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)
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.
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:
http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/3585/ADA437187.pdf?sequence=1
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.
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-
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
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.)
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.
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.
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 😉
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
show more energy arriving when 20% less is
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,
and how pseudo 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.”
You were already given the answer on this very thread –
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.
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.
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]
Bill from Nevada 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.]
TB says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Bill from Nevada 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.]
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.
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.