Guest essay by Walter Starck
Be scared, the experts tell us, be very scared. Well there is certainly cause for concern, but not about those “rising” temperatures, which refuse to confirm researchers’ computer models. A far bigger worry is the corruption that has turned ‘science’ into a synonym for shameless, cynical careerism
Despite the increasingly shrill insistence by climate alarmists that we face an imminent catastrophe, reason and evidence continue to indicate otherwise. Both the theoretical understanding of anthropogenic global warming (a.k.a. climate change) and the empirical evidence remain highly uncertain, tainted by dubious claims and manipulations.
While the basic physics of infrared heat absorption by CO2 is well established, both theoretical understanding and real world evidence strongly indicate the effect of increased CO2 in the complex dynamics of the global climate system has been greatly exaggerated. The amount of back-radiated infrared energy from the planet’s surface is limited and is not increased by more CO2 in the air above. Although a small amount of CO2 in the air results in significant warming, this effect is quickly saturated. At pre-industrial levels of CO2 the portion of the IR spectrum in the absorption bands of CO2 was already 99.9% absorbed within a few tens of metres of the surface. Although doubling CO2 must halve the distance over which such absorption occurs, any increased heating near the surface is continuously distributed into a much larger volume of the atmosphere by wind, convection and turbulence. How close to the surface initial warming occurs has minimal effect on the total amount of heat energy being absorbed or on the temperature of the much larger volume of atmosphere into which it is being mixed.
However, concentrating the initial heating nearer to the surface must also strengthen both convection and evaporation which, in turn, increases transport of heat away from the surface to higher in the troposphere, where the increased evaporation then results in increased condensation. In this process the latent heat of evaporation absorbed from the surface is released high in the atmosphere, where the thinner gases permit it to radiate into space. At the same time more cloud cover and precipitation also results, acting as a further negative feedback to cool the surface.
A shadehouse is not a greenhouse
To call the warming induced by CO2 a greenhouse effect is highly misleading. A greenhouse affects its warming by enclosing the air inside with walls and a roof. Without a roof only very limited warming is possible before convection wafts away heated air like a hot air balloon. A greenhouse with no roof or walls, where the warm air is free to blow away with the wind or drift into the sky is something only an academic could imagine. (Note to climate experts: a greenhouse without a roof does not work.)
A better analogy for the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 might be that presented by an absorption refrigerator – an old-fashioned gas or kerosene fridge. In such systems a heat source is used to drive an evaporative cooling cycle, much as the warm surface temperature of the planet drives convection, augmented by the evaporation/condensation cycle, to cool the lower troposphere and transport heat to greater altitudes where reduced gas density permits it to radiate away.
The so called greenhouse effect is limited. No heat is being “trapped” by a greenhouse with no walls or roof. The real world effect of more CO2 is much more like that of a shade house equipped with evaporative cooling.
Dubious evidence of anthropogenic warming
The prime physical evidence for AGW is the global temperature record. Declaring an emergency because some researchers claim to have detected an average warming of three-quarters of a degree over the past century (amidst a highly variable and extremely noisy record spanning over 100 degrees) borders on hysteria. For a start, the amount of warming being claimed is less than the margin of uncertainty. A similar amount of warming commonly takes place many mornings while we eat breakfast. It also occurs with a decrease in elevation of about a hundred metres, or with a decrease in latitude of about 2° (ca. 200 km). Orders of magnitude warming occur seasonally, even daily in many places. Not only is the purported amount not alarming, we have no idea how much of it is due to CO2 and how much may be attributable to measurement error, the urban heat island effect, ‘adjustments’ to the record, natural cycles or other natural causes of variability. Even more absurd is that the only global effect of increased CO2 about which we are reasonably certain is that there has been a significant and very beneficial greening of arid regions, plus an enhancement of food production.
The mild warming trend from 1978 to 1998 which prompted the global warming hysteria followed a period of cooling which excited similar alarm about a coming ice age. This warming ceased almost two decades ago and mild cooling now appears to be taking place. In recent years the rate of sea-level rise has also declined. Hurricanes and tornadoes are at record lows. Polar sea ice is increasing. Blizzards, droughts and floods are below past extremes. Attributing every vagary of weather to anthropogenic climate change is not reasonable, not science and definitely not honest.
Conflicting evidence ignored
Other “evidence” claimed for climate change is equally dubious. Two recent studies, for example, have received wide news coverage. The first maintains that trade winds are driving surface heat into the ocean depths, where it cannot be measured, and this explains the lack of recent warming. The second study claims to explain the “collapse” of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Both these studies fail the fundamental scientific requirement in their refusal to address conflicting evidence.
If the missing surface heat was indeed being driven into the deep sea this would have to appear as distinct deep water warming in the record from the global network of ocean monitoring buoys. It does not. It would also have to appear as an increased rate of sea level rise, due to the thermal expansion of the oceans which would necessarily accompany any such warming. To the contrary, the rate of sea level rise has declined in recent years.
The so called “collapse” of the West Antarctic ice sheet is likewise claimed to be caused by melting due to warming seas; however, the thirty-five year record from satellite monitoring of sea ice around Antarctica presents a clear trend of increasing ice cover with the recent extent at record highs. A better explanation for any increased glacial flow might be that the increasing snowfall, also recorded, is increasing the flow of ice as the Antarctic ice cap is already at the level to induce plastic flow. The more snow and ice that falls on the ice cap, the higher will be the pressure driving glacial flow. When glaciers retreat, climate alarmists say it is due to global warming. When they advance, alarmists re-badge it as “acceleration”, and that too is claimed to be evidence of warming.
In view of the uncertain and conflicting evidence, the claim that there is a 97% scientific consensus regarding climate change says more about the corruption of science than it does about any change in the climate.
Models are not evidence
Projections from computer models of the global climate have been presented as firm “evidence” for future warming, but models are not evidence. There are about a hundred different climate models. None has been verified, no two agree and none reproduce the actual temperature record. Moreover, the range of uncertainty in the estimates used for various inputs permit “adjustments” which can result in widely varied results. For some important inputs there is even uncertainty about whether their net effect is positive or negative. In the end the models represent nothing more than an elaborate personal guess by the modellers. Although models may provide insights into the possible dynamics of the climate system they have no credibility for use in predicting future warming. Ironically however, they do support the claimed 97% consensus in one respect. About 97% of the models yield exaggerated warming well above the actual temperature record and the few exceptions closer to the record are obscure models which receive no credence from climate change researchers.
Real problems ignored
Meanwhile, back in the real world, major problems with chronic deficits, ballooning debt, unaffordable health care and education, debasement of basic rights, malignant over regulation, uncontrolled immigration, an ageing population, economic stagnation and growing unemployment are all being left to fester while governments tilt at climate windmills in a desperate search for popular approval. These are all hugely more certain, pressing and addressable problems than is some highly uncertain degree of possible climate change a century or more from now.
Fantasy vs. Reality
Fossil fuel reserves are limited. Most of the low cost high quality deposits are already depleted and the rate of new discoveries is decreasing. Maintaining production increasingly depends upon non-conventional sources and advanced technologies with low production rates and high costs resulting in increasing prices for end users. At the same time technological advances are making alternatives more effective and affordable.
At present we could not feed, clothe and shelter the existing population without fossil fuels, nor could we maintain the economic health necessary to develop effective alternatives. Trying to force wide scale adoption of premature technologies is a recipe for disaster as has been every other attempt at central planning of economies.
Both theory and practice indicate that complex interactive systems (e.g. climate, ecosystems, and economies) incorporating numerous non-linear relationships cannot be managed from top down but can effectively self-organise if permitted to do so. Despite the sometimes messy self-adjustments, free markets have repeatedly proved to be the best way we have found to do this in the economic sphere. Failing to recognise this and mindlessly repeating to attempt a centrally planned approach proposed by self-anointed “experts’ is beyond simply foolish. It requires wilful ignorance compounded by unbounded self-regard.
Trying to implement the climate alarmist’s half-baked theoretical solutions to imaginary problems can at best only result in economic stagnation and delay. More likely the harm would be even greater as the recognition of failure and the necessity to change course then determining what to do next would all be impeded by political resistance, uncertainty and compromises while the damage continues to intensify.
Although the danger from climate change itself appears to have been greatly exaggerated the economic impact of ill-conceived measures to control it are already real, substantial and on-going. These include significant increases in the cost of energy and food, job losses, large scale environmental degradation from wind farms and bio-fuel production as well as the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars from other far more real and urgent needs.
Biggest threat is corruption, not carbon
Perhaps the greatest harm of all has been the damage to the integrity and credibility of science itself. This affects not just science but also our ability to effectively govern ourselves in the increasingly complex technological world we are creating. Gross scientific malpractice has become endemic in climate science. Misleading or even false claims, cherry-picking of data, hiding or ignoring conflicting evidence, unexplained manipulations of data, refusal to permit independent examination of methods and evidence, abuse of peer review to supress adverse findings and vicious personal denigration of dissent have all become widespread practice in climate research. Worse yet, when such conduct has been exposed, the response of alarmists has not been to condemn it, but to first try to deny it, then to attempt to justify it and finally to pretend to dismiss it as trivial and of no consequence. In the most prominent examples a post script has been to announce some prestigious sounding award to the miscreants thus appearing to erase the taint of any impropriety.
The climate change bandwagon has afforded a tantalising shortcut to generous funding and expert status for any third rate academic willing to abandon the scientific ethos and many have done so. For the unwilling, any public dissent means a level of professional ostracism and personal denigration few are willing to bear.
Research is not a license for fraud
The evidence of widespread corruption in climate and other environmental science is clear and abundant. The harm done has been great and is increasing. Relevant laws against fraud, professional misconduct, misleading parliament and other offences are being blatantly violated. The research institutions involved have also routinely made false claims in press releases widely reported in the mainstream media. It is past time to begin to demand professional honesty and apply the relevant laws to academic researchers that are applied to all other activities. Terminating both current and future government funding of those found guilty of serious violations of scientific standards could be a simple effective cure to treat the malaise now infecting environmental science. To continue to ignore it can only assure more disastrously poor decisions in the future.
The idea that we must take drastic steps now for the benefit of our great grandchildren is also emotive nonsense. History clearly shows that the problems faced by future generations and the means to solve them are almost certain to be very different from anything we can predict. If we leave them a healthy economy and uncorrupted science, they will be equipped far better than we to decide if climate change is indeed becoming a problem and what to do about it. If we cripple our economy and debase our best tool for understanding the world we live in we will be doing our descendants no favour and they will not be thankful for our foolishness.
Originally published at Quadrant Online 6 June 2014, republished here with permission.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/06/climate-change-doesnt-scare/
BTW, George E. Smith’s 300 word diatribe against the phrase “infrared heat absorption by CO2” is entirely out of order.
Heat can be transferred in 3 ways: by conduction, by convection, and by radiation. It is entirely clear from the context of the article that the authors simply meant to indicate that the CO2 was being heated by radiation, specifically infrared radiation, and not by one of the other two methods.
This is a great article. Well reasoned and easy to understand.
I’ve been around 81 years. I have seen anecdotal evidence of some warming. Smaller glaciers in the Rockies and Alps. I earned my living as a pilot, so I dealt with weather every day. When I wasn’t working my hobby was climbing mountains. Again, I had to deal with the weather. One degree of warming in 100 years is so slight an amount of warming as to be barely noticeable.
I certainly don’t see much difference between now and the 1930s. Some years are warmer, some colder. I live in Puget Sound and have not noticed much in the way of sea level; increase. The fact that we have 16 foot tides twice a day is much more noticeable than a centimeter of mean sea level rise.
The fact that the CAGW crowd rejects adaptation as a possible solution should warming actually become a real issue, indicates to me that their agenda is political control. We are hearing a lot in these parts about planning for “sustainability.” When I go to the meetings, I hear basically the outlines of Agenda 21, the UN plan to control energy and other resources on a world wide basis. It appears to these old eyes to be a Communist scheme wrapped up in Green hysteria.
Keep up the good work here at WUWT.
[snip – Slayers stuff – off topic – mod]
“””””…..TYoke says:
June 7, 2014 at 7:48 pm
BTW, George E. Smith’s 300 word diatribe against the phrase “infrared heat absorption by CO2″ is entirely out of order. …..”””””
And just who are YOU to be defining the rules ?
As I’ve said many times before, I make it a point to never get between someone, and a cliff they are determined to leap off.
Electro-magnetic Radiation, is NOT heat, no matter what wavelength that radiation may be. EM radiant energy can be turned into heat, by simply wasting that energy, or it can be turned into electricity, by means of the Photo-Voltaic effect. For that matter it can be converted into grass, or wood, rather than heat.
And MOST of the warming of the earth by solar EM radiant energy being converted into waste heat energy, is VISIBLE radiation; NOT IR.
So is “diatribe” a word you revert to, when talking about something you don’t know anything about ?
[snip – Slayers stuff – off topic – mod]
“””””…..commieBob says:
June 7, 2014 at 2:25 pm
george e. smith says:
June 7, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Infrared IS NOT “heat.”
That’s kind of like saying that a cheque is not money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation…..”””””
Well commieBob, when Wikipedia is your source for “scientific information”, that you yourself obviously do not know, make sure you read and understand, the meaning of what it is you are citing.
Your wiki cited reference is a fairly good exposition of “Thermal Radiation.”
They even call it “Thermal Radiation” and use that in the title of their piece.
Perhaps you should read it yourself.
It describes the process of EMISSION of EM radiant energy (NOT “heat energy”) from any physical body of material that is at a Temperature above zero kelvins. The spectrum of such radiation (theoretically) encompasses ALL radiation frequencies (or wavelengths) from zero to infinity, excluding the two end points. That spectrum of emitted radiations contains 98% of its total emitted energy in a 16:1 total range of frequencies, or wavelengths, and that theoretical spectrum depends on no physical properties of any material EXCEPT the Temperature of the material (in kelvins). That’s exactly why it is called “Thermal radiation.”. It is dependent only on Temperature.
By comparison, atomic or molecular EM radiation spectra, emitted by real physical materials, are first order quite independent of Temperature, as to their frequencies or wavelengths, and know absolutely nothing about “heat energy”. There are second order line broadening effects due to the Doppler effect on the frequency or wavelength emitted by a moving source.
So your wiki reference, that you so proudly cited, doesn’t have anything to do with heat energy, other than the simple fact that Temperature is a macro property of large assemblages of particles in mutual collisions with each other.
Atomic and molecular line spectra are properties of individual atoms or molecules; not large assemblies of such, and their frequencies or wavelengths are TOTALLY dependent, on the EXACT species of atom or molecule emitting (or absorbing that radiant energy). Thermal spectra are material independent. Yes the emissivity, or spectral emissivities can be material dependent. The total spectral limit envelope is not.
Thermal radiation is NOT “heat” either. The 2.7 kelvin big bang remnant radiation is thermal radiation that is in the microwave frequency range, with a peak spectral wavelength of about 1 mm. It is NOT in the infra-red spectral region.
Good luck on detecting any 15 micron CO2 absorption from the big bang microwave background radiation.
“””””…..kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 7, 2014 at 3:20 pm
From commieBob on June 7, 2014 at 2:25 pm:
That’s kind of like saying that a cheque is not money…….”””””
As KD points out, a check is NOT money. A check can in fact be converted to “heat energy” by lighting a match to it, so in that sense the check is like coal or prestologs, as a means of transporting “heat energy” in your wallet, for ready conversion, any time you want to warm up.
And when you convert your check to “heat energy”, it does not even result in any money loss to your bank account, no matter how large a n amount you write that check for.
Of course you wood eventually run out of checks, and need to buy more, in the event you really wanted to convert them to money, instead of “heat energy”.
Checks are not “heat” either; nor money.
Anthony: PS to my long comment upthread about suing Desmogblog and Sourcewatch, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/why-climate-change-doesnt-scare-me/#comment-1656581
I believe that the statement below by Desmogblog demonstrates knowing disregard of the facts (because you do have some qualifications and certificates thereof, which are listed somewhere on your site) and also “actual malice.” So, despite you’re being a public figure, they have gone over the line. Desmogblog’s smear must have given rise to 100,000 repetitions of its claim, which googling could locate and document to a court. I think a jury would find Desmobgblog liable for at least $100,000–and maybe a lot more.
Here’s their statement: “He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer.”
[snip – Slayers stuff – off topic – mod]
If you’re taking flak… 😉
An excellent piece.
When climate change first appeared on my radar about five years ago I was stunned to see how science had been corrupted, and how the very institutions that were supposed to be protecting the integrity of science were themselves corrupted. But I was fairly confident that the integrity of science would be restored in my lifetime. Now I’m not so sure.
People in the UK are all too familiar with the criminal Jimmy Savile, who abused children and young women. It took decades for his crimes to be recognised, and very recently the BBC tried to hide what had happened, because they were planning a Jimmy Savile tribute program.
During the previous decades there were some whistle blowers about Savile, but they were of course ignored. Bearing in mind the vast vested interests in the global warming scare, it may also take decades before the truth is finally recognised. As I’m getting on in years I may not live to see that.
Some may argue that Jimmy Savile’s crimes were of a different order compared to the climate mafia. I agree. These people are far worse.
Jimmy Savile abused children. These people are abusing the human race.
Chris
I appreciate the post, and would welcome your views on reef bleaching and ocean acidification.
Thanks
Konrad says:
June 7, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Konrad, you can make up any hypothesis you wish, but you can’t make up data. The average solar energy to Earth is 340 W/m2. About 100 W/m2 is directly reflected (resulting in the albedo). Some of the remainder is absorbed in the clouds and atmosphere, but most reaches the ground and is absorbed. The ground and atmosphere radiate IR mostly in the 4 to 20 micron range. Most of this is absorbed by the atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and aerosols, and clouds, but approximately 40 W/m2 is radiated directly from ground level to space. Radiation from clouds to space of this IR is only about 30 W/m2 (direct measurements from NASA satellites). This is far from the majority of the source of outgoing radiation. Radiation from the atmosphere NOT INCLUDING CLOUDS is about 170 W/m2. This occurs over the entire depth of the atmosphere, but most is from higher altitudes, and an average depth of outgoing radiation is easily calculated. This average depth has little direct meaning, but is an indicator of the net atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Interesting comment by Half Tide Rock about US east coast offshore oil and gas deposits. I worked on a semi submersible rig which drilled several exploration wells for ConocoPhillips in the Georges Banks in the early eighties. We crew changed out of Hyannis, Mass. While I was just a roustabout then, and so not actually reviewing logs, scuttlebutt on the rig was that the discoveries were more than commercial–they were impressive. Then the moratorium was imposed and we moved back to the GOM. Someone will get that Oil and Gas someday, even though today it is left out of recoverable reserve estimates.
The article’s proposition that the GHG effect cannot be that important is just flat incorrect science.
The satellites alone show that the earth is retaining more heat and that increased GHG’s explain it, quite well.
A cheque results in the transfer of money out of an account.
Radiation results in the transfer of heat energy out of a system.
I’m not sure why you guys have your shirts in a knot.
Mr Leman is incorrect in logic. The mere fact that there is a greenhouse effect tells us nothing about whether our enhancement of it is or may become severe enough to be dangerous. The warming of the 20th century was largely a continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age. There has been no statistically-significant warming for close to two decades, notwithstanding increases in the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It is, therefore, possible – and necessary, on the evidence – that our enhancement of the greenhouse effect is not important.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:12 am
It is, therefore, possible – and necessary, on the evidence – that our enhancement of the greenhouse effect is not important.
=================
Exactly. Natural processes dwarf any effect humans might have.
Global warming doesn’t scare me because WARMER IS BETTER.
Planet Earth (globally) is today a mere 4 deg C warmer than the coldest point in the last 240,000,000 years (which occurred a mere 20,000 years ago at the Last Glacial Maximum. For 99% of the last nearly a quarter of a billion years, the Earth has been far warmer than it is today.
Warmer means longer growing seasons, more rainfall, more agricultural productivity, more biological productivity, more biological diversity, more wealth, more happiness, less starvation, deprivation, and suffering for all life forms.
Most of humanity lives in the tropics and semi tropics, despite the fact that only a small fraction of the land is in those zones. Humans are historically a tropical animal.
All our major food staples are tropical in origin: corn, wheat, rice, potatoes, manioc, squash, grapes, citrus, you name it. They all grow better where it is warm.
In fact, the most productive ag lands in the US are the warmest (check out the ag production of the Imperial Valley, a sub-sea-level valley south of the Mojave Desert.)
There are no (none, zip, zero) drawbacks to a warmer globe. There are only benefits.
The author may or may not be correct in his physics assumptions, but if he is right, and the Earth is not getting warmer, then that is a huge tragedy for all life.
WARMER IS BETTER. That’s intuitively obvious and self-evident, and to think otherwise is sadly twisted. Propaganda is toxic. It rots your brain. Throw off your mental shackles and think clearly, for your own good and for the good of all.
“””””……commieBob says:
June 8, 2014 at 8:50 am
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 7, 2014 at 3:20 pm
george e. smith says:
June 7, 2014 at 11:21 pm
A cheque results in the transfer of money out of an account……”””””
No it doesn’t. I can write out a check for $1T, and make it out to Barack Obama; personally.
But not a penny will come out of my account, if instead, I decide to use it to generate heat energy to warm my coffee cup; by setting fire to that check, instead of mailing it to him.
If one plays music; say the violin or perhaps a clarinet. And you play the wrong note, for the wrong amount of time, and in the wrong place, at the wrong loudness, you DO NOT get music. You get horrible garbage.
PLaying music is like writing software code. If you enter the wrong instruction at the wrong place , and refer to the wrong address in the memory; you do not get accurate modeling of some describable system; you get garbage equally as horrible as your music.
So why would you also expect to not get absolute drivel; total garbage, when you write a “science paper”, and use the wrong words and the wrong physical units, and manipulate them, in an incorrect fashion.
If your intent was to inform; especially to inform someone, not particularly schooled in your subject; all you succeeded in doing, was leaving them still in a state of ignorance, about something they might be perfectly capable and able to understand, if properly presented.
You are not a teacher; you are an incompetent bum, if you can’t be bothered to use correct, and universally recognized and understood terminology.
That is true, whether the subject is atmospheric physics, or whether it is gastroenterology.
So if texting is the limit of your communication skills; do not hamper others who might be eager to learn something.
I very carefully refrained from insulting you. You’re reading the wrong thing into that. If you wish to continue in your current manner, that’s your own choice.
To be honest, the fear mongering of the alarmists is what primarily has put me in the skeptic camp. I can’t really make a solid evaluation of all science myself (who can?), and I can’t really identify who’s telling the truth. I like most of us act on gut feeling when faced with such a dilemma. The lack of faith in humanity and the disregard of the industrialized society’s many advantages by the alarmists puts me off also.
I would like to see the effects of proposed emission-cuts, translated into implications of our daily lives. Many people seem to believe that it is next to trivial and it doesn’t matter if climate science alarmist are right or not, there are only upsides with the proposed policies. I think this is extremely naive to say the least. Normally there is a lot of pessimism when GDP is growing slowly or not at all. Economic stagnation or recess is causing tangible problems in societies even today, imagine what cutting down on energy consumption to the proposed levels would do.
On the other hand, the choice between a collapse of society now, driven by policies based on collective global panic or a collapse of society in X years from now, due to catastrophic warming should always be an easy choice to me. I don’t actually think the latter would happen and I don’t think our current governments stupid as they may be, will let the former come true either.
A strong comeback for nuclear power is the only logical outcome if the AGW-scare continues and politicians dare to try and mitigate it.
Boba Fat
I am in the same boat as you–skeptical of CAGW, especially of C, not truly capable of making an informed judgment. I do know that roughly 80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels, so they ain’t going away soon and driving a Prius or refusing plastic grocery bags may make someone feel good, but it’s a drop in the bucket. Stopping CO2 emissions any time soon means quite literally the collapse of civilization. Carbon taxes seem like a political idea AND a politician’s dream. Just having Al Gore as an alarmist makes me suspicious. Remember that creepy moment when he kissed Tipper on stage? Not valid science, but…what a creep.
I favor–over the LONG run–switching from fossil fuels to nukes and research to make solar/wind/maybe fusion more viable. Benefits, AGW aside–include cleaner air and the ability to let the Middle East stew in its own hatred.
We disagree on only one point–I am convinced that Gov’t is indeed stupid and selfish.
Bill says:
June 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Benefits, AGW aside–include cleaner air
===============
Cleaner than what?
Leonard Weinstein says:
June 8, 2014 at 6:40 am
———————————-
Leonard,
I am not challenging radiative physics, just the mis-application of a radiative two shell model to a moving gas atmosphere where non-radiative transports dominate.
“Konrad, you can make up any hypothesis you wish, but you can’t make up data.”
I would respond that I am not making up data. Anyone with a reasonable IR thermometer can check my claim that the pattern of IR emission from the atmosphere is constantly changing both horizontally and vertically, with clouds being the strongest source of emission.
If you scan clear sky on a day with low humidity you will get a reading of around -40C (167 w/m2) at vertical and at lower angles this should increase to around -20C (232 w/m2) as apparent IR opacity to the instrument increases. However low cloud can read over 10C (364 w/m2) or even higher if you manage to scan during the formation/condensation stage.
By using averages such as ERL, you miss the role of radiative gases in atmospheric circulation. Air masses, particularly rising moist air masses, are not radiating at the same temperature as the atmospheric altitude they are rising through. Especially not during the heat pulse during condensation.
As Dr. Spencer pointed out in 2009, radiative subsidence plays a critical role in tropospheric convective circulation. Radiative gases do warm the atmosphere at low altitude and provide double that in cooling at higher altitude. If you model tropospheric convective circulation as constant for increasing radiative gas concentration then you will model near surface warming. Sir George Simpson warned Callendar not to do this back in 1938.
There is a radiative GHE on our planet (most notable at night over land), just not a NET radiative GHE. The basic reason is that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans. And the atmosphere in turn has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases.
As to ERL, the subject of my initial comment, this argument does boil down to the claim that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduces the atmospheres radiative cooing ability. But without radiative gases the atmosphere would have no radiative cooling ability. If the atmosphere could not radiatively cool, how could the atmosphere cool the oceans?
gamecock-?????????????????????
Nukes are cleaner than coal/oil/etc. Alternative answer: cleaner than the air in China.
This seems uncontroversial to me; have I violated some taboo?