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)
[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?
Steven R. Vada says:
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 –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Asking Stephen Wilde says:
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?
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.
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.
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/
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..
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..
rgbatduke says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:02 am
Thanks, Robert.
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.
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-
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
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 –
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
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.
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
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..