regards,

w.

248. 1sky1 says:

Ocuppied full-time with geophysical research, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deconstruct contrived experiments that differ materially from in situ conditions, where diurnal cycles and (Knudsen) boundary-layer effects exert important effects upon surface heat transfer from the ocean to an LWIR-absorbent atmosphere. For present purposes, suffice it to say that in any quasi-steady state, ALL heat-transfer mechanisms are involved in various proportions (q.v., the Bowen ratio) to balance a fixed influx of energy available for thermalization. Thus when evaporation and convection, which have pronounced diurnal cycles, are at their greatest, the LW net losses are necessarily at their least. Despite the fact that back-radiation doesn’t heat the oceans, it would require a completely LW transparent atmosphere for your claim of “no effect” to be true. BTW, your surmise that the great convective cells (e.g., Hadley) would then disappear is likewise physically untenable; they are the product of latitudinal pressure-differentials, not GHGs.

Trick says:
January 10, 2014 at 10:10 am
———————————————

“LWIR to LH to LWIR 100% efficient. If you expand the real experiment and integrate over the ocean surface, then instruments can easily detect the slowed water surface cooling rate by LWIR from a cooler source as shown by Willis CERES data, text books and many supporting papers.”

I am not making an argument about LWIR from a cooler source not being able to slow the cooling of liquid water. It is clear from the experiment shown and instruction given I am using 40C water and a 90C LWIR source.

I am quite clear showing that not even LWIR from a powerful source can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

So I can demonstrate with simple experiments incident LWIR slowing the cooling rate of almost any material but not liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

Trick, every time you run back to babbling about “text books an many supporting papers” my confidence doesn’t reduce as you hope. You are increasing my confidence that you will never be able to produce an actual empirical experiment that others can replicate showing LWIR heating liquid water that is free to evaporative cool.

The experiment should be oh-so-easy. AGW believers say LWIR is so powerful that it keeps the oceans from freezing! Just one little empirical experiment. But you can’t do it can you Trick?

“ CERES data, text books and many supporting papers” means you have nothing.

1sky1 says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:13 pm
“BTW, your surmise that the great convective cells (e.g., Hadley) would then disappear is likewise physically untenable; they are the product of latitudinal pressure-differentials, not GHGs.”
—————————————————————————-

Kevin E. Trenberth is a great believer in strong vertical tropospheric circulation being driven solely by the pole to equator temperature differential.

Dr. Spencer is of my view. Radiative cooling is critical to buoyancy loss and subsidence of air masses from altitude, without which the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cell would stall and the bulk of the atmosphere would trend isothermal through gas conduction.

My empirical experiments in tall gas columns support Dr Spencer’s position.

I’ll take empirical results over Trenberthian bafflegab.

251. Trick says:

Konrad 5:26pm: “I am not making an argument about LWIR from a cooler source not being able to slow the cooling of liquid water….I am quite clear showing that not even LWIR from a powerful source can slow the cooling rate of liquid water…”

Huh? The 1st is the earth/atm. the 2nd? Please explain that. Liquid water that is free or not free to evaporate is subject to the same 2nd law Konrad, you can’t repeal the 2nd law with a sheet of plastic – well, maybe in your world. Entropy increase in universe can’t be stopped by anything you can build even if Konrad can’t measure the entropy increase in a small experiment – planet Earth works on entropy increase. Entropy can be held constant for learning but that is ideal only, not real.

“ CERES data, text books and many supporting papers” means you have nothing.”

Willis had a top post somewhere above that means having more than nothing based on CERES dataset. I concur these amount certainly to nothing in Konrad’s world, the rest of science is founded & built upon by 1st principle data, modern text book theory, and specialist papers – I’ve cited the particulars in the past.

“You are increasing my confidence…”

Good. I truly hope Konrad’s confidence increases enough to publish the paper on the 2nd law shattering experiments Konrad has built; I will have contributed to something historic, the repeal of 2nd law. I remain stirred, not shaken (Bond had it wrong, btw).

252. Matthew R Marler says:

Willis Eschenbach: Now, if I let that kind of rubbish go on, between them Matt and Nick will soon have everyone convinced that if I measure the weight of a man and his wife on a scale together, then measure the man’s weight separately and calculate the wife’s weight from the difference … that this will somehow magically make their weights negatively correlated with a value of -.707.

With luck, lurkers may read some stat texts and realize that what Nick Stokes and I wrote about happens all the time in applied statistics, and that Willis’ “refutation” shows that he doesn’t understand the problem. We didn’t write about “magic”, we wrote about random variation in the measurement process, and how the negative correlations that Willis wrote of can happen whether the conclusion he wants to draw is true or false. Willis’ counter argument is sometimes the method does not get the wrong answer, especially when there is no unknown random variation..

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Ok, Willis you’re on ;-)

“Konrad, what results did you get when you ran the experiment with the fans turned off?”

Do the fans turn off over the real ocean?
The mark up shows the fans under-volted so the breeze is very light. It is identical for both the weak and strong LWIR source. What happens if you turn the fans off is a bubble of warm air builds under the strong LWIR source and gas conduction causes the water sample to cool very slightly slower. The Fans are needed to remove the gas conduction from LWIR source to the water and to remove the convective restriction imposed by the water block LWIR sources.

Willis if you try the experiment and see what happens when evaporation is restricted with plastic film or indeed what happens when warm sand is substituted for water you will realise that there is no way out nit picking over the fans. You can even try a more complex variant using thin nichrome wire heaters over the water sample. These do not restrict convection so no fans are needed.

“[CERES..assumption..no lab experiment…blah,blah] As a result, your claim that the IR doesn’t get absorbed by the ocean because it goes into evaporation is falsified.”

No Willis, the only thing that can prove me wrong is a simple lab experiment that others can replicate that shows LWIR heating liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. You cannot provide that. (and please do not even think of pushing Minnett’s tripe)

Willis your steel greenhouse works, and I have previously posted build diagrams for others to check it as I have. It works, but only because the two shells are not fluids in a gravity field.

Radiative physics is fine, it’s just that climate scientists are giving it a bad name.

SB equations alone cannot solve for the temperature profile of moving fluids in a gravity field. This was the essence of Sir George Simpson’s warning to Callendar in 1938. Callendar chose to ignore it and here we are, trillions wasted and thousands dead.

You believe in the radiative greenhouse hypothesis. You believe down-welling LWIR keeps the oceans from freezing. I make claims on the basis of empirical experiment alone. You have challenged.

My challenge in response. Your clear and direct and direct, hand-waving free answer if you would be so good –

This experiment can simulate what would happen to the oceans without an atmosphere. (ignoring that they would instantly boil into space with enough force to destabilise the planet’s orbit)

The water sample is heated only by SW. Conductive and evaporative cooling is restricted. The sample can only effectively cool by LWIR emission and there is virtually no LWIR back radiated to the sample surface.
Will the sample –
A. Freeze?
B. Rise toward 80C?

Willis, you are a smart guy. You can see the diagram is an arbitrary representation in terms of dimensions, SW power and cycle and the convective restriction in the liquid. You know what the experiment is about. Forget the lurkers and remember future readers. “Trick” style nit picking about specifics serves only short term goals.

The logic is very simple.

If the average temperature of the planet without atmosphere is near 80C, then our atmosphere is clearly cooling the planet. There is only one effective way of cooling our atmosphere. Radiative gases. The radiative greenhouse hypothesis is therefore a complete load of…

But I digress…

Regards,

K.

Trick says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:02 pm

Still no empirical experiment showing incident LWIR heating or slowing the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool?

“[blah ..blah..] 1st principle data, modern text book theory, and specialist papers”

Oooh! “specialist” you say! Did they have white lab coats? Did they look “sciencey”? Are real engineers meant to bow or grovel at their feet? What is the protocol? Is it 97% bowing, or 97% grovelling?

Come on Trick. It should be so easy! That ever so effective LWIR is supposed to be keeping our oceans from freezing solid!

One little lab experiment that others can replicate. It shouldn’t be that hard.

255. RM says:

I’m not sure what Konrad’s experiment proves, exactly, but it reminds me of another experiment. It is well-known that boiling hot water freezes faster than room-temperature water – the Mpemba effect. If I remember correctly, there are a number of theories why – more efficient heat loss from convection in warmer water, better heat conduction through the base of the glass of water, ice less likely to form on the walls of the glass first, etc, but it’s still a matter of debate. In the case of the Mpemba effect, it seems that something about the nature of water complicates the relationship between the rate of cooling and the amount of initial energy (the initial temperature) in the water.

Likewise in Konrad’s experiment he’s noted that the water with the LWIR source cools at the same rate as the one without the LWIR source, but hasn’t actually determined why – and the why is important. Is Konrad sure the difference in cooling rate is large enough, at this scale, to be measured – would an up-scaling of his experiment show a similar result? What about without the assistance of the fan? Is it possible that something about the nature of water complicates the relationship – perhaps energy from the LWIR source affects convection.

Additionally, it’s one thing to look at water in a tank, and quite another to look at water in the ocean. No one looks at the Mpemba effect and concludes that, for example, warmer ocean waters must necessarily host more sea ice, more quickly, than cooler ocean waters (when subjected to the same meteorological conditions). Things get complicated when you go out to sea. For example, you say that, in your experiment, the water is “free to evaporate,” but in the ocean, evaporation is not just an either/or thing – free or not free – it’s a rate that responds to vapor pressure of water and wind speed as well as temperature. So if we were in a particularly humid bay, would the LWIR then heat the water? Or would it remain unable to do so? Can you do an experiment or find data from oceans (or lakes or ponds) that supports your assertion that LWIR doesn’t increase water temperature?

And of course I’d expect the water below the LWIR source would have a greater rate of evaporation – wouldn’t that mean more water vapor in the air (which is, you know, climate change)? Also, while evaporation is a cooling process, condensation is a warming process (conservation of energy). So you get the energy back, right, when the water condenses? So it’s not like the extra energy goes into a hole.

256. Willis Eschenbach says:

Matthew R Marler says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:33 pm

With luck, lurkers may read some stat texts and realize that what Nick Stokes and I wrote about happens all the time in applied statistics, and that Willis’ “refutation” shows that he doesn’t understand the problem. We didn’t write about “magic”, we wrote about random variation in the measurement process, and how the negative correlations that Willis wrote of can happen whether the conclusion he wants to draw is true or false. Willis’ counter argument is sometimes the method does not get the wrong answer, especially when there is no unknown random variation.

Oh, please. You, Phil, and Nick all claimed that the way CERES measures LW would necessarily cause LW to be negatively correlated with the SW. Nick gave a whole example involving coins. Nick’s original post on the subject, where he claims the measurement method determines the correlation, is here.

Meanwhile, back out in the real world, the way CERES measures LW doesn’t change the correlation in the slightest. You, Phil, and Nick made a foolish mistake. I don’t care if Nick ever admits it, nothing surprises me about him … but I thought better of you.

w.

257. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 10, 2014 at 6:38 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Ok, Willis you’re on ;-)

“Konrad, what results did you get when you ran the experiment with the fans turned off?”

Do the fans turn off over the real ocean?
The mark up shows the fans under-volted so the breeze is very light. It is identical for both the weak and strong LWIR source. …

In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment. Since that’s the case, why not say so, instead of just rambling on about fans and oceans?

… No Willis, the only thing that can prove me wrong is a simple lab experiment …

Yeah, I’ve noticed before that you pay no attention to wild and crazy things like logic and math, the kinds of things which can easily prove normal scientists wrong … but not Konrad, he’s impervious to normal science.

Forget I asked, Konrad. Since you don’t believe that either mathematics, logic, thought experiments, inference, argumentum ad absurdum, circumstantial evidence, statistics, or any of a host of other normal scientific methods can touch the theories of the SuperKonrad, I’m sure there’s nothing I can say that you’ll pay any attention to.

But you might profitably consider why you are unable to get any traction either here or anywhere else with your crazy theory … and it has nothing to do with anything on this side of your eyeballs.

w.

258. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 10, 2014 at 7:17 pm

… Come on Trick. It should be so easy! That ever so effective LWIR is supposed to be keeping our oceans from freezing solid!

Just curious, Konrad … the ocean is radiating at about 400 W/m2 or so, and it’s losing about another 100 W/m2 through sensible and latent heat losses.

On the other hand, only about 165 W/m2 gets to the surface from the sun … what do you think provides the additional 335 W/m2 or so necessary to keep the ocean from freezing?

Me, I think that the additional energy comes from downwelling longwave radiation. But you don’t think IR can warm water.

So … what’s your explanation for the source of the ~ 335 watts necessary to prevent icing over?

Oh, wait … I forgot, mathematics and logic can’t touch the theories of the mighty Konrad … so you’ll most likely just blow my question off and never answer it.

w.

RM says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
————————————-
The experiment simply shows that the ability of a material to undergo phase change at the LWIR incident surface confounds normal radiative physics.

It is simply a LWIR version of the old “how do you heat a plastic tub of water with a hair dryer?” trick. Answer – point the hair dryer at the side of the tub not the surface of the water.

You state –
“Also, while evaporation is a cooling process, condensation is a warming process (conservation of energy). So you get the energy back, right, when the water condenses? So it’s not like the extra energy goes into a hole.”

It doesn’t go into a hole, it goes into the black and soulless vacuum of outer space. When water vapour condenses at altitude, it releases latent heat. This heat release occurs well above the surface level of maximum IR opacity in the atmosphere. 50 % of this is radiated toward space. Of the half radiated toward the surface, 50% of that is intercepted by radiative gases in air masses rising from the surface.

Our fluid atmosphere acts just as a heat-pipe in a modern computer heat sink. It is a giant vapour-condensate heat pump moving energy to space.

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:47 pm

But that was not enough-

Willis Eschenbach also says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:54 pm
—————————————-
You brought it Willis, now you gotta wear it ;-)

“In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment.”

You just accused me of lying. Was that a good idea or a bad idea? Lets review –

I’m away from my home machine, but that is a pic of the earliest version of the experiment I ever published on the web. It just reflected outgoing IR from cooling water samples back to the surface just like the atmosphere (downwelling dependant in part on upwelling). Off blog (valid) criticism lead to the version with constant IR sources. But have a look at the early version shown. Why did I try to establish an equal pattern of airflow over both samples? How might that relate to “you don’t know because”?

Now before an hypothesis on why Willis refused to give a clear and direct answer to the question he was asked, I should probably review some of his comments. (actually probably not for the best, but I can’t resist. I just can’t…)

“Yeah, I’ve noticed before that you pay no attention to wild and crazy things like logic and math, the kinds of things which can easily prove normal scientists wrong … but not Konrad, he’s impervious to normal science”

No, but I am impervious to post-normal science ;-) (oh please, you walked right into that one.)
Logic and maths? My first job out of high school was computer programmer. I do a lot of work in engineering and design these days. A lot of CAD, CAM and FEA. Pilots licence, scuba licence, politely requested never to come back by mine warfare and demolitions unit. Lots of numbers.

“Since you don’t believe that either mathematics, logic, thought experiments, inference, argumentum ad absurdum, circumstantial evidence, statistics, or any of a host of other normal scientific methods can touch the theories of the SuperKonrad, I’m sure there’s nothing I can say that you’ll pay any attention to”

You could get my attention by answering the question you were directly asked Willis. Your complete failure to even attempt an answer is painting quite the picture. A or B Willis? Step right up. Throw your hat in the ring. Take your chances! Fabulous prizes to be won!!

Only you’re not going to do that Willis are you? You wouldn’t dare. Buk.Buk.Bucawww!

“But you might profitably consider why you are unable to get any traction either here or anywhere else with your crazy theory … and it has nothing to do with anything on this side of your eyeballs”

You just blew that. Maximum traction. Laugh and clap as Willis desperately tries to avoid admitting that the atmosphere cools the oceans and radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
“So … what’s your explanation for the source of the ~ 335 watts necessary to prevent icing over?”

What are you dribbling about? If the oceans on this planet could exist without an atmosphere they would reach almost 80C!

Oh, wait, you’ve been applying SB equations to moving fluids in a gravity field again haven’t you? Remember the oceans are being heated at depth by SW and cooled at the surface. Non radiative transports need to be considered.

“Oh, wait … I forgot, mathematics and logic can’t touch the theories of the mighty Konrad … so you’ll most likely just blow my question off and never answer it.”

See above, and remember you are the one who wants to be the mighty Willis on climate blogs. I get my engineering awards, movie credits and technology museum exhibits elsewhere ;-)

261. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm

Willis

“In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment.”

You just accused me of lying. Was that a good idea or a bad idea?

Nothing of the sort. I accused you of not doing the experiment with the fans turned off.

Since you didn’t say whether you had or hadn’t done the experiment with the fans turned off, how could that be an accusation that you are a liar? I made no such accusation.

I just said that since you refused to answer my question about what happens when the experiment was done with the fans off, I assumed you haven’t done that part of the investigation.

If I’m wrong, if you have done the experiment with the fans turned off … then why didn’t you just give me the results as I requested?

w.

262. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:47 pm

“Yeah, I’ve noticed before that you pay no attention to wild and crazy things like logic and math, the kinds of things which can easily prove normal scientists wrong … but not Konrad, he’s impervious to normal science”

No, but I am impervious to post-normal science ;-) (oh please, you walked right into that one.)

Konrad, I was responding to your ludicrous claim, which was that neither logic nor mathematics can show the mighty Konrad is wrong, viz:

No Willis, the only thing that can prove me wrong is a simple lab experiment that others can replicate.

So if you want us to believe that logic and math CAN prove you wrong … don’t make dumb claims like that one.

w.

263. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm

… You could get my attention by answering the question you were directly asked Willis. Your complete failure to even attempt an answer is painting quite the picture. A or B Willis? Step right up. Throw your hat in the ring. Take your chances! Fabulous prizes to be won!!

Only you’re not going to do that Willis are you? You wouldn’t dare. Buk.Buk.Bucawww!

“A” or “B” about what, Konrad? Do you actually think I read enough of your asinine tripe to have ever seen your question? If you think so, you are quite wrong. Mostly, I just skip your BS, you’re a SIF who doesn’t understand longwave. Usually you are just flogging some false scientific theory, so your posts are not worth reading 997% of the time.

However, if your question is all that important to you, run it by me, and I’ll think about it. And leave off the insults, please. Insulting me because I didn’t answer some question I’ve never even seen just makes you look vindictive and petty. You might or might not be that way, I don’t know … but you sure look like it when you abuse me over something I know nothing about.

w.

264. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm

… Laugh and clap as Willis desperately tries to avoid admitting that the atmosphere cools the oceans and radiative gases cool the atmosphere.

Since the atmosphere does cool the oceans, and radiative gases do cool the atmosphere, what on earth have you been smoking to make you think I would ever deny things that obvious?

I’ll state it loud and clear. The atmosphere cools the oceans and radiative gases cool the atmosphere. What ever made you think I didn’t know that? Clearly, you have no idea what I know or think.

Dude, you are seriously losing the plot. If you think I’ve denied either of those things, show us where.

w.

265. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm

… I get my engineering awards, movie credits and technology museum exhibits elsewhere ;-)

My congratulations. I’m so impressed, I’ll never doubt your word again. I mean, a guy with movie credits has instant cred. How could I not believe you about scientific matters, when you’ve got actual movie credits?

w.

266. Willis Eschenbach says:

RM says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm

Additionally, it’s one thing to look at water in a tank, and quite another to look at water in the ocean.

Indeed it is, and your points are well taken. However, Konrad still hasn’t grasped the nettle. If the ocean is not warmed by downwelling infrared, why isn’t it frozen? Konrad wouldn’t answer the question, he just mumbled something about how the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t work where there is gravity … but then he’s got movie credits, so you better believe him …

w.

267. Trick says:

Konrad 11:49pm: “I am impervious to post-normal science”

Does Konrad disbelieve there are 2H atoms and one O atom in the hydrogen oxide (aka dyhydrogen monoxide or water) molecules tested? No? Then Konrad should thank a teacher, 1st principle data, modern text books and specialist papers for accurate information on that because I rather doubt Konrad has ever seen an individual water molecule or tested for its constituents.

Just like Konrad cannot see LWIR – but in this case for some reason chooses not to learn from and to disbelieve teachers, 1st principle data, text books and specialist papers and concludes from lying eyes & imprecise testing measurements LWIR which cannot be seen must not be slowing the cooling rate of liquid ocean water that is free to evaporate in order to suit a view on blogs.

“Pilots licence…”

Thank teachers, 1st principle data, modern text books and specialist papers for the machine and ability that flies Konrad around – oh wait, Konrad can’t fly until has 1st done the aero, structural, powerplant and control system testing first before takeoff to see if the thing will actually fly at the end of the runway on any given day. The engineers that did the design work & the certification process are not to be believed until Konrad 1st does the testing on his kitchen table.

Can anyone imagine Konrad buying a ticket to get on a commercial airliner? I can’t.

268. “If the ocean is not warmed by downwelling infrared, why isn’t it frozen?”

Simple.

It is warmed by solar shortwave that gets past the evaporative layer.

Evaporation has a net cooling effect at Earth’s normal atmospheric pressure and so any energy that fails to get past the evaporative layer must provoke additional evaporation for a net cooling effect.

The latent heat of vaporisation at I bar pressure is 5 times the energy required to provoke evaporation.

I disagree with Konrad about the need for GHGs to cause convective overturning but he is right about the effect of additional energy passing from atmosphere to ocean surface because that energy is of a wavelength that cannot get past the evaporative layer.

Note that I don’t refer to DWIR because I think that the additional energy at the surface is a result of adiabatic warming of descending air and not DWIR but that is another issue.

It isn’t that S-B doesn’t work because of gravity but rather S-B doesn’t work when you have the mass of an atmosphere absorbing energy via conduction and raising that energy off the ground via convection.

Nor is it a matter of pressure. Instead it is a matter of atmospheric mass absorbing energy via conduction and the denser the mass the more conduction and the higher the surface temperature at any given level of irradiation.

One cannot prevent convection by removing GHGs if the surface is unevenly irradiated because that uneven irradiation will always give rise to density variations in the horizontal plane and that will always result in convective overturning.

269. Why has my post at 8.13am gone to moderation?

270. Ah, it’s been approved now, but why the delay ?

271. Trick says:

Stephen 8:13am: “It is warmed by solar shortwave that gets past the evaporative layer.”

Howdy! Sure, but there isn’t enough net solar SW with ~zero net LWIR to keep from freezing oceans at Earth current epoch orbit. SW needs help from non-zero atm. net LWIR as Willis implies 3:14am.

I see Stephen still has not cracked open a good modern text on atm. thermo. Get cracking.

272. Trick said:

“SW (solar ShortWave rather than Stephen Wilde :)) needs help from non-zero atm. net LWIR as Willis implies 3:14am.”

Of course it does and warmed air from adiabatic descent does the ‘Trick’ just fine.

Ignore the ‘modern’ text books. They have forgotten the ‘old’ knowledge.

You can’t ignore non-radiative energy transfer mechanisms.

Conduction makes the air above the oceans warmer than the temperature of space and the denser the atmospheric mass above the oceans the warmer that temperature will be at any given level of solar irradiation.

Willis at 3.14am makes no reference to conduction.

Is he, and you, in denial ?

273. Trick says:

“Ignore the ‘modern’ text books. They have forgotten the ‘old’ knowledge.”

Burn ’em huh? Ignore them like Konrad does? No. Not even the ‘old’ knowledge taught Stephen an adiabatic process warms anything. Diabatic processes warm stuff. You (and Konrad) really do need to crack open modern texts to advance knowledge. Stephen and Konrad will be amazed at what advancements they can learn. I am astonished they don’t want to advance their learning.

“Is he, and you, in denial ?”

I am in denial that adiabatic processes warm the surface; fact is the sun’s net radiation diabatic process warms the surface. Terrestrial radiative, conductive and convective energy transfer cool the surface solid and liquid, and TOA radiation cools the atm. Net is shown by theory and thermometers 288K surface Tmean from inputting measured data to 1st law and consistent with 2nd law. All found in modern texts.

Q: Why does every thread on DWIR, LWIR, CERES seem to converge on this topic?

A: Because Stephen and Konrad, for example, won’t read up on the modern texts and recent specialist papers. So they don’t gain traction, just spin thread wheels.

Trick says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:01 am
———————————–
“oh wait, Konrad can’t fly until has 1st done the aero, structural, powerplant and control system testing first before takeoff to see if the thing will actually fly at the end of the runway on any given day. The engineers that did the design work & the certification process are not to be believed until Konrad 1st does the testing on his kitchen table.”

The Wright Brothers achieved powered flight by rejecting the “basic physics of the “settled science”. They built their own wind tunnel and ran their own experiments.

Trick, you are a complete twit and your failure is beyond epic.

275. Trick,

Your objections to my inter-changeable conduction / radiation scenario have always been on the basis that any increase in atmospheric height has to be accompanied by a rise in surface temperature.

That is the essence of AGW theory too.

This post by Willis posits a thermostatic response whereby a rise in surface temperature is not necessary if the atmosphere responds appropriately.

I think that my inter-changeable conduction / radiation proposal involving a change in atmospheric heights and circulation is the only way that Willis’s thermostatic scenario can be realised but even Willis has a problem with that because he still thinks that GHGs are required for any convective overturning to occur.

Observations (IMHO) support my view that the thermostatic mechanism is effected by the variable nature of convective overturning switching the system between conduction and radiation as necessary to maintain radiative balance for the system as a whole.

Willis proposes more vigorous convection as a thermostatic mechanism but more vigorous convection must push higher against gravity mustn’t it ?

I think he should look at the global air circulation as a whole rather than just the tropics but that is a minor issue.

How do you reconcile your views about a rise in surface temperature being necessary as against Willis’s and my views that a rise in surface temperature is not necessary ?

I agree with Willis in the essential conclusion that something about the climate system prevents a rise in surface temperature when changes in the air occur.

Willis’s solution is similar to mine in that a change in atmospheric circulation removes the need for a rise in surface temperature.

I only disagree with Willis as to the significance of GHGs. He thinks GHGs are critical to the thermostatic process whereas I believe it is a matter of uneven surface heating and atmospheric mass with the role of GHGs being insignificant.

You seem to be out on a limb in requiring an increase in surface temperature which observations indicate just does not happen over longer periods of time.

You correctly point out that the surface temperature constantly varies above and below he equilibrium level but so what ?

That just shows that internal system variability is causing oscillations around the mean.

It says nothing about how that longer term mean is maintained so as to keep our oceans liquid for billions of years despite huge disruptive effects on the system such as massive volcanic outbreaks, asteroid strikes or long term changes in solar irradiance.

As the Bard would say, “methinks the lady doth protest too much”.

How badly did you just lose?

277. Trick.

The energy from the sun fuels the adiabatic processes by heating the surface diabatically.

The adiabatic process then reduces the rate of cooling leading to a higher surface temperature than S-B predicts.

The more atmospheric mass there is and the denser it is at the surface the more of the diabatic heating is leaked into the adiabatic convective overturning..

It is really very simple and entirely separate from the radiative exchange.

278. Trick says:

Konrad 9:46am: “The Wright Brothers achieved powered flight by rejecting the “basic physics of the “settled science”. They built their own wind tunnel and ran their own experiments.”

More wheel spinning, no traction.

The Wright brothers did not reject basic physics at all, they employed the general physics theory from Bournoulli, Prandtl et. al. fluid dynamics work, their practice developed skills to physically test their design construction consistent with basic aero. physics in wind tunnel and then the atm., along with observations of nature (small n). They built on the shoulders of specialists in the field unlike Konrad who doesn’t or can’t write on the basic theory in his experiments then proceeds to draw conclusions inconsistent with basic physics.

In short, the Wright brothers studied up to build their theory & machines, unlike Stephen and Konrad.

******

Stephen 10:19am: “.. energy from the sun fuels the adiabatic processes.”

It can’t if the processes are adiabatic.

Stephen 9:48am: “That is the essence of AGW theory too.”

No. My et. al. objections to your narrative are all based on modern atm. thermo. text book theory with cites. Here is the basic essence from Callendar 1938 standing the test of time and against which neither Konrad nor Stephen have offered cogent, clarifying physics to suit their view:

“…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.”

Stephen continues: ”You seem to be out on a limb in requiring an increase in surface temperature which observations indicate just does not happen over longer periods of time.”

No limb. +1.5F in global Tmean since 1880. Callendar’s science based predictions for +anomaly 75 years later turned out well as subsequently observed.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

279. The sun can fuel adiabatic processes if conduction transfers energy from surface to atmosphere.

Callendar is correct but the most relevant ‘substance’ is mass via conduction far more than radiative capability such that the latter is barely measurable in comparison.

A non radiative atmosphere doesn’t delay incoming but it still delays outgoing by absorbing it via conduction and lifting it aloft via convection.

1.5F since 1880 is but a small part of the natural cycle which appears to be 1500 years or so and even that fades away compared to the natural ice age / interglacial cycle.

280. Trick says:

Stephen 10:55am: “1.5F since 1880 is but a small part of the natural cycle.”

No traction. Nature does cycle. How small a part in science terms? Exactly how much Tmean change from CO2 mass et. al. added IR active gas mass above natural cycles in the science between 1880 and today? What is the science result on Tmean of the cycles before 1880 exactly?

Stephen doesn’t know but can write narrative; it is so easy to write narrative when unconstrained by science and basic physics. At least Konrad attempts experiment.

Well, dunno if posting on that will help Stephen or Konrad, but it helps me feel helluva lot better. Y’all’s turn at bat.

281. Matthew R Marler says:

The problem of working with d* = (a + eps) – (b + del) = (a – b) + (eps – del) instead of a – b is most obvious when a – b = 0 for ever observation, so that d* = eps – del. Then it is obvious that the negative correlation of d* with del (and the positive correlation of d* with eps) tells nothing about a – b. Naturally, we do not know whether a -b is 0 or not; all we know is that the negative correlation of d* with (b + del) tells nothing about a – b. The problem is only slightly less severe whenever the sample standard deviation of the true values of a – b is small compared to the sample standard deviations of eps and del.

Willis Eschenbach: Oh, please. You, Phil, and Nick all claimed that the way CERES measures LW would necessarily cause LW to be negatively correlated with the SW. Nick gave a whole example involving coins. Nick’s original post on the subject, where he claims the measurement method determines the correlation, is here.

Meanwhile, back out in the real world, the way CERES measures LW doesn’t change the correlation in the slightest. You, Phil, and Nick made a foolish mistake. I don’t care if Nick ever admits it, nothing surprises me about him … but I thought better of you.

Now you say that the way that CERES measures LW doesn’t change the correlation in the slightest. What then was the point of your weight example? If LW is estimated by differencing, then your weight example is pertinent, except you need an example with large measurement error in the measurement of weight (“large” compared to the standard deviation of true weight differences, which is usually not the case); if LW is not measured by differencing, then your weight example is irrelevant.

Back in the real world, as you call it, if d* is measured as (a + eps) – (b + del), then then you can’t infer anything about d and (a – b) from the correlation of d* and either (a + eps) or (b + del). In your case, with d* being “measured” LW and (a + eps) the “measured” total and (b + del) the “measured SW (quotes for emphasis, not scare), your negative correlation of “measured” LW with “measured” SW does not tell you what you want to know about true LW and true SW.

Your hypothesis could be correct. But you have tested it with a technique that with high probability gives an apparently confirmatory result even if it is wrong.

You thought better of me? Can it. You always get your hackles up with any criticism, right or wrong. Maybe in a relaxed frame of mind some day you’ll give some thought to the correlations induced by measured differences that have non-negligible measurement error in them.

282. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 11, 2014 at 9:52 am

As the Bard would say, “methinks the lady doth protest too much”.

How badly did you just lose?

Konrad, it was an act of kindness to split it up. I was going to do it in one long comment … but then I remembered your attention span.

w.

PS—It appears you are incapable of even QUOTING someone correctly … the actual quote is

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

The quote also didn’t mean anything like what you think it means … but then no surprise there. Per Wiki, emphasis mine:

This quote comes from Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2, line 254 (line accuracy may differ in varying versions of the play). During the time Hamlet was written, the word “protest” meant “vow” or “declare solemnly” rather than “deny”. In this manner, Gertrude is making a comment about the Player Queen’s overzealous attachment to the Player King rather than a denial of guilt. The quote is Gertrude’s response to Hamlet’s asking her if she is enjoying the play.

283. Willis Eschenbach says:

Matthew R Marler says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:18 am

The problem of working with d* = (a + eps) – (b + del) = (a – b) + (eps – del) instead of a – b is most obvious when a – b = 0 for ever observation, so that d* = eps – del. Then it is obvious that the negative correlation of d* with del (and the positive correlation of d* with eps) tells nothing about a – b. Naturally, we do not know whether a -b is 0 or not; all we know is that the negative correlation of d* with (b + del) tells nothing about a – b. The problem is only slightly less severe whenever the sample standard deviation of the true values of a – b is small compared to the sample standard deviations of eps and del.

Willis Eschenbach:

Oh, please. You, Phil, and Nick all claimed that the way CERES measures LW would necessarily cause LW to be negatively correlated with the SW. Nick gave a whole example involving coins. Nick’s original post on the subject, where he claims the measurement method determines the correlation, is here.

Meanwhile, back out in the real world, the way CERES measures LW doesn’t change the correlation in the slightest. You, Phil, and Nick made a foolish mistake. I don’t care if Nick ever admits it, nothing surprises me about him … but I thought better of you.

Now you say that the way that CERES measures LW doesn’t change the correlation in the slightest. What then was the point of your weight example?

Matt, Nick and Phil started this thing out with the following quote:

Nick Stokes says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:15 pm

“Anyhow, that’s today’s news from CERES … the longwave and the reflected shortwave is strongly negatively correlated, and averages -0.65 globally. This strongly supports my theory that the earth has a strong active thermoregulation system…”

Phil. is right on this one. The negative correlation is just a matter of the arithmetic used. Here is just one of many accounts on what CERES measures. It says:

“Each CERES instrument measures filtered radiances in the shortwave (SW; wavelengths between 0.3 and 5 µm), total (TOT; wavelengths between 0.3 and 200 µm), and window (WN; wavelengths between 8 and 12 µm) regions…”
“Since there is no LW channel on CERES, LW daytime radiances are determined from the difference between the TOT and SW channel radiances.”

IOW, what you are describing as upwelling LW is just (SW+LW)-SW. And since upwelling (SW+LW) pretty much balances incoming SW (solar constant), negative correlation comes from that arithmetic.

Note the claim that the negative correlation comes from the arithmetic, that is to say, the claim is that the correlation comes, not from the errors as you now say, but from the fact that the longwave is measured as the difference between the total and the solar portion.

In fact, when you agreed with them, you didn’t say one word about errors, viz:

The problem is not that it is “indirect”, but that is it the difference between one measurement and another: a – b = c. The difference will be correlated with the terms of which it is made: a is positively correlated with c, and b is negatively correlated with c. The constraint of which Nick Stokes wrote is non-constant because a and b are random variables.

But as I showed with the example of the scales and weighing people, calculating their weight indirectly makes no difference.

Note a couple of things:

1. His claim is wrong.

2. His claim is the one that you originally backed up … but now have changed.

3. There is NOTHING in his claim about all of the ” d* = (a + eps) – (b + del) = (a – b) + (eps – del) ” kind of claim that you are now making, where eps and del are errors.

At this point your claim is very different from that of Nick, and different from your original claim. He claimed that the measurement method itself created the correlation, and you agreed.

Your brand new claim is that if there are errors in the measurement process, it will create a negative correlation in the measurements. So let’s try that. Alice and Bob go to the fair. They get weighted on a scale that has a systematic bias error—it always weighs 10% too high.

Alice weighs 100 pounds, and Bob weighs 240 pounds. But when they get on the scale, instead of 200 pounds, it says 374 pounds. And when Bob gets on the scale, his weight is recorded as 264 pounds. So Alice’s weight is calculated as the difference between 374 and 264 pounds, or 110 pounds. So regardless of the error, we get the same answer as if Alice had stood on the scale.

Now, if we repeat this for a hundred thousand couples, will their weights end up negatively correlated? Absolutely not. Since we’ve estimated everyones weight as being 10% high, this doesn’t change their correlation.

Now, suppose the scale has a random error with a standard deviation of 3% of the person’s weight. That’s about the size of the error in the CERES data. To figure out what happens in this case, we need to simulate it. Here’s the code.

# data_a and data_d represent the actual LW and (LW+SW) values if we had perfect instruments
# error_a and error_d are random errors on those two measurements, with a standard
# deviation equal to 3% of the individual value
datacount=1000000
data_a=runif(datacount, min = 1, max = 400) #generate SW pseudodata, no errors
data_d=runif(datacount,min=90, max=350) + data_a # generate (SW + LW) pseudodata, no errors
error_a =rnorm(datacount,sd=data_a*.03) # generate random measurement errors for a, at 10% of value
error_d=rnorm(datacount, sd= data_c*.03) # generate random errors for c, at 10% of value

data_a = data_a + error_a # add the errors to a
data_d= data_d + error_d # add the errors to d

data_b=data_d-data_a

cor(data_b,data_a)
# -0.006

The problem seems to be that you think that d, the total, is the sum of a, plus measurement errors in a, plus b + measurement errors in b. Or as you put it,

d* = (a + eps) – (b + del) = (a – b) + (eps – del)

where epsilon and delta are the errors in a and b, which sum to form the error in c.

But the error in d is no such thing. The measurement “d” knows nothing of a, b, or their errors. It is a separate measurement, and has its own separate errors. In other words, the real formula you should be looking at is:

d* = a + b + error_d

Having clarified that, in fact, as you now point out (after abandoning your claim that Nick was correct in his example with the coins), we do get a negative correlation as you said … but what you didn’t mention is that it is tiny—it averages a whacking -.005 for errors the size of those in the CERES dataset.

We can try it as well with a larger error. If the random error is 10% for example (far larger than CERES data), the negative correlation increases … but even then, the negative correlation is only -0.05, meaningless in almost any context.

Finally, a datapoint for you, Nick, and Phil to consider. The correlation between the full 13-year TOA shortwave data (directly measured) and longwave data (indirectly measured in the manner that you, Nick, and Phil are sure will cause negative correlation) is +0.10 … positive.

Which kinda puts the kibosh on y’all’s claim that the measurement method explains the negative correlation that I noted in the head post, which is where this discussion all started.

Matthew, let me close by saying that you’ve accused me of being over-sensitive, saying:

You always get your hackles up with any criticism, right or wrong. Maybe in a relaxed frame of mind some day you’ll give some thought to the correlations induced by measured differences that have non-negligible measurement error in them.

I don’t get my hackles up with any criticism.

But when you accuse me or anyone of making a “rookie mistake” as you did above, surely you can’t be surprised when it blows back into your face …

Best regards,

w.

PS—Had you watched him as long as I have, you’d know that 97.3% of the time, agreeing with Nick Stokes is actually a rookie mistake in itself …

284. Willis Eschenbach says:

Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:13 am

“If the ocean is not warmed by downwelling infrared, why isn’t it frozen?”

Simple.

It is warmed by solar shortwave that gets past the evaporative layer.

Stephen, you haven’t done the necessary math.

Since there is only 160 W/m2 of total downwelling shortwave, and about 400 W/m2 of upwelling longwave from the ocean plus about 100 W/m2 in the total of sensible and latent heat, that claim fails the laugh test. You’re only short about 340 W/m2 to keep it from freezing …

w.

285. Reference says:

George Clarke Simpson. 1878-1965

Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of The Royal Society. Vol. 11, p170.

286. Myrrh says:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:13 am

“If the ocean is not warmed by downwelling infrared, why isn’t it frozen?”

Simple.

It is warmed by solar shortwave that gets past the evaporative layer.

Stephen, you haven’t done the necessary math.

What is missing is the necessary logic – water is a a transparent medium for visible light which means it is not absorbed but is transmitted through unchanged – it does not heat the ocean.

Visible light from the Sun works on the tinier electronic transition level – the level of photosynthesis and nerve impulses in sight – not on the bigger molecular vibrational level of thermal infrared, aka heat radiation from the Sun.

We would not have photosynthesis in the ocean if visible light from the Sun heated the ocean! It is precisely because water transmits visible light unchanged that we have evolved into carbon life forms on Earth from the ocean.

Transmission and transparent are linked technical terms:

http://www.ehow.com/how_7664665_measure-visible-light-transmission.html

“Visible light transmission affects the productivity of aquatic ecosystems. The distance to which visible light is transmitted underwater is an indicator of water quality because water with fewer suspended particles is clearer than dirty water. Sunlight reaching deeper underwater will create a larger habitat for the photosynthetic organisms that are the basis of aquatic food chains. Measuring the depth of visible light transmission is an indicator of the potential productivity of a body of water.”

Please see my post above, over half of the radiation we receive from the Sun is in the invisible infrared, while AGW claims it is mainly visible light and insignificant amounts of around 1% shortwave, non-thermal, infrared.

Unless this discrepancy is taken on board you will continue talking past each other.

What is warming the oceans is the direct beam radiant heat from the Sun, travelling in straight lines and reaching us in eight minutes, heating land and ocean and as every meteorologist knows, it is the differential heating of this which gives us our winds and weather via conduction at the surface and heat transfer by convection in the fluid gas ocean above us which is our atmosphere. That is the real downwelling of powerful thermal infrared radiant heat, not the disorganised ‘backradiation’ not capable of doing sustained work.

287. Trick says:

Reference – thanks for posting those pre-satellite era pieces. Interesting historical reading.

288. Trick says:

Myrrh 4:35pm – “…which means (visible light) is not absorbed but is transmitted through unchanged – it does not heat the ocean.”

Not as much energy integrated over visible light spectrum but it IS 100% absorbed by deep ocean – remember those Gulf oil well blowout dark videos needed the intense candlepower on the underwater robots for scene lighting.

“What is warming the oceans is the direct beam radiant heat from the Sun..”

In part yes, there isn’t enough energy in that direct beam you mention to warm and unfreeze the oceans as Willis explains, you too need to do the proper energy accounting. Observations show the oceans are in part not frozen in current epoch.

Willis tells everybody he thinks downwelling infrared from the atmosphere, specifically, and not from the sun, is heating the oceans.

Then he defies Konrad to show he’s done it.

Here it is, clear as daylight:

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:47 pm

“Konrad, what results did you get when you ran the experiment with the fans turned off?”

Do the fans turn off over the real ocean?

The mark up shows the fans under-volted so the breeze is very light.

It is identical for both the weak and strong LWIR source. …

* * *In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment. [The first accusation]
Since that’s the case, [The second accusation]

why not say so, [The third expression Konrad’s lying] instead of just rambling on about fans and oceans?* * *
=======
After being caught making vicious baseless accusation that
the man is a liar falsifying experimental data
publishing it world wide

he then shows up so disturbed
he defies Konrad to even prove he did. That’s here:

January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm:

(Quotes Willis Eschenbach saying: “In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment.”)

“You just accused me of lying. Was that a good idea or a bad idea?”
===
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 2:46

“Nothing of the sort. [Lie Number One.]
I accused you of not doing the experiment with the fans turned off. [Lie Number Two.]
Since you didn’t say whether you had or hadn’t done the experiment with the fans turned off, how could that be an accusation that you are a liar? [The Third attempt to Lie.]
I made no such accusation. [The Fourth Lie]
I just said that since you refused to answer my question about what happens when the experiment was done with the fans off,
I assumed you haven’t done that part of the investigation. [The Fifth lie.]
If I’m wrong, if you have done the experiment with the fans turned off … then why didn’t you just give me the results as I requested? [The Sixth desperate attempt to bulldoz the Lie into reality.]

w.
=======
Believing himself utterly beyond accountability
to those having to watch him do it to himself.

And that’s not all.

He did it again.
=======
He told Konrad he believes the oceans aren’t frozen because of atmospheric downwelling.
Here he is testifying he believes in atmospheric radiation,
not the sun – he specifies this through several other posts –
heating the oceans:
=======
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:54 pm
“Just curious, Konrad … what do you think provides the additional 335 W/m2 or so necessary to keep the ocean from freezing?
Me, I think that the additional energy comes from downwelling longwave radiation.”
=======
Yet again trying to deny what he said in front of people,
and Presto!
We didn’t all see him saying
what we all, saw him, saying.

January 10, 2014 at 11:49 pm

(… Laugh and clap as Willis desperately tries to avoid admitting that the atmosphere cools the oceans and radiative gases cool the atmosphere.)

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 3:05 am

“Since the atmosphere does cool the oceans, and radiative gases do cool the atmosphere, what on earth have you been smoking to make you think I would ever deny things that obvious? [The first Lie]

I’ll state it loud and clear.
The atmosphere cools the oceans and radiative gases cool the atmosphere. [The Second Lie.]

What ever made you think I didn’t know that? [The third lie]

Clearly, you have no idea what I know or think.[The fourth lie.]

Dude, you are seriously losing the plot. [Acting out as if he’s not the one caught separated from reality. The Fifth Lie]

If you think I’ve denied either of those things, show us where. [The Sixth Lie]

w.
=======
This is the perfect example of what happens when hot atmosphere belief, pseudo-science

meets cold atmosphere science.

It’s straight out of the “denigrate, act outraged, and deny ever being caught lying” playbook we saw it’s originators use in ClimateGate when they got caught saying one thing then scrambling to swear they said another.

290. Willis Eschenbach says:

Myrrh says:
January 11, 2014 at 4:35 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:13 am

“If the ocean is not warmed by downwelling infrared, why isn’t it frozen?”

Simple.

It is warmed by solar shortwave that gets past the evaporative layer.

Stephen, you haven’t done the necessary math.

What is missing is the necessary logic – water is a a transparent medium for visible light which means it is not absorbed but is transmitted through unchanged – it does not heat the ocean.

Oh my goodness, this just keeps getting better. Usually, I just skip straight over Myrrh’s post, he’s freaking hopeless. But it’s a slow evening and Seattle is whupping Indianapolis, so somehow I read as far as the quotation above … gotta admit, I was laughing so hard I couldn’t read any further.

Now, in addition to someone claiming that IR passes through the atmosphere unchanges, and Steven’s claim that IR can’t warm the ocean, and Nick’s claim that how we measure the flips of two coins can induce negative correlation between the coins … now Myrrh says that visible light can’t heat the ocean.

I’m dumbfounded. So according to you guys, neither IR nor visible light can heat the ocean? Really?

The fog seems to be particularly thick this evening. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

w

And we do have copious documentation that warm atmosphere religion believers will in fact swear that one thing is true when they know another is. Whenever someone interested in discussing a more reality based supposition: that the freezing cold nitrogen/oxygen immersion bath that’s phase change refrigerated with a ring of gobal convection cells comprising the Hadleys, the Ferrels, the Polar convection cells.

The Troposphere is nearly totally defined by the energy handling and mass ratio relationships of water. The tropopause itself: is created by water, when the water pulls atmospheric mixture upward with it in the great phase change refrigeration events called storm cells.

Carbon dioxide gets thrown up too – and it’s in fact heavier than the mixture in general – but when it starts to fall back down – the water’s turned to ice to fall down and change phases again –

it lands on top of the very edge of the just-cooled nitrogen/oxygen mix which also, like water, dump energy toward space, but not so much they become solid and fall.

The film effect of carbon dioxide sitting on top of the atmosphere is one easily disrupted: and any sort of disruption creates holes where carbon dioxide starts to fall through the boundary layer caused by the super cooled nitrogen oxygen mix just above where water falls out.

Not many people realize this is what forms the tropopause’s carbon dioxide layer. James Hansen tried to claim in 1988 that he and others were afraid that man made carbon dioxide would get thrown up with storms just like before, but that there would be so much more carbon dioxide, the layer would thicken, and like an insulating blanket, it would trap heat.

Of course he was lying: because he knew that the sun-side stream of infrared is FIVE TIMES that of the infrared stream from the earth:

and everybody knows, you can’t put more insulation between a fire and a sphere
blocking light from the fire to the sphere through physically reflecting energy away,

and make more light arrive at the target object’s surface sensors.

=======
Of course James Hansen knew that right? Indeed he did which is why everybody realizes now, he was running a total scam.

But ask the modern believer in the magic heater in the sky.
Ask Willis Eisenbach for goodness sake.
He’s about as bright as any of these warm atmosphere people.

If you ask Willis if he believes you can suspend insulating gas between a fire and a target object covered with sensors, blocking 20% or whatever energy to target sensors,

and have every single sensor on that sphere surface show
more energy arriving
than when there was
more energy arriving.

They’ll all tell you: “Oh yes, Yes I Do! That sounds real to me! Don’t YOU?”

=======

Now do you the average reader, really believe, that it’s possible that,
not only can you immerse hot objects in frigid baths
and make their temperatures rise 90F from what the temp was before you put it in
a refrigerated, frigid fluid, compound bath,

an obvious impossibility on it’s face –

and that simultaneously in the same universe that algebraic reversal of reality occurred

another equally or more unbelievable impossibility occurred – that you can put reflective insulation between the light source, and the sphere, and make
more energy arrive on the energy sensors,
than when
more energy arrived on the energy sensors?

Hey it doesn’t stop there: these people want to silence you from claiming it’s impossible. They want to let you know they are disgusted by your insistence those to simultaneous events aren’t happening right now.

They are also anxious to explain to you how, if you didn’t get these first two impossible heatings

that if you add yet more reflective molecules? (H2/CO2) – Earth surface energy sensors

will show even more energy arriving on them with say, 25% energy gone
than shown when the energy arriving on them than with just 20% gone.

That’s right. It’s not my story, it’s all these Perfesser Borehole “The science is sound” characters’ who are constantly being stunned to hear which direction a thermometer went.

While they tell me and the entire world that “we don’t understand the science?”

Standing there daring you to remind them how many times they broke the fundamental laws of conductive, convective frigid fluid baths, vs the spheres they cool,

they expect you to blythely absorb the news about the first two and sign right on to number three there where they tell you that blocking 20% energy already made
more energy arrive on sensors
than when
more energy arrived on sensors.

They expect you to just sit there and nod like some hypnotized cow while they further tell you that you really need to tell yourself
if you block 5% more and allow only 75% energy to sensors
it’s gonna get hotter than when you allowed 80% energy to sensors,

which – so you don’t “get lost trying to understand the science”
they will remind you already made it hotter than when 100% energy arrived.

Can you imagine some clod trying to stand among a crowd of people and not get laughed out of sight trying to float that to just everyday people?

They’ve simply algebraically inverted the fundamental energy handling
of a cold refrigerated bath

so that instead of “cooling” from the frigid bath of coolants there’s ”warming.”
so that instead of ”cooling” from removing 20% energy in, there’s ”warming.”
so that instead of ”cooling” from removing even more energy, there’s “warming.”

Examine their claims.
Compare it to what I’m telling you.

You’ve see what happens when one of them is faced with even mild mannered evidence they’re wrong.

The reason they do that is it’s the only way they ever get to keep spreading the magical algebraic inversions story.

292. Willis Eschenbach says:

[… lots of ugly, untrue accusations that I’m lying with every word I speak, complete with hilarious hysterics about what a terrible fellow I am …]

Steven, I’ll go over it real slowly for you.

I asked Konrad if he’d done the experiment with the fans off.

“Konrad, what results did you get when you ran the experiment with the fans turned off?”

Simple question, right?

Now the part you seem to have missed is that Konrad refused to answer the question.

Seeing that lack of a response, I said that I thought Konrad hadn’t done the experiment with the fans off.

In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment.

Now, Konrad has since had every opportunity to present us with the results of such an experiment with the fans off. He has not done so.

So I stand by my analysis. Konrad didn’t do the experiment with the fans off, because if he had, he would have given us the results.

I see that my exposing that fact has you frothing on your keyboard and misting your computer screen with spittle and insisting I’m a liar and an all-round miscreant guilty of mopery on the skyways … you might profitably consider just what has your blood in an uproar.

In any case, Steven, that has to be the most ludicrous opening comment I’ve seen in a long while. It’s like you’ve been storing up your venom for months … it was awesome, in its own sick way. No facts, just invective. That’s the very best way to get traction on a new blog, come in and be as unpleasant as you can possibly be in a venomous personal attack … brilliant plan, my friend.

Finally, I don’t know how to say this enough different ways. I didn’t accuse Konrad of lying. I don’t think he’s a liar, and I have never said he was a liar. It is an accusation I’m very leery of making, check my work. It’s just not something that I do without having indisputable facts in hand. Here’s the simple version, re-read it until you understand it.

I asked Konrad for the results from when he had done the experiment with the fans turned off. When he refused to answer I said that indicated that he’d never done the experiment with the fans off.

But since Konrad (to my knowledge) has NEVER claimed that he did the experiment with the fans off … then my saying he hadn’t done it was not calling him a liar in any sense. It was simply pointing out what I believe to be a fact.

Look, Steven, you seem like a smart guy … but your level of unpleasantness and your personal attack are doing your reputation great harm. You’ve jumped in here with both feet screaming invective, and ended up damaging no one but yourself.

How about if you start over, and try talking about the science rather than the individuals? I’m willing to start over if you are.

Regards,

w.

293. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm

… The tropopause itself: is created by water, when the water pulls atmospheric mixture upward with it in the great phase change refrigeration events called storm cells.

Carbon dioxide gets thrown up too – and it’s in fact heavier than the mixture in general – but when it starts to fall back down – the water’s turned to ice to fall down and change phases again –

it lands on top of the very edge of the just-cooled nitrogen/oxygen mix which also, like water, dump energy toward space, but not so much they become solid and fall.

The film effect of carbon dioxide sitting on top of the atmosphere is one easily disrupted: and any sort of disruption creates holes where carbon dioxide starts to fall through the boundary layer caused by the super cooled nitrogen oxygen mix just above where water falls out.

Not many people realize this is what forms the tropopause’s carbon dioxide layer.

Dang … now I’m sorry I asked you to discuss the science.

Y’know, I’ve looked through that section I quoted above, above a couple of times, and I don’t think that there is a scientifically defensible statement in the lot, except for the fact that storm cells move water upwards.

The pick of the litter is your statement about “the film effect of the carbon dioxide sitting on top of the atmosphere” with holes where “carbon dioxide starts to fall through the boundary layer”.

That is just a wonderful image, a thin film of CO2 at the top of the atmosphere, with some of it falling through holes in the mysterious “boundary layer” …

w.

PS—Please don’t spoil your immaculate creation by trying to explain it. It’s so much better the way it is.

294. Willis Eschenbach says:

Steven R. Vada, I do have to express my admiration for this haiku of yours as well:

If you ask Willis if he believes you can suspend insulating gas between a fire and a target object covered with sensors, blocking 20% or whatever energy to target sensors,

and have every single sensor on that sphere surface show
more energy arriving
than when there was
more energy arriving.

They’ll all tell you: “Oh yes, Yes I Do! That sounds real to me! Don’t YOU?”

“If you ask Willis … they’ll all tell you …”???

How many of me do you imagine there are?

However, I do want to have a look at your proposed situation where there is “more energy arriving than when there was more energy arriving.” Now that, I gotta see.

Steven, let me implore you, please, give it a rest. I know I asked you to talk about the science. I sincerely repent and abjure my mortal error, and I hereby withdraw my request. Please, don’t discuss the science any more, I beg you. It’s for medical reasons—I’m afraid my heart won’t be able to take laughing that hard, even with my nitroglycerin pills …

w.

295. Willis Eschenbach says:

January 11, 2014 at 7:13 pm

Willis tells everybody he thinks downwelling infrared from the atmosphere, specifically, and not from the sun, is heating the oceans.

I’ve never said that, and I defy you to find a quote of mine where I said it. That is a total fantasy on your part, you invented that root and branch.

I have always said, and in fact I did the math above, to show that both downwelling infrared AND solar energy are necessary to explain the ocean’s liquid state. So your claim is demonstrably false.

Steven, if you disagree with something you imagine that I said, go and find where I actually said it, and QUOTE MY WORDS. That lets us all know what you are objecting to. It also prevents you from bothering us with your fantasies. For example, in your quote above, you are making things up out of the whole cloth, with not a scrap of truth in it.

w.

Describing me catching you lying:
isn’t you not being caught
lying.
Acting like a rebellious child refusing to face it:
isn’t you
not being caught
lying.

You’ve been caught lying multiple times in an attempt to falsely smear a man’s reputation.

The man who simply showed up here with the experiment that says you don’t know what you’re talking about, and defying you to do the experiment and face your having been called on your bullshoot.

Nobody here has missed anything at all. It’s all up there in crystal clear text.
=======
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:33 pm

I asked Konrad if he’d done the experiment with the fans off.

“Konrad, what results did you get when you ran the experiment with the fans turned off?”

Simple question, right?

Now the part you seem to have missed is that Konrad refused to answer the question.

Seeing that lack of a response, I said that I thought Konrad hadn’t done the experiment with the fans off.

“In other words, you don’t know because you didn’t do the experiment.”

======

[Snip. *sigh* ~ mod.]

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 9:15 pm
I’ve never said that, and I defy you to find a quote of mine where I said it. That is a total fantasy on your part, you invented that root and branch.

Steven, QUOTE MY WORDS.
w.

[Snip. Be nice. ~ mod.]

The tropopause is a carbon dioxide layer kept in place by a juggling act between gravity and the super cooled gases it sits perched on. End of story. I mentioned it in passing because it’s where the James Hansen ‘asploding tropopause scam started.
You can get manic and posture over semantics all you want.

After all that’s been revealed about how you operate in this thread, I’m sure some reader coming in mentioning the tropopause scam by James Hansen isn’t going to be the legacy that keeps on paying dividends.

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:49 pm

The tropopause isn’t actually like you describe, Steven.”

Trick says:
January 11, 2014 at 10:42 am
“The Wright brothers did not reject basic physics at all, they employed the general physics theory from Bournoulli, Prandtl et. al. fluid dynamics work, their practice developed skills to physically test their design construction consistent with basic aero. physics in wind tunnel and then the atm., along with observations of nature (small n). They built on the shoulders of specialists in the field”

Nice try, but it won’t wash. One of the most important parts of the history of the Wright brothers were that they were not “specialists in the field” of aviation research, they were bicycle makers and they actually had to do their own empirical experiments to reverse the failed assumptions of the “Tricks”, the “specialists in the field” of their time.

You just tried to re-write the history of two heroes of human endeavour. This gives future readers a very good idea of just how low AGW believers were prepared stoop to defend their inane faith.

BTW. Any luck with an empirical experiment showing LWIR slowing the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool? How are you going with that?

January 11, 2014 at 10:50 pm
————————————-
Steven,
Yes I think we can all see what happened here. Willis has been a strong defender of the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and has attacked many sceptics who challenge it. I have shown him an empirical experiment design that can disprove both the GHE hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis as well. Willis has responded poorly.

Those that survived the “past unpleasantness” over the N&Z hypothesis would be aware that Willis is equipped with a “JCB ego”, get him riled up as you are doing and he just won’t stop digging a hole.

Amusing as this may be in the short term it really serves no long term purpose.

Willis is right about the cloud thermostat. The only issue I have with Willis’ cloud hypothesis is that I think it is far more powerful than he calculated as DWLWIR from clouds would not have an effect on ocean surface temperature.

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 9:15 pm
“I have always said, and in fact I did the math above, to show that both downwelling infrared AND solar energy are necessary to explain the ocean’s liquid state. So your claim is demonstrably false.”
————————————————————–
You got the maths wrong Willis. SW, speed of fluid conduction, speed of fluid circulation and TIME.

Time, time, time! Stop with the linear flux equations and start with the CFD! Or better still, empirical experiments. At least read Sir George Simpson’s response to Callendar!

Willis, I showed you this simple (yet expensive) experiment –

And asked you just one question. Will the water sample starting at 15C freeze or rise towards 80C?

Every future reader can see you haven’t even attempted an plausible evasion let alone an answer.

What does “snow line of the solar system” even mean….

Oh and as to the Shakespeare “quote” I typed what the “bard would have said” not “what the bard did say”. Revel in the glory of my “Willis” defence ;-)*

*yeah, I got the quote wrong, but you deserved that. You sooooooo deserved it.

302. Willis said:

“Since there is only 160 W/m2 of total downwelling shortwave, and about 400 W/m2 of upwelling longwave from the ocean plus about 100 W/m2 in the total of sensible and latent heat, that claim fails the laugh test. You’re only short about 340 W/m2 to keep it from freezing …”

That 340W/m2 comes from the air immediately above the ocean which, being warm, reduces the rate of ocean cooling to a rate below what it would be without an atmosphere.

You say it is from DWIR from the ‘sky’.

In fact, it is a mix of conduction and radiation from the warmest air molecules, namely those which are at or just above the surface.

It is a function of atmospheric mass far more than radiative capability.

If the molecules were non radiative it would all be via conduction but then the convective overturning would be faster and the winds stronger in order to increase the efficiency of conduction from air back to surface.

A strong wind will allow conduction to a surface more effectively than a weak wind.

The more radiative capability the atmosphere has the weaker the winds can be because the amount of conduction back to the surface that is needed is reduced.

The rate of convective overturning changes speed to ensure that the right amount of kinetic energy is returned to the effective radiating level at whatever height it might be.

That height depends on the radiative capability of the atmosphere. If radiative capability is zero it must be the ground. If 100% it would be right at the top of the atmosphere.

You need that proposition to explain your thermostat hypothesis.

303. TimTheToolMan says:

Willis writes “Oh, please. You, Phil, and Nick all claimed that the way CERES measures LW would necessarily cause LW to be negatively correlated with the SW.”

No they didn’t. At least that’s not how I was reading their posts. They pointed out that your method was flawed because it contained a bias not that your result was definitely wrong.

304. Trick says:

Konrad 12:54am: “…the Wright brothers were that they were not “specialists in the field” of aviation research, they were bicycle makers…”

Please at least read up on things before commenting as you should be doing with atm. thermo. text books before arriving at incorrect conclusions from experiments in the field. At an early age Wright Bro.s bio says they were experimenting with toy helicopters. Wilbur spent extensive time reading in the library, as you should be doing so to increase correct basic science in your comments, reducing Konrad imprecise narrative.

http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/fly/1899/breakthrough.cfm

The Bro.s were specialists in developing aviation research on wing warping – they needed to understand wing airflow and invested much time looking up various master’s of that craft (gliders esp.) then did experiments (and correctly interpreted the results I might add because they had that expert knowledge). They observed how birds moved wings in glide mode. They taught themselves to become specialists in airplane stability and control based on their learning with bicycle stability, this control theory field was the basis of their patent.

If Konrad had to fly experiments, fear would make Konrad as meticulous as the Wright Bro.s research and even publish advancing research, obtaining patents on it for commercial exploitation. Get cracking. Lots of journal space for Konrad to fill out there. I look forward to reading Konrad papers supporting his narrative claims, building on and citing the thermo. grand master’s work and specialist papers. Be sure to include Callendar 1938.

305. Trick says:

Stephen 2:33am: “(Willis) say(s) (340) is from DWIR from the ‘sky’. In fact, (340) is a mix of conduction and radiation from the warmest air molecules, namely those which are at or just above the surface.”

340 can’t include conduction because of directional Fourier conduction law found in both 1) modern text books and 2) the ‘old’ knowledge. Ask yourself why, then look it up in a library, get an ‘old’ knowledge book if you like.

340 is all IR that’s why they call it DWIR in the LWIR terrestrial radiation bands.

306. Trick says:

Stephen 2:33am continued: “If the molecules were non radiative it would all be via conduction.”

Yes, since atm. would be congealed on the surface. But there IS molecular radiation, the more mass of IR active gas in atm., the more DWIR terrestrial band (340) light from atm. shining on surface 24/7/365. Just go visit a science library Stephen, read up on this stuff – ‘old’ text or modern text. You can’t see IR, have to read up on it.

307. Trick

There is no need for the 340 supplied to the surface to be solely IR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduction_(heat)

The Earth is warmer than the air on the day side but colder than the air on the night side so the thermal gradient is not a problem.

A non radiative atmosphere need not be congealed on the surface. Conduction will raise the temperature of the atmosphere to a point where it can lift off the surface.

308. Trick says:

Stephen 7:36am: Your link in the very 1st sentence uses Fourier conduction law correctly: “…within a body due to a temperature gradient.”

Stephen lives up to my expectations does not consult a text book, consults wiki instead.

You do not use the law correctly Stephen as I’ve pointed out before, you do not improve, don’t think it thru. The 340 is the temporal and spatial avg. DWIR at surface. For that case, on avg. the lapse is always from higher temperature surface to lower temperature atm. Conduction on avg. goes one way – up not down. The downward 340 is thus needed to be all IR. This is why Stephens et. al. 2012 Fig. B1 does not show a conduction arrow on avg. toward the surface, conduction arrow is only away from surface.

Stephen incorrectly concludes” “A non radiative atmosphere need not be congealed on the surface.”

It does need to be congealed. So…uh, how is the sun’s non-radiative atm. supposed to warm earth’s surface to lift earth non-radiative atm. then? The sun will apparently be dark from earth, no stars, no white or brown dwarfs observed. Congealed earth atm. on surface as a result. Including conduction.

Unless of course Stephen in the theoretical case can show Earth’s internal radioactive decay powerful enough to lift an atm. off by conduction w/o radiation, get cracking. Not sure how that would work since I don’t see an energy sink only a source, fill me in on your science.

309. My empirical experiments in tall gas columns support Dr Spencer’s position.

I’ll take empirical results over Trenberthian bafflegab.

I’d like to think that you are right, but it isn’t that simple. This is where GCMs in general have problems, but their problems indicate that it is almost certain that experiments in tall gas columns are insufficient to extrapolate to global circulation patterns. Indeed, both could be true in the sense that both are major contributors to the highly complex pattern that emerges and chaotically varies over time.

The problem (as always) is that the Earth isn’t a static gas column in a non-inertial reference frame heated at the bottom and cooled at the top. It is a tipped, spinning, eccentrically revolving planet with continents and seas. Solving a radiatively coupled Navier-Stokes equation in an inertial domain like a tall gas column is doable and the result is very likely a good representation of at least the generic kinds of turbulent behaviors one might observe, allowing again for chaos. Solving a the Navier-Stokes equations in the surface of any planet with an atmosphere and/or sea is dicey. Four GCMs applied to a toy “water world” planet with identical inputs all converged on completely distinct solutions. Throw in continents with mountain ranges and continental plateaus that extend anywhere from hundreds of meters to the top of the troposphere, throw in ice-covered seas, through in a complex thermohaline circulation, on a tipped spinning magnetic biologically and volcanically active planet revolving eccentrically around a moderately variable star, and the problem gets, well, “hard”.

Observationally (other planetary/planetoid objects in the solar system) one gets a troposphere even without substantial GHGs, one gets complex patterns of circulation even without axial tilt relative to the ecliptic — and with even more pronounced axial tilt relative to the ecliptic. One gets (comparatively stable) Hadley-like banding with or without thunderstorms, clouds, or radiation that makes it to the surface. The Earth’s patterns are if anything less stable — which is why I suspect that both poleward and vertical energy transport are important, and create an environment that is rich with the potential for nucleating large-scale chaotic perturbations like the recent spin-off from the polar vortex as part of a wave pinches off a spin and careens around within the general circulation pattern of the day.

It’s easy to claim that we know how the climate works, but I don’t think that we do. Certainly not well enough to claim that any particular thing other than the obvious — “the sun”) is the “dominant” factor shaping general circulation beyond any question. One could just as easily assert that “the pacific ocean” with its enormous equatorial stretch is the dominant factor shaping general circulation (with considerable evidence that ENSO in fact has a huge, global, impact).

rgb

310. rgbatduke says:

But when you accuse me or anyone of making a “rookie mistake” as you did above, surely you can’t be surprised when it blows back into your face …

Willis, I don’t think you’ve made a rookie mistake — I’m not even sure what that means, since I certainly make plenty of mistakes in fields I’m hardly a rookie in — but I do think that the conclusion you are trying to draw from the negative correlation is incorrect, or rather, not supportable by a valid argument (yet).

As I pointed out, negative correlation isn’t a statistical error — if that were true, there would likely be no areas with positive correlation on the globe. However, nor is it a sign of negative feedback regulating global temperature. It is a direct consequence of the fact that “clouds reflect SW and block LW” plus “clouds happen”. Where there are lots of clouds, one expects a negative correlation between SW and LW, because when clouds reflect sunlight, SW goes up and LW goes down as an overwhelmingly dominant effect. The map you generate is likely foremost a proxy for coarse-grain locally averaged cloud variability (not necessarily for absolute cloudiness). This explanation is actually supported by the fact that areas of positive correlation are in several highly visible areas deserts with minimum cloud variability.

It is probably not just cloudiness, but with clouds and obvious negative contributor it is going to be difficult to infer any sort of dynamical response. To establish dynamical causality I think you really have to have to look at the autocorrelation function over time (and probably think long and hard about how to interpret even that).

rgb

311. Trick said:

Fourier conduction law correctly: “…within a body due to a temperature gradient.”

A temperature gradient from a gas to a solid or vice versa still results in conduction since both are comprised of mass and can be regarded as single ‘body’ for this purpose. The rest of the link describes the ways that a mix of conduction and radiation can occur when different materials are in close proximity.

“Conduction on avg. goes one way – up not down. ”

Of course it does but the RATE is variable.The warmth in the air slows surface cooling rather than warming the surface directly.

“So…uh, how is the sun’s non-radiative atm. supposed to warm earth’s surface to lift earth non-radiative atm. then?”

It doesn’t, except via conduction which goes both ways between surface and atmosphere and warms the surface in the process by reducing the rate of radiative cooling.

The lift off is from direct solar heating of the surface and then by conduction to the non radiative gas molecules.

As long as the conductive exchange with the surface continues the gas molecules will remain off the surface.

Have you noticed how much warmer than usual are the Western European land masses this winter ?

That is a result of warm air being advected across the land masses and reducing the rate of radiative cooling. It is not a matter of more DWIR.

Apply that principle to the entire globe at all times.

January 12, 2014 at 10:42 am

OK. So, please let me ask this: A ground-level, earth-connected mass (water, sea ice, or rock) radiates all the time “up” into the sky, right?

That is, while it may receive solar radiation from the sun 8, 12, or 14 hours a day at various levels during the day, it is always radiating “up” into the sky (or clouds, or space – depending on atmopsheric clarity) all the time. Further, the rate of absorption of energy depends on the solar elevation angle of sun above that surface, its albedo at that solar elevation angle, and the air mass between the sun and that horizonal surface. (And the amount of direct and diffuse energy.)

All very straight-forward. For “radiation received” the arithmatic is sim[ple, the physics so simple even a CAGW-believer can understand it.

But, the Stefan-Boltzman requirements for radiation emitted demands we “know” more than just the emissivity of the emitting surface and its absolute temeperature. What are almost always ignored (perhaps deliberately to “simplify” the problem to death) are the emissivity of the “receiving” surface, its surface factor, AND its absolute temeprature.

True, “if” the S-B calculation is for a “perfect” theorectical flat plate sitting in a “perfectly cold” “perfectly black body in infinte space” in a “perfect vacuum” those common CAGW assumptions would be valid. But we are NOT on a a “perfect” theorectical flat plate sitting in a “perfectly cold” “perfectly black body in infinte space” in a “perfect vacuum”. Thus my question:

1) What is the “absolute temperature K” and “receiving emissivity” for any “real surface” on earth radiating into “clouds” above an atmosphere at some real-world temperature T-ambient-air?

1A) Is this “receiving” temperature and “receiving emissivity” the same at daytime hours as at night time hours for the same T-ambient-air and the same kind of cloud cover?

1B) If the T-ambient-air is the same, is the “receiving temperature” the same for different cloud types and cloud altitudes?

Much more radiant heat energy is lost from every real surface under clear skies on a calm night, correct?

2) What is the “absolute temperature K” and “receiving emissivity” for any “real surface” on earth radiating into an “ideal clear, perfectly calm sky” in an atmosphere at some real-world temperature T-ambient-air of 5 degrees C? At 15 degrees C? At -15 degrees C?

313. RACookPE1978 says:
January 12, 2014 at 11:25 am

Good questions but the reality is that all those numbers are highly variable from time to time and from place to place.

Nonetheless, there is a thermostatic mechanism so in the end it all evens out such that radiation out matches radiation in.

The only way the thermostat can work is to redistribute energy wherever and whenever there is an imbalance.

Convection up and down does that job and the rotation of the Earth helps the redistribution of energy by breaking the convective cells up as we see on Earth.

Between those cells, at the surface, horizontal winds redistribute warm air around the globe and in doing so inhibit net radiative cooling to space from the surface where insolation is low or non existent.

That is all a function of the uneven absorption of energy from the surface by atmospheric mass via conduction.

Introducing GHGs simply changes the effective radiating height which means that the convective circulation needs to work less hard to get the right amount of kinetic energy to the effective radiating height.

314. Trick says:

Stephen 10:42am: ”Of course (conduction) does (go one way) but the RATE is variable.”

Concur locally the rate is variable depending on constant * delta T. In his way, Stephen comes around to seeing that the avg.d DWIR 340 is all LWIR and no conduction because conduction does go one way spatially and temporally avg.d up not down so no conduction down arrow is needed in Fig. 1B cited.

”The lift off is from direct solar heating of the surface and then by conduction to the non radiative gas molecules..”

No lift off. No solar heating direct from sun conduction either if only non radiating gas molecules exist in Stephen’s science. The sun’s H2 can’t radiate if Earth’s H2 can’t radiate, no warming – the atm. doesn’t lift off, stays congealed. Sun is unknown to any earth dwellers except when their spaceships hit it & suddenly stop sending back return samples. Its always fun to play around with Stephen, like keeping the puck on my stick during a rush. Instead of puck stickhandling it is Stephenhandling.

”…warm air being advected…Apply that principle to the entire globe at all times.”

I know there are winds, see Konrad. And these winds help distribute energy smoothly in the control volume bath to get DWIR 340 LWIR as shown during the respective CERES time period as Willis showed in earlier thread & told Stephen way above in this one.

315. Trick says:

Stephen 11:25am: “..there is a thermostatic mechanism…”

There is not a thermostat located anywhere. Earth, atm., sun system control volume is a long term stable open loop control system that will stop some time when sun’s hydrogen supply diminishes enough.

Else who reset the thermostat global surface set point up 1.5F from ~187.2K in 1880 to ~288K today? Martians? Venusians? Polar bears? Al Gore breathing fire? Who? And just where is this thermostat mechanism located? I’d really like to go give thermostat setting a nudge up some more, as Callendar 1938 wrote, would be net beneficial.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

316. Myrrh says:

Trick says:
January 11, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Myrrh 4:35pm – “…which means (visible light) is not absorbed but is transmitted through unchanged – it does not heat the ocean.”

Not as much energy integrated over visible light spectrum but it IS 100% absorbed by deep ocean – remember those Gulf oil well blowout dark videos needed the intense candlepower on the underwater robots for scene lighting.

It is called attenuation, the ocean slows down visible light some 14 times more than air slows it down in the atmosphere. Which can be seen by the way the longer wavelengths of visible light, red, are slowed down first, because bigger and slower than the shorter wavelengths, blue. Blue being smaller and more energetic gets further. In the air we get our blue sky because of this – it gets bounced around more by the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, think pinball machine. Water does not bounce it around because visible does not get in to the electrons of water, it slips past the whole molecule.

“What is warming the oceans is the direct beam radiant heat from the Sun..”

In part yes, there isn’t enough energy in that direct beam you mention to warm and unfreeze the oceans as Willis explains, you too need to do the proper energy accounting. Observations show the oceans are in part not frozen in current epoch.

How can there be proper energy accounting when the direct beam heat from the Sun has been excised from all calculations and the impossible claim that visible light does the heating has been put in its place?

This has been done so that AGW can claim that all downwelling infrared heat is from ‘backradiation’ – so the arguments.

Bearing in mind that the AGW claim is that land and water is heated mainly by Visible, with insignificant 1% shortwave infrared and a bit of uv around 8% – it cannot be claimed that the wiki figure first given above by Janus is an explanation of this..

janus says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm
Wikipedia:
“…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation. At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, with more than three times the fraction of ultraviolet (UV), with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically-damaging shortwave ultraviolet.[3][4][5]…”

Over 50% of energy reaching the surface is the invisible infrared, and the majority of that is longwave, aka thermal infrared, aka radiant heat from the Sun. Put that back in and then see how much ‘backradiation’ there is…

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:06 pm
Myrrh says:
January 11, 2014 at 4:35 pm

“What is missing is the necessary logic – water is a a transparent medium for visible light which means it is not absorbed but is transmitted through unchanged – it does not heat the ocean.”

Oh my goodness, this just keeps getting better. Usually, I just skip straight over Myrrh’s post, he’s freaking hopeless. But it’s a slow evening and Seattle is whupping Indianapolis, so somehow I read as far as the quotation above … gotta admit, I was laughing so hard I couldn’t read any further.
Now, in addition to someone claiming that IR passes through the atmosphere unchanges, and Steven’s claim that IR can’t warm the ocean, and Nick’s claim that how we measure the flips of two coins can induce negative correlation between the coins … now Myrrh says that visible light can’t heat the ocean.
I’m dumbfounded. So according to you guys, neither IR nor visible light can heat the ocean? Really?

Straw man Willis.., I am not saying that IR doesn’t heat the ocean, I am saying it does, but, that IR is the beam heat from the Sun, longwave infrared.

That is what we feel as heat, we cannot feel shortwave from the Sun.

Read the traditional teaching I have given from NASA. You know nothing about the real teaching on this. Get a grip.

Shrug, amazes me how those who on a daily basis tear apart the temperature records and models produced by the official AGW memes now in the corrupt control of all our great science institutions, think this somehow does not affect the teaching of the basic science used in their premises ..

..why? Because it is too shocking to contemplate that basic science has been thoroughly trashed throughout the general education system and so you would rather continue to take for granted as fact what is clearly obvious faked fisics to those who need to use or know about empirically tested properties and processes of matter and energy?

So you would rather think them fools who make a living producing glass and film for windows to keep intereriors cool by maximising entry of visible light from the Sun and reducing entry of thermal infrared heat from the Sun? No, you wouldn’t think them fools, you simply refuse to read my posts where I point our the paucity of logic in basic AGW claims so you can pretend they are fools..

They maximise visible light to keep rooms cool.

You would rather continue to believe unquestioned the AGW claim that visible light from the Sun heats land and water and that we get no direct thermal infrared heat from the Sun. Regardless that I have given an old NASA page which taught traditionally that the heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infrared?

And so you continue to believe unquestioned that the figures produced for the maintenance of this illusion are somehow uncorrupt when they come from the same authorities who have corrupted all the temperature etc. records.

And the rest of us are the losers here, Willis, when those like you with the time and intellectual ability to analyse these claims prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and carry on as if there is nothing rotten in the state of science where it affects your work..

317. Willis Eschenbach says:

rgbatduke says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:02 am

But when you accuse me or anyone of making a “rookie mistake” as you did above, surely you can’t be surprised when it blows back into your face …

Willis, I don’t think you’ve made a rookie mistake — I’m not even sure what that means, since I certainly make plenty of mistakes in fields I’m hardly a rookie in — …

Thanks, Robert.

… but I do think that the conclusion you are trying to draw from the negative correlation is incorrect, or rather, not supportable by a valid argument (yet).

As I pointed out, negative correlation isn’t a statistical error — if that were true, there would likely be no areas with positive correlation on the globe. However, nor is it a sign of negative feedback regulating global temperature. It is a direct consequence of the fact that “clouds reflect SW and block LW” plus “clouds happen”. Where there are lots of clouds, one expects a negative correlation between SW and LW, because when clouds reflect sunlight, SW goes up and LW goes down as an overwhelmingly dominant effect. The map you generate is likely foremost a proxy for coarse-grain locally averaged cloud variability (not necessarily for absolute cloudiness). This explanation is actually supported by the fact that areas of positive correlation are in several highly visible areas deserts with minimum cloud variability.

It is probably not just cloudiness, but with clouds an obvious negative contributor it is going to be difficult to infer any sort of dynamical response. To establish dynamical causality I think you really have to have to look at the autocorrelation function over time (and probably think long and hard about how to interpret even that).

rgb

I hate it when you’re right and I’m wrong …

It is an ongoing challenge for me, trying to find ways to demonstrate that the earth is a regulated system, and is not a simple slave to the forcings even if all thing were equal.

And while I’ve had a reasonable success demonstrating that emergent climate phenomena regulate the temperature, I’m always looking for more …

However, as usual, whether my ideas are right or wrong, when people discuss them out here I learn so much. I think I have a new idea on how to show that the climate is not a slave to the forcing … stay tuned.

And Robert, I can’t thank you enough for your sane, sensible, and almost uniformly valuable contributions to my threads. Much appreciated.

w.

318. Trick says:

Myrrh 2:57pm – “How can there be proper energy accounting when the direct beam heat from the Sun has been excised from all calculation and the impossible claim that visible light does the heating has been put in its place?”

Look up Stephens et. al. 2012 Fig. B1, you will find “direct beam heat from Sun” is not excised from calculations at all, is shown absorbed by the surface and atm., visible is not put in SWIR place.

“Bearing in mind that the AGW claim is that land and water is heated mainly by Visible…”

Not true. See Fig. B1, SWIR from Sun is the energy source.

“..the majority of that is longwave, aka thermal infrared, aka radiant heat from the Sun.”

Radiant energy from the sun is SWIR not LWIR which is from terrestrial sources.

”That is what we feel as heat, we cannot feel shortwave from the Sun.”

No. Myrrh is mixed up in the rest. One doesn’t get sunburned at night from LWIR, the sun’s SWIR/UV is the culprit for what we feel on skin during the clear air days.

Robert Brown says:
January 12, 2014 at 9:49 am
——————————————-
Robert,
I agree with much of what you have written, in particular –
“It’s easy to claim that we know how the climate works, but I don’t think that we do”

I would also agree strongly with your statement-
“Solving a the Navier-Stokes equations in the surface of any planet with an atmosphere and/or sea is dicey.”

This is very much the criticism that Sir George Simpson made of Callendars 1938 work. That criticism is still valid –
“..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”

Climate is indeed complex and I am not trying to build a definitive climate model. I don’t need to do that to disprove both AGW and the idea of a NET radiative greenhouse effect.

I am demonstrating that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling and that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.

I have shown Willis and others this simple (yet expensive) experiment that can disprove not just AGW but also the idea of a NET radiative greenhouse effect-

This experiment simulates what would happen to the oceans if the planet did not have an atmosphere (and the oceans could be prevented from boiling into space). The experiment heats a water sample with an intermittent SW source at depth. The sample can cool only by IR emitted from the surface. Conductive and evaporative cooling is restricted. There is also virtually no LWIR incident on the surface of the water. Initial temperature of the water 15C

How hot will can the water get?
Will it freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface?
Or will it rise toward 80C?

What effect will the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the final temperature?

If the oceans can reach 80C in the absence of an atmosphere (assuming they didn’t boil into space) that would prove that the net effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling. There is only one effective means of cooling the atmosphere. Radiative gases. This would mean that not just AGW but the hypothesis of a net radiative greenhouse effect is disproved.

Robert,
further to my comment above, as I have mentioned previously unlike other experiments shown I have not run the experiment shown above. It would require “dark money” or “big oil dollars”.

However I have checked how hot water exposed to sunlight can get if evaporative and convective cooling is restricted –

That’s 76.4C the thermometer is showing.

Sadly that experiment is not “clean” The water is exposed to DWLWIR and there are considerable conductive losses.

321. rgbatduke says:

However, as usual, whether my ideas are right or wrong, when people discuss them out here I learn so much. I think I have a new idea on how to show that the climate is not a slave to the forcing … stay tuned.

I don’t know if you’ve read Roy Spencer’s book on the global warming blunder, but in it he describes an autocorrelation study he did that was the single most convincing thing in the entire book, and a line that I think should be pursued in more detail. Fluctuation-dissipation can often provide actual information about both the dynamics and more importantly, the dynamical timescales that are important in even complex, noisy systems.

It may or may not be able to overcome Steve Mosher’s observations that CO_2-driven warming may have very long time constants (compared to all of the dynamical scales of both weather and even climate, given a largely unknown degree of natural variation of the latter) and so e.g. “the pause” is not sufficient evidence that CAGW is a false hypothesis. I agree with the latter, while noting that neither is it strong evidence for the hypothesis, but getting a better handle on feedbacks on the short and middle time scales seems like a first step in eventually being able to understand the longer timescale dynamics.

rgb

322. Myrrh says:

Trick says:
January 12, 2014 at 4:49 pm
Myrrh 2:57pm – “How can there be proper energy accounting when the direct beam heat from the Sun has been excised from all calculation and the impossible claim that visible light does the heating has been put in its place?”

Look up Stephens et. al. 2012 Fig. B1, you will find “direct beam heat from Sun” is not excised from calculations at all, is shown absorbed by the surface and atm., visible is not put in SWIR place.

Beam heat from the Sun is thermal infrared, longwave infrared. It has been excised by the AGW narrative which claims only shortwave comes from the Sun and that mainly visible.

There are two reason given for no beam heat from the Sun reaching us. The first is that there is some ‘invisible barrier at TOA like the glass of a greenhouse preventing thermal infrared, which is heat radiation, from entering’. The second reason given is ‘that we get no beam heat aka radiant heat energy, aka thermal infrared from the Sun’. Somehow the scant 300 mile wide band of visible light around the Sun, which is mistakenly but deliberately called the ‘surface’ when it is more correctly called the first layer of atmosphere, is so powerful it stops millions of degrees heat from escaping…

Pull the other one..

Shortwaves are not designated radiant heat energy in traditional science. Shortwave infrared is not designated radiant heat energy in traditional science. In traditional science that is the distinction made between what energy feels hot because it heats us up and which we can feel as heat and that which can’t. That is what we mean by heat and light from the Sun, we get both. Light from the Sun is not heat.

“Bearing in mind that the AGW claim is that land and water is heated mainly by Visible…”

Not true. See Fig. B1, SWIR from Sun is the energy source.

The AGW claim is that mainly visible which is shortwave and the two shortwaves either side, insignificant amounts, do the heating; this is what they call ‘Solar’. Most simply ignore those shortwaves either side and call it visible.

“..the majority of that is longwave, aka thermal infrared, aka radiant heat from the Sun.”

Radiant energy from the sun is SWIR not LWIR which is from terrestrial sources.

I said radiant heat energy from the Sun and that is longwave infrared not shortwave.

”That is what we feel as heat, we cannot feel shortwave from the Sun.”

No. Myrrh is mixed up in the rest. One doesn’t get sunburned at night from LWIR, the sun’s SWIR/UV is the culprit for what we feel on skin during the clear air days

We cannot feel shortwaves. We cannot feel shortwaves as heat. We cannot feel UV as heat, because like shortwave visible light it cannot move the molecules of our skin into vibration. UV scrambles our DNA, that’s how it destroys the skin – it does not ‘burn’ our skin by heating it up, it destroys it on the much tinier level of shortwaves and our bodies produce melanin to protect us from it. We get sun’burn’ when our bodies can’t produce enough protection quickly enough to compensate for our idiocy in not getting acclimatised..

I am giving traditional science teaching which differentiates between Heat and Light from the Sun..

This is traditional teaching now removed from direct NASA pages: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control. ”

Please read that carefully. This is my argument. AGW has completely excised longwave heat radiation from the Sun, and in its place claims that mainly visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans. This AGW claim is a physical impossibility.

They claim this so that they can take downwelling thermal infrared readings and pretend they are all from ‘backradiation’, because, they have taken out the direct longwave thermal infrared from the Sun, beam heat which we really feel as heat, so you now do not notice it is missing…

“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.”

You can disagree with me as much as you like, but you are also disagreeing with the traditional science as given here by NASA.

Herschel first discovered that the heat we feel from the Sun is invisible. What he did not know then because his measurements were still too crude, he moved the prism by hand at the edge of a table, was the great difference in size between the tinier shortwave visible and shortwave infrared compared with the bigger longwave infrared, so, he thought visible also raised temperature of matter because he was getting overlap from the longwave. We have made great strides since then..

That is why in traditional science shortwave infrared is known to be not hot, that is why it is not called thermal infrared. That is why we now call longwave infrared ‘thermal infrared’, to differentiate between it and shortwave infrared which is not thermal. Thermal means ‘of heat’, longwave infrared is the wavelength of heat. It is enough to call it heat, or radiant heat, because that is what it is. Radiant heat energy.

Shortwave infrared is classed in with visible light as Reflective, not Thermal.

Beam heat from the Sun is thermal infrared. Until this is put back into calculations you cannot know how much ‘backradiation’ there is..

323. Trick says:

Myrrh 7:07pm – “AGW has completely excised longwave heat radiation from the Sun, and in its place claims that mainly visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans. This AGW claim is a physical impossibility.”

Myrhh. Source 5525K SW invisible UV & Visible solar light ~0.21 to 0.23 microns (this is a short length or SW) does increase temperature land and ocean and is a valid claim by NASA and global warming studies (T increases when sun comes up at sea or in Iowa) & will cause sunburn at the beach. Invisible LWIR ~8-15 microns (this is long length or LW) is terrestrial, causes no sunburn, & is invisible to we humans; DWIR is LW and slows terrestrial surface cooling at night.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png

Here, study that then line up your narrative in terms of wavelength numbers precisely not imprecise words to communicate your concerns and you will become coherent. As it is you are not necess. wrong just incoherent in your post. I can disagree with you and agree with NASA on some stuff I can kind of interpret.

SW (source ~5525K) can increase your temperature (source ~310K) in the direct sun: LW (source ~255K) will slow your cooling but it can’t increase your temperature (source ~310K).

Test: You move from the shade into the day’s sun in a howling bitter wind to feel better off, this won’t help at night. You run indoors to feel better off. And is not because the house lights are on. It is b/c your furnace source .GT. 310K can increase your 310K skin temperature.

You are sort of right about the discovery of UV = prism and accidental thermometer bulb placement outside visible in UV surprisingly increased T even more.

Trick says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:24 am
“Please at least read up on things before commenting as you should be doing with atm. thermo. text books before arriving at incorrect conclusions from experiments in the field. At an early age Wright Bro.s bio says they were experimenting with toy helicopters. Wilbur spent extensive time reading in the library, as you should be doing so to increase correct basic science in your comments, reducing Konrad imprecise narrative.”
———————————————-
My comments regarding the Wright brothers specifically mention them building their own wind tunnel and conducting their own experiments to check the claims of others. There was a point to that comment. The Wright brothers found through their empirical experiments that Smeaton’s coefficient, considered “settled science” since 1754, was wrong. Everyone working in the field was calculating the camber of airfoils incorrectly because of this. The Wright brothers early failed attempts used Smeaton’s coefficient which they had obtained from the “grand masters”of the time. Then they conducted their own small scale empirical experiments and flew into history.

The parallel should be obvious. Around 1900 everyone attempting powered flight and employing Smeaton’s coefficient was failing. There was a fundamental flaw in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”. Currently every modern climate model built on the radiative greenhouse hypothesis is failing. For the atmospheric sciences to advance the radiative greenhouse hypothesis, just like Smeaton’s coefficient, must be abandoned.

325. Trick says:

Konrad 9:50pm – Good move & congrats. doing the reading on this Smeaton guy. Now just need to get Stephen doing likewise to foster learning stuff.

”Around 1900 everyone attempting powered flight and employing Smeaton’s coefficient was failing.”

Apparently at least not Langley who was using the correct Smeaton value and others weren’t.

It appears the Wright Bro.s learned about Smeaton’s work from Langley who was successfully using the correct Smeaton value. Smeaton collaborated with some experimental guy Rouse. Apparently the Bro.s somehow picked up an incorrect Smeaton value. The best. ref. I found is here – cite sec. 2.1.2.2 page 26 – more of which I haven’t fully parsed:

Also, congrat.s – your 9:49am post is well done and got me interested in thinking thru your complex experiment, will write some thoughts maybe later today on how I would approach solving it in this little corner of the internet.

326. Trick says:

Konrad 5:29pm: “How hot will can the water get? Will it freeze due to the lack of LWIR incident on the surface? Or will it rise toward 80C?”

Basic atm. science shows as emissivity of Earth atm. reduces from global ~0.79 (surface Tmean ~288K) towards say .05 to 0.1 range Tmean goes toward 255K (-1F) and ocean freezes all else same. Basic science in this case means using the 1st law energy balance consistent with 2nd law and conductive, convective, radiative energy transfer in surface control volume while only radiative energy transfer balance is used for TOA control volume.

Seems to me Konrad needs publish a paper using the 1st and 2nd law and similar energy transfer theory on his experiment correctly and find the Tmean of the water in the experimental set up does not actually reach that theorized Tmean so that Konrad’s assertion: ”AGW is a physical impossibility” is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the scientific method experiment in a published paper. This paper causing atm. thermo. text books and specialist papers to be substantially altered as time progresses.

Here’s the general thermo. path used for atm. which I have discussed prior to some extent, working out Konrad’s experimental water Tmean follows same path but is way more complicated.

1) Create a control volume (cv) of interest for proper energy accounting across Konrad experimental boundaries
2) Use the 1st law to set up balanced energy in and out of experiment cv from measured data once the experiment cv Tmean stabilizes.
3) Compute the Tmean from 1st law balance
4) Compare Tmean computed to the Tmean field from array of thermometers within the confidence intervals created from calibrations of the various measurement devices.

Trick says:
January 13, 2014 at 11:41 am
“Basic atm. science shows as emissivity of Earth atm. reduces from global ~0.79 (surface Tmean ~288K) towards say .05 to 0.1 range Tmean goes toward 255K (-1F) and ocean freezes all else same”
——————————————————————
And that right there is your problem.

Just like the story of the Wright brothers, one incorrect number is leading to the failure of all climate modelling.

Trying to apply SB equations to moving fluids in a gravity field leads to the incorrect number for surface temperature in the absence of an atmosphere. The oceans are a moving fluid in a gravity field. They are heated at depth by SW and cool at the surface. The oceans cover 71% of the planet. Tav would not be -18C.

Back of the envelope calcs show total surface Tav may be closer to 52C if the oceans could exist without an atmosphere.

This would mean that the net effect of the atmosphere is surface cooling not warming. This would mean that the net effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling. This would mean that the radiative GHE hypothesis is incorrect.

We could use this expensive experiment to check the temperature of the oceans in the absence of an atmosphere-

There are two things to understand about the experiment. First the SW is intermittent at full solar power, not average power. Secondly after the experiment run starts, the experiment will not be in radiative equilibrium. Because of the slow speed of fluid conduction and convection (non-radiative transports must be modelled) it will take time to reach radiative equilibrium.

But we don’t actually need to run the experiment. As I hinted to Willis, NASA has already done the work for us. There is a “Snow Line” in the solar system. It is at 3 AU. Inside this line ice exposed to the sun melts and sublimates. Even accounting for the intermittent diurnal cycle, planet earth is well inside this line. The claim that the oceans would freeze in the absence of DWLWIR is clearly false.

When Pheonix landed near the pole of Mars it discovered water*. The robotic arm exposed ice under the soil. Exposed to the sun it heated and sublimated. It had higher albedo than water, it was thin with little thermal capacity and it received very little sun at the pole of Mars. Yet it still warmed above 1C and sublimated.

Empirical experiment can disprove the hypothesis of a net radiative GHE without which our oceans would freeze. Empirical evidence has already done it.

*(earlier than NASA wanted. A few on the web including myself enhanced the first photos of the struts and found liquid water. NASAs response email was rather terse. Thunder stolen I expect.)

328. Trick says:

Konrad 1:52pm: “Back of the envelope calcs show total surface Tav may be closer to 52C..”

Ever published these calcs.?

“..one incorrect number is leading to the failure of all climate modelling.”

Which one? The Wright Bro.s also used an incorrect Smeaton number until they corrected it to the right value result of their own wind tunnel testing. In case of earth 1st law energy balance, all the basic science numbers are correct from measured data.

“We could use this expensive experiment to check the temperature of the oceans in the absence of an atmosphere-“

Your experiment shows what the ocean’s Tmean would be if on Konrad kitchen table today bathed in IR from furnace set point bath, intermittent 10 * 100 watt light bulbs and sundry other energy in and out doesn’t exist in earth natural cv.

Trick says:
January 13, 2014 at 3:27 pm
“..one incorrect number is leading to the failure of all climate modelling.”
Which one?
—————————–
Quite clearly the number -18C is incorrect for surface Tav for earth without atmosphere.

The experiment is fine, the “kitchen table” comments are no use. If you were truly interested in the science you would have asked what the boundary layer fins are for

or why the the dry N2 needs to be constantly adjusted to be just 0.1C below surface water temperature

or why the SW source needs to be intermittent at around 1000 W

or why a convective restrictor is used in the water sample

or why the dry N2 vents right under the lens.

But your criticism covered none of these points. This speaks to your motivation.

But in the end there is no getting around the failure of the radiative GHE hypothesis.

The radiative Greenhouse hypothesis requires that our oceans would freeze in the absence of DWLWIR. The “Snow Line” in the solar system is 3 AU. The oceans will not freeze without DWLWIR. The radiative GHE hypothesis is disproved.

Without an atmosphere our oceans would boil into space. If this could be prevented they would absorb SW until they reached temperatures far, far hotter than present. The atmosphere cools our oceans and radiative gases cool our atmosphere.

330. Trick says:

Konrad 3:55pm ”Quite clearly the number -18C is incorrect for surface Tav for earth without atmosphere.”

Concur. The -18C (255K) is correct from 1st law & measured input data for an earth with atm. hydrostatically in place w/emissivity reduced from ~0.79 global to atm. emissivity just above 0 global all else equal.

“If you were truly interested in the science you would have asked what the boundary layer fins are for.”

I know what they are for; if you were truly interested in obtaining the Tmean of the water container you would publish a paper showing the 1st law (energy in) – (energy out) of cv balance work out for readers as published papers do for the earth system.

“But your criticism covered none of these points. This speaks to your motivation.”

The points are included in my comments as sundry other energy in and energy out.

“The radiative GHE hypothesis is disproved.”

Not in science until you publish that paper of yours since thermometer Tmean at surface 288K, satellite Tmean 255K. Difference is colloquially called GHE until Konrad proves it is not 33K by scientific method and publishes that paper. Get cracking.

“Without an atmosphere our oceans would boil into space.”

Concur.

“If this (boiling) could be prevented…”

Atm. science does prevent boiling off by keeping the atm. in place hydrostatic and science of theoretically reducing atm. emissivity to near 0 all else equal. Your blog conclusion “far, far hotter “ is proven incorrect by published work. Get your conclusion published.

“The atmosphere cools our oceans and radiative gases cool our atmosphere.”

You know Konrad I think I might begin to buy that since with earth atm. in place the oceans do not boil. Earth atm. is on avg. cooler than the oceans and only radiation gets out to space TOA cooling the atm. However this science below is also the case in the only climate model that AFAIK has ever been proven to work within CI’s by thermometer field observation last 75 years in Callendar 1938 despite Simpson’s comments and until Konrad publishes “the” paper proving sensational claims:

“…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 13, 2014 at 4:33 pm

“Concur. The -18C (255K) is correct from 1st law & measured input data for an earth with atm. hydrostatically in place w/emissivity reduced from ~0.79 global to atm. emissivity just above 0 global all else equal.”

No that won’t work. Adding a non radiative atmosphere will not reduce the surface temperature. Climate “scientists” are on the permanent record as (incorrectly) calculating the temperature of a non-radiative atmosphere using surface Tav. I have shown you previously by empirical experiment that for a conductively heated atmosphere in a gravity field, surface Tmax drives the atmospheric temperature.

If the ocean surface can reach 80C without an atmosphere (ignoring boil off) then it is not going to be cooled by a non-radiative atmosphere.

There is no way around it. The atmosphere cools our oceans and radiative gases cool our atmosphere.

“Not in science until you publish that paper of yours”

I don’t need to publish in disgraced journals like Nature in the age of the Internet. That’s what is so entertaining. All that needs to be done is to widely disseminate the information that climate “scientists” critically flawed calculations show earth’s oceans would freeze without DWLWIR yet the empirical evidence is that the “snow line in the solar system is 3 AU. That’s very easy to communicate.

“You know Konrad I think I might begin to buy that since with earth atm. in place the oceans do not boil. Earth atm. is on avg. cooler than the oceans and only radiation gets out to space TOA cooling the atm.”

You see. “Snow Line in the solar system is 3 AU” is reasonably easy to communicate ;-)

“…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.”

Callendars work is still critically flawed. While radiative gases do slow the exit of LWIR from the surface they also speed the exit of energy to space from the atmosphere. Most of the energy in the atmosphere did not get there by LWIR from the surface. Callendars further error was that radiative gases quite clearly do “interfere” with the non-radiative “distribution” of energy within the atmosphere. These gases allow energy loss and subsidence in tropospheric convective circulation. Their role in this is critical to pneumatically generating the observed lapse rate. If Callendars work appears to get a close result, given the provable flaws it can only be by chance.

332. Trick says:

Konrad 6:42pm: There are no critical flaws in Callendar’s work. The work is well cited. Konrad has discussed no specifics on Callendar 1938 science, no cites, ever. I do enjoy pointing out extensive critical flaws in Konrad’s work though with specific cites to 1st principles in various published works of which Konrad has none – yet. Someday maybe Konrad gets published and gains scientific notice and some traction. Get cracking.

”If the ocean surface can reach 80C without an atmosphere (ignoring boil off) then it is not going to be cooled by a non-radiative atmosphere.”

Ignore!? You were all about oceans boiling off before. Try to stay on point. The ocean boiled off w/o an atm. in the vacuum of space. It never got above 288K at surface, it stated boiling with 0atm. reducing T to 273K by radiative transfer w/deep space sink, afterwards the solid surface then continued down to 255K at current epoch orbit – ocean was boiled away, gone. Well, maybe some ice in the deep trenches that sublimated away. Geez, try to make some basic sense Konrad. At least try put up some hard science in defense.

There is no non-radiative atm.s – all gases .GT. 0K radiate absorb/emit. Another non-science big gaffe by Konrad.

“All that needs to be done is to widely disseminate the information…”

Which you’ve been doing for years w/o gaining any traction in science publications nor atm. thermo. text books. None at all. The atm. thermo. text books 100% continue with the correct 1st principle science as published by Callendar 1938 and building on it.

“If Callendars work appears to get a close result, given the provable flaws it can only be by chance.”

In Konrad’s gaffe filled world only; the text books continue with Callendar 1938 science and not by chance, by 1st principle theory well cited and correctly interpreted observations of nature using the scientific method.

Trick says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:07 pm
—————————————

“Which you’ve been doing for years w/o gaining any traction in science publications nor atm. thermo. text books. None at all. The atm. thermo. text books 100% continue with the correct 1st principle science as published by Callendar 1938 and building on it.”

Trick you may have noticed that the world is not buying AGW any more. No new Keyto treaty. Warmist governments in Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand voted out. EU set to drop subsidies for “renewables”. UK PM saying “we’ve got to get rid of this green cr@p”. Turney the Turkey being laughed off the ice.

Sceptics just like myself are clearly gaining traction. Internet blogs have defeated the Lame Stream Media, the UN, every activist NGO and soon every socialist government in the world. Global warming has been all but destroyed. The scare can never be re-animated. But nor can it be hidden. So the destruction of global warming will lead to the destruction of all the fellow travellers. Every member of the Professional Left, every activist, journalist, pseudo scientist and politician is now compromised. How much “traction” were you looking for?

“the text books continue with Callendar 1938 science and not by chance, by 1st principle theory well cited and correctly interpreted observations of nature using the scientific method”

Because of sceptics the public now know that the satellite record doesn’t show warming for 17 years. They know all the models have failed. They know about climategate. They know about the hockey stick. No amount of textbooks, cites, pal reviewed papers, or opinion from climate “scientists” can change the outcome now. The public are angry and getting angrier. They don’t know all that sceptics know, but soon they will. The Lame Stream Media is powerless to prevent it. They will want names. Sceptics know all the names.

The mistake the Professional Left made in using science as a stalking horse was they, just like you don’t really understand science. Science is a method. It is not an institution. It doesn’t matter how many textbooks, cites or papers you point to if you are wrong and the public knows you are wrong. The Left putting on lab coats and claiming to be a scientific authority didn’t work. All they achieved was eroding trust in science itself.

Sceptics don’t have to waste time convincing climate scientists. After all, the public doesn’t care what climate scientists think anymore. They have been shown to be untrustworthy.

All the public will want now is a simple explanation of why AGW is physically impossible and the names of the guilty.

The simple explanation –
“Our oceans would be as hot as 80C if they were not cooled by the atmosphere. The only effective cooling method for the atmosphere is radiative gases. Radiative gases therefore cool our planet. Global warming is physically impossible.”

The proof?
The “Snow Line” in the solar system is 3AU

That is all the public need to know. Well that and the names of the guilty ;-)

334. Trick says:

Konrad 9:24pm: In obvious desperation, Konrad turns to political science from 1st principle, physical science.

This won’t work Konrad, was tried in the dark ages and failed. We now live in age of enlightened times. Here is a list of Konrad failures in discussion above:

1) Can’t use the 1st law to correctly analyze his own experiments, asks for help from myriad others.
2) Fails to find or discuss any science flaws in Callendar 1938 (or modern text books), simply asserts.
3) Fails to understand basic earth system energy balance from 1st law and measured data.
4) Fails to understand the planetary orbital sweet spot depends on more than distance (3AU).
5) Fails to understand earth measured by thermometer globe surface has warmed 1.5F since 1880, instead cherry picks shorter time frames to suit his view when clearly major forcings are chaotic.
6) Fails to understand all matter T > 0K will radiate.
7) Fails to understand meaning of surface thermometer Tmean 288K and satellite Tmean 255K difference.
8) Fails to understand winds stay in the control volume; do not move energy to space in and of themselves.
9) Doesn’t appear to understand what a bath of radiation really means in science terms.
10) Fails to publish own work, criticizes published authors by unsupported assertion and unphysical experimental conclusions, offers no cites to shed light on his sensational physics. Doesn’t understand basics of S-B application.

Call that the 1st ten, I could go on. I bet Konrad keeps adding to the list….as he squirms around in unscientific, unfounded postings trying to avoid reality of atm. thermo. physics:

“…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 forgot when the reflective molecules are put up which delay transfer of low temperature radiation, out
the delay of transfer is more than just that:
there’s an absolute removal of five times as much energy getting in as the molecules block more infrared OUT than they do in.
as the molecules which Tricky thought were a giant heater, reflect away 20% incoming energy.

Regardless of who said what, Trick’s one of the nearly endless wannabes who thought someone invented magical insulation that blocks 20% total energy in
making every heat sensor on the surface
that was arriving when 20% more was.

That’s the level of sophistication of these people. To them, that’s a perfectly valid statement.

Why don’t you answer the questions I asked Trick. You run your mouth a lot but you’re as easy to snare and hang upside down as any other helpless rabbit in a garden of magical gas.

I asked Willis but he melted down.

So you answer. You seem to believe you have the power of speech in answering questions.

Yes or no, can immersion of an object heated in vacuum, into frigid nitrogen/oxygen bath, make every heat sensor on sphere surface rise, past what the temperature was in vacuum?

You already stated above you believe hanging insulation between a the light of a fire and a rock, makes more light come out, than when more light went in.

That means by extension you believe it’s possible to warm it more, blocking more light out.

You think adding enough reflective components to block 20% energy in made energy on the object rise

Therefore by extension you enthusiastically LoL
endorse adding enough to block 25% energy in

making it hotter than when there was 5% more.
You believe that, it’s the fundamentals of your religion.

Algebraic inversion of the chilling effect of a nitrogen/oxygen bath
Algebraic inversion of the effect of insulation on a rock illuminated with fire
Algebraic inversion of the second one performed for additional light blocking molecules

And you too can go anywhere in the world and have entire threads laughing at you as you try to turbo post that we don’t know how kooky, bipolar and angry you can act,

when someone catches you trying to float magical physics.

Your hero Michael Mann pubished that he discovered a Hockey Stick Generator that says the world was going to end so we had to stop using fire. The Federal Government publishes studies every day or did for FIFTY YEARS, that marijuana is really, like heroin.

Is Michael Mann’s Magic Hockey Stick real? It’s as real as your grasp of things is, obviously.

Is the Federal Governments 50 year publishing spree that marijuana is like heroin real? Obviously you think so.

Your propensity to fall to your knees and start sucking the “it got writ down so its reele” teat is so disturbing it reminds us how those people wound up being tried in Nuremberg.

Trick is the perfect warming atmosphere religion convert. No experiment disproves the religion even when a man shows up, tells everyone, and everybody here can see what just happened.

A good idea of who is likely to be telling the truth is simply watch which group of people undergo bizarre, bipolar seeming, turbo-posting, raging rants
where insults and anything but RESULTS
of REAL scientific work
are the currency of the “scientific dialog”
sprayed across the thread and everyone in it,
to try to make people disgusted they would have to actually deal with the low rent, low brow tone of the people who float this preposterous voodoo,
as a price for trying to discuss and inject real physically verifiable science into the conversation.

I think we can all see the experiment is there and I think we can all guess which way the thermometer will go when someone does it.

I consider this thread a picture postcard example of the difference between how real science goes about it’s daily business,

Trick says:
January 14, 2014 at 6:18 am
———————————–
All false. 0/10 for you. Can you “Trick” me into a line by line rebuttal? No. Been there done that many times.

And this –

“…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.”

Callendars work is still critically flawed. While radiative gases do slow the exit of LWIR from the surface they also speed the exit of energy to space from the atmosphere. Most of the energy in the atmosphere did not get there by LWIR from the surface. Callendars further error was that radiative gases quite clearly do “interfere” with the non-radiative “distribution” of energy within the atmosphere. These gases allow energy loss and subsidence in tropospheric convective circulation. Their role in this is critical to pneumatically generating the observed lapse rate.

It’s just that you can’t or wont understand it.

However I’m sure you do understand this –

“Our oceans would be as hot as 80C if they were not cooled by the atmosphere. The only effective cooling method for the atmosphere is radiative gases. Radiative gases therefore cool our planet. Global warming is physically impossible.

The proof?
The “Snow Line” in the solar system is 3AU

That is all the public need to know. Well that and the names of the guilty.”

Everyone can understand that. And nothing any AGW believer can do now will stop that happening.

340. Trick says:

Bill – “Trick forgot…Why don’t you answer the questions I asked Trick.”

Thx for asking again Bill. As I answered your question on another thread, I can do it again if you didn’t get it the 1st time. Bill can imagine according to 1st thermo. principles taking a rock the size and composition of earth pre-set to 255K in orbit and insert it into the center of earth’s atm. measured by satellite at 255K. Yes, the sun will then melt some of the frozen surface water and warm the global surface of the rock to 288K despite the cooler atm. in the current epoch.

In 1880, the composition of the atm. and solar constant were such the 255K rock would warm only to global surface Tmean of 1.5F less.

You can learn about these principles from watching Mr. Wizard on Sat. mornings like I did or catch up on the program on youtube.com by searching on the title. Mr. Wizard used science to show how some of the magic you like to discuss really works.

Here’s my cat, also named Bill, reacting after reading your posts with a hat tip for your ingenuity and insightfulness.

http://blogs.mcall.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fe353ef0133edb5de38970b-popup

My screen name isn’t very tricky either, picked it after a great accomplishment I saw in a hockey game some time ago, a hat trick. It isn’t as worse as you thought.

341. Trick says:

Konrad 7:03pm “While radiative gases do slow the exit of LWIR from the surface they also speed the exit of energy to space from the atmosphere.”

Konrad! Very good. Yes. the speed up exit is at great height. Konrad starts to come around to the basic atm. science here. Since the added IR active gas uses up no energy resource the total atm. Tmean is unchanged (total isn’t heated nor cooled like a refrig.). The surface Tmean is where we humans live so we are a mite (hockey term) interested in this level. What happens at great height is another matter – left to SR71’s and halfway down from them, commercial airliners.

“Most of the energy in the atmosphere did not get there by LWIR from the surface.”

Correct. The sun had a role too. Konrad is on a roll here – finally. Callendar 1938 agrees with all this. I am breaking out a scotch OTR.

“These gases allow energy loss and subsidence in tropospheric convective circulation. Their role in this is critical to pneumatically generating the observed lapse rate.”

Only small (10%) of this energy loss you discuss goes directly to space, the rest is not directly to space. The loss of buoyancy above/below neutral buoyant lapse curve by radiative energy transfer is to the bath of radiation IN the atmosphere cv. It is critical to see this energy loss to give up buoyancy does not directly cross the TOA control volume except as allowed for in the ~240 bath at TOA, 90% this energy goes into the bath at the level of the buoyancy loss.

“Our oceans would be as hot as 80C if they were not cooled by the atmosphere.”

The earth Tmean as observed by satellite is 255K give or take. See Willis CERES discussions and charts. As the atm. global emissivity of ~0.79 is reduced, the atm. becomes more transparent to all radiation (surface and atm.) integrated over the spectrum. This means surface Tmean of 288K will start to reduce: 288 to 287 to 286 to 285K in compensating and so forth all the way to just above 255K at near 0 emissivity because the atm. whatever its composition will always radiate slightly > 0.0 emissivity.

The satellites will still see the 255K unchanged as the transparency increases. As the surface nears 255K due to atm. emissivity reduction all else equal – there is no energy source that suddenly turns on so that the satellites now observe 80C (353K, 176F).

If there is a sudden turn on of a searchlight level source per m^2 driving (353K, 176F) – what is that energy source that atm. science misses? Not surface flowing internal energy (barely penlight level 0.1 W/m^2 not searchlight level), not volcanoes – they are intermittent, what?

[snip – more Slayers junk, unwelcome here, take it to the Principia site – mod]

343. TB says:

January 15, 2014 at 2:21 am
[snip – more Slayers junk, unwelcome here, take it to the Principia site – mod]

This objectionable person was banned when “discussing” (well, in the end threatening) with me in a thread a few weeks back – and I was surprised the Neanderthal was allowed back. Perhaps he’ll go away and pick up brain surgery or rocket science over the internet and then converse with the knowledgeable on said medium, such that they end up “flailing” around in their efforts to beat his superior intellect on the subject.

I do wonder about the human race sometimes – and to be honest, this is the best site I’ve come across to gather that wonderment.

[Reply: Most folks like this site. If you don’t, that would seem to be your problem. ~ mod.]

344. TB says:

TB says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:29 pm
January 15, 2014 at 2:21 am
[snip – more Slayers junk, unwelcome here, take it to the Principia site – mod]

This objectionable person was banned when “discussing” (well, in the end threatening) with me in a thread a few weeks back – and I was surprised the Neanderthal was allowed back. Perhaps he’ll go away and pick up brain surgery or rocket science over the internet and then converse with the knowledgeable on said medium, such that they end up “flailing” around in their efforts to beat his superior intellect on the subject.

I do wonder about the human race sometimes – and to be honest, this is the best site I’ve come across to gather that wonderment.

[Reply: Most folks like this site. If you don’t, that would seem to be your problem. ~ mod.]

Mod:
I didn’t say I didn’t like it!
Just that there are/was objectionable people present – reference the above “Bill from Nevada”.
Who has been banned twice now in the short (less than a month) time I’ve been posting here.
Your quote from the 1st ban (against me) – Just a slayer and an insulting one too.

I’d suggest that the people like him (Slayers) bring more damage to the skeptic cause than any discourse with the likes of me who know of Meteorology and accept the GHG theory & AGW but just wonder on the extent.
As (obviously) does Anthony on the Meteorology – and I believe, in his knowing of the GHE but doubts the “alarmist” claims.

That is where my “I do wonder about the human race sometimes – and to be honest, this is the best site I’ve come across to gather that wonderment.” stems from.

With respect.

345. TB says:

“… the likes of me who know of Meteorology and accept the GHG theory & AGW…”

To the unscientific: AGW is not a theory. To be a theory, AGW must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. AGW cannot do that. Neither can GHG “theory”, for that matter.

They are both unproven conjectures. When there is testable, measurable scientific evidence supporting either of them, many of us here will sit up straight and pay attention. But until then, TB is simply arguing about a conjecture; an opinion. Speculating. That’s all.