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)
Stephen 8:13am: “…adiabatic warming…” again at 9:02am: “…warmed air from adiabatic…”
Stephen’s admonishment:
“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.
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.
Six comments Willis?
As the Bard would say, “methinks the lady doth protest too much”.
How badly did you just lose?
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Konrad says:
January 11, 2014 at 9:52 am
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:
Matthew R Marler says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:18 am
Matt, Nick and Phil started this thing out with the following quote:
Nick Stokes says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:15 pm
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:
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.
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:
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 …
Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:13 am
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.
George Clarke Simpson. 1878-1965
Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of The Royal Society. Vol. 11, p170.
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.
Reference – thanks for posting those pre-satellite era pieces. Interesting historical reading.
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.
Wow. epic Konrad ownage.
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:
—
Konrad says:
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,
with such force of insistency that every reader on the thread blinks –
and Presto!
We didn’t all see him saying
what we all, saw him, saying.
—
Konrad 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.)
—
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.
[Reply: Is it Steven Vada? Or Bill From Nevada? Please make up your mind. ~ mod.]
Myrrh says:
January 11, 2014 at 4:35 pm
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.
Steven R. Vada says:
Steven, I’ll go over it real slowly for you.
I asked Konrad if he’d done the experiment with the fans 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.
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.
Steven R. Vada says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm
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.
Steven R. Vada, I do have to express my admiration for this haiku of yours as well:
“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.
Steven R. Vada says:
January 11, 2014 at 7:13 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.
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.