Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
“Seriously,” he continued, “we should watch the alarming melting of glaciers and polar sea ice rather than the ‘Pause’ in Global Warming according to thermometer readings.”
When I give talks about climate science to intelligent audiences, my general theme is that Global Warming is REAL, and partly due to human activities, but it is NOT a big DEAL.,
- Yes, the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” effect is real. It is responsible for the Earth being about 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be absent “Greenhouse” gasses in the Atmosphere.
- Yes Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a key “Greenhouse” gas, second only to Water Vapor (H2O).
- Yes CO2 has increased by about a third during the past century (from 300 to 400 parts per million), mostly due to unprecedented burning of large quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas.
- Yes, temperatures have gone up by about 0.8⁰C (1.5⁰F) over the past century.
- HOWEVER, warming is mostly natural and due to Earth’s recovery from the depths of the last ice age, some 18,000 years ago.
- No matter what we do, the Earth will warm for hundreds or thousands of years, then plunge into the next ice age. Of course this will not happen monotonically. There will be multi-decade periods of warming and of cooling, just as the Medieval Warm Period (1000-1200s) was considerably warmer than today, and the Little Ice Age (1600-1700s) was colder.
- IPCC climate theory and computer models have failed to match actual satellite temperature data. Alarming predictions have not come to pass. They totally missed the statistical warming “Pause” of the early 2000s. [The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
- [See the lower right section of the figure] For several periods, even the lowest edge of the Yellow error band is warmer than the highest edge of the Blue band! [These error bands are 5%-95% statistical confidence limits, which means there is less than 1 chance in 20 any point outside a band is due to random error. Thus, there is less than 1 chance in 20 x 20 = 400 that any point in the White space between the Yellow and Blue bands is due to random error. Either the NASA satellite sensor systems are badly out of order or the IPCC climate models are terribly wrong!]
- The gross failure of the IPCC models to correctly predict warming, despite a significant increase in CO2, proves that the models, and the underlying IPCC climate theories, are wrong.
- The most generous explanation is that the IPCC climate scientists simply over-estimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2 increase by a factor of two to three.
- The most likely explanation is that their climate theory is either incomplete or totally wrong, so their models failed. Either that, or, for political purposes, they purposely jiggered the model parameters to create alarming projections and keep research funding coming from we taxpayers to their organizations.
Rationalizations for what happened to the excess heat due to human-made CO2:
- The Oceans absorbed it!
- The melting Ice Caps absorbed it!
How can the world’s leading climate theorists and modelers still be considered competent if they did not know about the heat capacity of the oceans? (Or, apparently, even the Ice Water Experiment! :^)
The Abstract for the recently published study by Michael “Nature Trick – Hockey Stick” Mann, et. al admits the reality of the “Pause” “temporary slowdown”. Guess what he blames it on?:
The temporary slowdown in large-scale surface warming during the early 2000s has been attributed to both external and internal sources of climate variability. Using semiempirical estimates of the internal low-frequency variability component in Northern Hemisphere, Atlantic, and Pacific surface temperatures in concert with statistical hindcast experiments, we investigate whether the slowdown and its recent recovery were predictable. We conclude that the internal variability of the North Pacific, which played a critical role in the slowdown, does not appear to have been predictable using statistical forecast methods… [emphasis mine]
In other words, the unpredictable “internal variability of the North Pacific” ate my alarming projection! (A variation on the old “dog ate my homework” excuse :^)
Why was it not predictable by the IPCC’s leading climate scientists?
- Because statistical forecast methods are weak?
- Because the catastrophic warming climate theory is wrong?
- Because they knew better but did not dare to reign in their alarming predictions for fear of losing research grants?
I find it amazing that so many of my friends (who are otherwise intelligent and reasonable) cling to their firm belief in a coming human-caused climate catastrophe. Their confidence is based on the alarming predictions rooted in IPCC climate theory and computer models.
Yet, like the confident questioner I mentioned in the first paragraph, they seem to acknowledge that the IPCC theorists did not know about the relatively simple concepts of ocean heat capacity, or even the temperature profile of ice water due to the Heat of Fusion!
If these models could not correctly predict a near-term event, such as the “Pause”, why put any credence in their catastrophic predictions for 50 or 100 years hence?
How Does the Ice Water Experiment Relate to Earth’s Proportion of Ice to Liquid Water?
To satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some research and figure out how much the melting of glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets might have reduced Global Warming since 1979. This period includes the statistical “Pause” (or “temporary slowdown in large-scale surface warming during the early 2000s” as Mann refers to it).
The Ice Water Temperature Pause Experiment works for two reasons:
- It takes nearly 80 times as much energy to melt a given mass of ice as it does to raise an equivalent mass of water 1⁰C (1.8⁰F). (This is called the heat of fusion associated with the state transition of water from solid to liquid form.)
- The Ice Cubes make up a substantial percentage of the total mass of the ice water mixture. (When the ice cubes melt down to a small proportion of the water, the temperature does rise.)
So, what is the percentage of ice to liquid water on Earth, and has enough of it melted to account for the failure of the IPCC models since 1979, or during the “Pause”?
According to Debenedetti, Pablo G. & H. Eugene Stanley. “Supercooled and Glassy Water.”Physics Today. Vol. 56, No. 6 (June 2003): 40 (quoted by http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml) here is what we need to know about the Earth’s Ice and Water:
- 1,300 x 106 km3 of water in the oceans [106 km3 = millions of cubic kilometers]
- 33 x 106 km3 of ice in the polar ice caps
- 3 x 106 km3 in the Greenland ice shelf and
- 30 x 106 km3 in the Antarctic ice shelf
- 0.2 x 106 km3 of ice in glaciers
- 0.1 x 106 km3 of water in lakes
- 0.0012 x 106 km3 of water in rivers
- 0.22 x 106 km3 of water in annual precipitation
However, actual ice melt rates are much, much, much less, according to
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html
… best estimates of mass balance changes per year for 1992 through 2011: Greenland: lost 142 ± 49 gigatons; East Antarctica: gained 14 ± 43 gigatons; West Antarctica: lost 65 ± 26 gigatons; Antarctic Peninsula: lost 20 ± 14 gigatons. [net annual melt loss 213 gigatons]
Conveniently, 1 gigaton is the weight of one cubic kilometer (km3) of fresh water. So, 213 gigatons is equal to 213 km3 of ice (momentarily ignoring the fact that 1 km3 of ice weighs a bit less than 1 km3 of sea water). Lacking more specifics, let us assume an average annual melt rate of 213 km3 is at least roughly representative of average annual melt rates from 1979 to 2015. Thus, the total melt for 1979-2015 would be 213 x 36 = 7688 km3, which we will round up to 8000 km3 to more than make up for the difference in weight of ice and sea water.
So how much does all that melting amount to in terms of delayed temperature increase? 80 x 8000 / 1,300,000,000 = 0.000492⁰C, which we may round up to 0.0005⁰C (0.0009⁰F) of the warming since 1979, and even less of the missing warming during the “Pause”.
So, total Earth ice melt accounts for less than 0.09% of the warming missing from the IPCC’s alarming projection. Not so impressive, is it?
- Heat of Fusion is the energy to change the state of a gram of a given substance from solid to liquid.
- Specific Heat is the energy to raise the temperature of a gram of a given substance 1⁰C.
- Water (in calories per gram) Heat of Fusion = 79.7 Specific Heat = 1.0
- So, it takes ~80 times more energy to melt 1 gram of ice than to heat 1 gram of water 1⁰C.
- Therefore it takes lots of heat energy to melt glaciers and polar ice caps.
- Does Ice melt explain the IPCC climate model failure to predict the “Pause”?
- How much Global Ice is there, and how much Global Ice has melted?
- How much Global Ice has melted compared to the volume of the oceans?
- Global Ice is only 1/50th of Global Water mass. Less than 1/20,000th of it has melted since 1979.
- So, the temperature effect of Global Ice melt during this time period is insignificant, only 0.0005⁰C (0.0009⁰F).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have repeatedly pointed out that the ‘warming’ of the Arctic this February was in fact a massive ‘cooling event’. Given that the area was in darkness at the time, the only way heat could have been transported there was via water vapour (from El Nino).
What happens when you introduce water vapour into an environment where the temperature is minus 30˚C…?
The rather cold, horrid summer they’re currently having in Europe is undoubtedly the result of all that ‘warming’ they had back in Feb.
Enthalpy dear boy…enthalpy.
If this is a new point to be made, it leaves me a bit confused. Why else then has everyone been so worked up about the loss, or not, of polar ice?
Who’s everyone?
Loss of polar ice is concerning for a few reasons. It’s a positive albedo feedback for one. It is also a major change to the nature of the arctic that has wide-ranging effects on weather and ocean patterns (e.g. weakening of the AMOC appears to have begun, though that is more due to the accelerating melt of ice off the land.)
Steve R: The main reason “everyone” (i.e., the media :^) is so concerned about melting polar ice (and glaciers, etc.) is that we now have video images of these events, along with satellite views of the “shrinking” floating polar ice. Like that photo of the supposedly hapless polar bear on an ice floe, it is something ordinary people can “understand” and which tugs at the emotions to bolster the case for impending catastrophic Global Warming that the Warmists and Alarmists have been trying to sell us since Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie.
I believe the same argument may be made for why “extreme weather” events are highlighted by the media. With the advent of ubiquitous smart phones, nearly everyone has a camera handy so we now have video images of virtually any “extreme” weather event. Watching people get flooded out or having their windows damaged by hailstones, or fires due to dry trees and grass, etc., makes the case that “extreme” weather events, are on the increase and “caused” by “evil, un-natural, anti-ecological” human activities. In almost every case, however, the report says “the warmest (or coldest, or driest, or wettest) since “. Often, the previous record year is decades ago, before human-caused “extreme” weather was an issue.
Ira
Have you seen this Ira?
..
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/20/asia/india-record-temperature/
[added by Ira 21 May. Yes, Betty. Apparently a new record temperature in India of 51 C. The previous India record was 50.6 C, and that was in 1956. So, since 1956 the peak India temperature has increased a whopping 0.4 C (assuming the thermometers, measuring conditions, urban heat islands, time of measurement, etc. are EXACTLY identical. If they differ, as they most likely do, by tenths of a degree, the actual warming might be 0.2 C or 0.6 C.)
However, since 1979, according to satellite data, the Global average has increased by at least 0.3 C and possibly as much as 0.6 C. Since 1956 the Global increase may be larger still.
Thus, the new India record is totally in accord with expectations, or a bit less than expected, based on satellite data. If the average of the 102 IPCC models were correct, we’d expect an increase of at least 0.6 C and possibly as much as 1.4 C since 1979, and even more since 1956.
Therefore, the new India record temperatures are somewhat disappointing, and do not support alarming predictions of a comping climate catastrophe.]
I suppose this is an enjoyable thing to believe from an ideological perspective. In reality, shrinking/removing the planet’s arctic ice cap over time is a pretty significant alteration to the planet. There’s no getting around the fact that it is a fairly remarkable thing for humans to be doing, as prevailing understanding and evidence seems to indicate (acknowledging that there are significant weather/circulation components here as well.)
[added by Ira 21 May. geoffmprice: Based on the NSDIC data I cited, we have lost about 1/20000 th of the total Global Ice since 1979. I do NOT consider this to be what you call “a pretty significant alteration to the planet”. And, most of that ice loss is likely due to natural rather than human-causation.]
geoffmprice wrote “There’s no getting around the fact that it is a fairly remarkable thing for humans to be doing”
Indeed. I am delighted with myself. Any time I need a boost in my ego I need only think of this vast power I wield: Melting icecaps and making new farmland. I am my finger of heat and drought at my enemies!
Doubters will exist questioning that I had anything to do with icecaps melting but who can prove otherwise?
“Yes, the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” effect is real. It is responsible for the Earth being about 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be absent “Greenhouse” gasses in the Atmosphere.”
If this theory is correct, the models are correct.
Matthijs: You write, in part “If this theory [Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect] is correct, the models are correct.”
Not necessarily. Let us take this step-by-step. Water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Atmosphere undoubtedly: 1) absorb long-wave radiation from the warm Earth surface, 2) the absorbed energy causes these gasses to warm up (and by conduction warm the oxygen and nitrogen that make up nearly all of the Atmosphere), 3) the warmed Atmosphere radiates long-wave radiation in all directions, and 4) some of this radiation reaches the Earth surface and causes additional warming.
That, as far as I know, is the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, and it is undoubtedly correct based on science, laboratory experiments, and actual measurements of down-welling long-wave radiation.
Climate scientists have taken the above well-established facts, added what they consider facts about the effect of daytime clouds on albedo and of nighttime clouds on downwelling radiation, etc., made certain additional numeric assumptions, and created a suite of computer models (CMIP-5) that may be run to project future near-surface temperatures. The base model may be correct, but their failure to predict the “Pause” may be due to the assumptions made and programmed into the models, along with numerical parameters.
Even if the theory is correct and the base models are correct, the final suite of CMIP-5 are seriously flawed because they have projected significantly higher warming than has actually occurred, based on satellite measurements. Thus, the final suite of CMIP-5 models are wrong, even though the basic theory (Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect) and the base models may be correct.
Perhaps the only correction needed could be the value programmed for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. If that was changed from the current range of values (1.5 C to 4.5 C) to a lower range (say 0.7 C to 1.5 C) I believe the projected results would comport better with actual measurements.
The models still would not be absolutely correct (because if a model was completely correct, it WOULD BE THE SYSTEM being modeled), but the projections would match the measured data a heck of a lot better!
Ira
Ira,
You said,
‘2) the absorbed energy causes these gasses to warm up (and by conduction warm the oxygen and nitrogen that make up nearly all of the Atmosphere)’
This is not technically correct, as there are no known mechanisms to convert significant vibrational/rotational state energy (which is really just a form of EM energy stored as resonant periodic motion of electron clouds), into the kinetic energy stored as a molecule in motion. Vibration is not like a bat hitting a ball, as the vibrational frequency is very, very fast relative to the amount of time that electron clouds are interacting with each other during a collision.
When an energized GHG molecule collides with N2/.O2, the most likely result is the emission of a photon by the energized GHG molecule, which from a temperature point of view is equivalent to increasing the speed of the molecules since photons and molecules in motion affect most temperature sensors equally based only on the energies involved. Note that the velocity of a GHG molecule in motion is unaffected by absorbing a photon. Moreover; N2/O2 neither absorbs or emits photons in the LWIR, thus its temperature is irrelevant to the radiation leaving the planet while photons emitted by GHG molecules are most relevant.
The exception is collisional broadening, where small amounts of energy are converted between linear kinetic energy and EM energy, however, this has an equal probability of decreasing the velocity emitting a higher frequency photon as it does to increase the velocity decreasing the frequency of the emitted photon, thus only under very special circumstances (for example, laser cooling), can there be any kind of net conversion.
The photons re-emitted by GHG molecules can be absorbed by the water and ice in clouds, which unlike narrow band absorbers/emitters like GHG’s are broad band absorbers/emitters. The water can then indirectly heat the N2/O2, but for the water in the atmosphere to be in LTE, it must be absorbing the same amount of energy its emitting (otherwise, the atmosphere would warm or cool without bound) and as pointed out earlier, the temperature of atmospheric N2/O2 is irrelevant to the radiiant balance. Trenberth conflates energy transported by photons (the radiant balance) and energy transported by matter (latent heat, convection, etc) and this is one of many significant errors found throughout consensus climate science that provides the necessary wiggle room to support an otherwise impossibly high sensitivity.
co2isnotevil May 19, 2016 at 12:47 pm
Ira,
You said,
‘2) the absorbed energy causes these gasses to warm up (and by conduction warm the oxygen and nitrogen that make up nearly all of the Atmosphere)’
This is not technically correct, as there are no known mechanisms to convert significant vibrational/rotational state energy (which is really just a form of EM energy stored as resonant periodic motion of electron clouds), into the kinetic energy stored as a molecule in motion. Vibration is not like a bat hitting a ball, as the vibrational frequency is very, very fast relative to the amount of time that electron clouds are interacting with each other during a collision.
Not true, collisional quenching of rovibrational states is commonplace and much studied (it is the bane of those of us doing laser studies of such states around atmospheric pressure, most of my laser excitation ended up being quenched).
See here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25358152
Another example is the CO2 laser which operates using the vibrational energy levels of the CO2 molecule. For example the vibrationally excited 001 level emits at the 9.6 micron wavelength by a transition to the 020 excited state, to maintain lasing that level must be quenched to the ground state. This is done by collisional deactivation with He which is added to the laser tube for that purpose. As I’m sure you’re aware He only has translational energy.
Phil,
As I said, it takes very special circumstances and these circumstances are not common in the atmosphere. For example, shine a laser at a molecule at a frequency just below the peak of an absorption line and subsequent emissions will remove linear kinetic energy when returning to the ground state in order to make up the difference. The distribution of photon energies in the atmosphere are not this constrained.
In the case you suggested where molecules need to return to the ground state, an energized molecule colliding with another molecule will most likely emit a photon and return to the ground state, but as an outside observer, photons and molecular velocities have the same effect on temperature sensors and you will not be able to tell the difference.
Moreover; its a moot point as the kinetic energy of gas molecules in motion has no bearing on the radiative balance, sensitivity or any other important climate attribute. We can detect a hot gas cloud in space only by its emission spectra and a cold gas only by its absorption spectra. N2/O2 has no relevant absorption or emission lines in the LWIR.
The evidence that collisions cause photon emissions is in the emitted spectra of the planet, where despite saturated lines where all surface emissions at a particular frequency are absorbed, there’s significant energy leaving the TOA in those same bands. The only possible origin of these photons in the clear sky is from GHG’s returning to the ground state and emitting photons.
Hi Ira (re posting May 19 at 11:16 am), co2isnotevil (re posting May 19 at 12:47 pm), and Phil (re posting May 20 at 7:41 am)!
1. Phil is right that “collisional quenching of rovibrational states is commonplace and much studied”. This is a major problem when trying to detect the initial products formed at high vibrational and rotational energy levels during elementary chemical reactions such as H + Cl2 = HCl’ + Cl, where H is atomic hydrogen and HCl’ represents the initial product molecules in high (v,J) states, where v & J are the vibrational and rotational quantum numbers. The infrared (IR) photons given off by these initial product molecules were first detected by John Polanyi, who deservedly shared the 1986 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. It takes only a few collisions for high J (non-equilibrium) states to lose energy until a Boltzmann (equilibrium) distribution characterized by a single temperature is achieved. Initial vibrational (v) state distributions were also highly non-Boltzmann (non-equilibrium); population inversions at high v numbers meant the possibility of chemical lasers, first suggested by Polanyi. The possibility of huge chemical lasers in orbit using the reaction H2 + F2 = 2HF’ was the theoretical (though not practical) basis for Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” (SDI) program, which nonetheless succeeded in bankrupting the Soviet Union (Evil Empire) and led to its demise. Compared to rotations, it takes many more collisions for vibrational states to relax to an ambient Boltzmann distribution. Part of the energy transferred during deactivating collisions ends up as increased translational energy of the departing molecules, i.e. as an increase in temperature. This is the basis for the greenhouse effect, since the ambient molecules are N2 and O2 which cannot and do not re-emit any significant IR, black body or otherwise.
2.(a) co2isnotevil is correct when he wrote “Note that the velocity of a GHG molecule in motion is unaffected by absorbing a photon [assumed to be involved in a transition between two different quantized (v,J) states]”.
(b) His statement “2) is not technically correct as there are no known mechanisms to convert significant vibration rotation state energy (which is…energy stored as resonant periodic motion of electron clouds) into the kinetic energy stored as a molecule in motion” is wrong [see Point 1 above]. The reason is that the energy is not stored in electron clouds [this IS possible, but then the higher states would be excited electronic states, and for most simple molecules like N2, O2 and CO2, these would involve high-energy ultraviolet (UV) photons, not infrared (IR) photons]. Higher vibrational states involve more extreme vibrational motions of the atoms (with most of the mass in the nuclei); imagine stretching the bonds as springs holding atoms together in molecules. Higher rotational states involve higher rotational speeds of the nuclei of the atoms (imagine twirling a baton faster). Because a gas molecule at atmospheric pressure collides with others about 10^10 times per second (and only reduced by a factor of 4 at 10 km altitude), the rotational energy distributions are at equilibrium at ambient temperatures in both the v=0 ground vibrational state and the v=1 first vibrationally excited state. For CO2, the first excited bond-bending vibrational state lies 667 cm^-1 higher in energy [by hcf = 6.63 x 10^-34 J.s x 3.00 x 10^10 cm/s x 667 cm^-1 J], and at 288.2 K the equilibrium (Boltzmann) distribution means that exp(-hcf/kT) = 0.0355 = 3.55% is the ratio of v=1 to v=0 molecules. Net absorption of 667 cm^-1 photons emitted by the Earth’s surface will increase this ratio. This would be a stress applied to a system at equilibrium, and by Le Chatelier’s Principle the system will shift in such a direction as to partially relieve that stress. The relief comes by having most of the increase in excited molecules lose their energy in radiationless collisions with N2 and O2 molecules, which at 400 ppmv CO2 outnumber CO2 by a factor of 2500 [linear molecules like N2, O2 and CO2 all have heat capacities at constant pressure of 7k/2 per molecule, where k is the Boltzmann constant, so the heat content (enthalpy) is directly proportional to the number of molecules. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity .] But Le Chatelier’s Principle says that the relief is only partial. At the new equilibrium, there will remain a slightly higher ratio of v=1 to v=0 molecules, and this would correspond to a slightly higher temperature. I.e. the troposphere will have warmed up (the greenhouse effect).
(c) The truth of the statement “When an energized GHG molecule collides with N2/O2, the most likely result is the emission of a photon” depends on the probabilities of spontaneous emission and of deactivating collisions. If the radiation lifetime of the excited state molecule is 10^-3 seconds, at atmospheric pressure there will be about 10^7 collisions in a lifetime. If it takes only several hundred or thousand collisions to deactivate the excited state, then most excited state molecules will be quenched in radiationless collisions.
Most, but not all. Therefore the reverse process can occur, especially at higher altitudes. Collisions between a ground state (v=0) molecule and ambient molecules (mainly N2 and O2) will occasionally result in the formation of an excited (v=1) molecule; at 288.2 K, the ratio of v=1 to v=0 molecules is 3.55%. At 20-40 km altitude, the total pressure is smaller than that at the Earth’s surface by a factor of 20 to several hundred. So at these altitudes, there is a significant probability that an excited molecule will emit a 667 cm^-1 photon that will escape to outer space and not be absorbed by an intervening molecule in the v=0 ground state.
3.(a) Ira has done a good job of researching the literature and evaluating climate sensitivity. However, there are some mistakes in the literature explanation of the physics, for which Ira cannot be faulted (he is not a physicist). However, I believe any intelligent layperson (and Ira has earned a Ph.D., so he is not stupid) can understand the following arguments:
(b) There are 4 points he raises about water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
(1)” they absorb LWR (Long Wavelength Radiation) from the warm Earth surface.” This is correct. The absorption is not even across the Planck black body spectrum emitted from the surface, however. A sample IR spectrum of the TOA outgoing photons is available at http://climateaudit.org/?p=2572 . This is closely modelled by computer calculations in the MODTRAN spectrum available at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing .
(2) “this absorbed energy causes these gases to warm up (and by conduction warm the O2 and N2)”.
co2isnotevil correctly pointed out that absorption between (v,J) vibration-rotation states does not initially affect the translational motion. However, collision between the excited (v,J) states and surrounding N2 and O2 molecules does involve transfer to translational modes, i.e. warming (see my Point 1 above), including that of CO2 molecules. So it might be more accurate to say that “this absorbed energy is transferred during radiationless collisions to O2 and N2 molecules which by conduction (further collisions) to CO2 as well, all molecules ending up warmed”.
(3) “the warmed atmosphere radiates LWR in all directions”. This is true for the main greenhouse gases CO2, water vapor and ozone (O3), but not for the main gases of the troposphere N2, O2 and Ar. In particular, the warmed atmosphere does not radiate Planck black body radiation across the spectrum. For energy balance, the TOA flux must be 240 W/m^2, and this corresponds to the total area under the actual spectrum. 240 W/m^2 is also the area under a perfect 255 K Planck black body spectrum (assuming emissivity 1). Equating the two is valid in saying that the TOA flux is equivalent to that of a perfect 255 K Planck black body. But such a perfect 255 K Planck emitting surface does not actually exist, at 4.9 km or elsewhere. Therefore the mechanism for the greenhouse effect is all wrong in the literature. For one thing, everyone agrees that CO2 is such a powerful absorber/emitter at 667 cm^-1 that complete absorption/emission occurs within metres of the Earth’s surface. At 4.9 km altitude, the density is only about half that at the surface. Reducing density by a factor of 2 cannot be expected to allow for “sudden escape of IR photons to outer space”. No, continued absorption/emission must occur until the density is really small, maybe 100 times smaller than that at the Earth’s surface (i.e. in the stratosphere at 20-40 km altitude).
The truncation of the downward CO2 absorption ditch at “220 K” tells us that the emission occurs from the stratosphere at 10-20 km, not at 4.9 km. But there are then two problems with the literature explanation.
First, a perfect 220 K black body emits only 133 W/m^2, nowhere near the 240 W/m^2 required for energy balance. Second, a 215 K CO2 emission from the stratosphere is clearly seen by itself poking above the 210 K Thunderstorm Anvil spectrum in Grant W. Petty’s Fig. 8.3(c) in his excellent book “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition”. This means that the 220 K CO2 emission is not powered from the Earth’s surface below, but by the absorption of incoming Solar UV and visible radiation by ozone in the stratosphere (which explains why there is a temperature inversion – the temperature actually rises with increasing altitude in the stratosphere). The actual area of the 220 K CO2 stratospheric emission peak corresponds to only 16 W/m^2, way smaller than the 240 W/m^2 required for energy balance.
Yet the most egregious mistake in the literature is calling the actual net absorption spectrum recorded by satellites looking downward on the Earth an “emission spectrum”, and talking about LWR emissions. Yes, there are LWR emissions, but except for the 19 W/m^2 emission from the stratosphere (which includes 3 W/m^2 from ozone in the stratosphere), we ought to consider only the NET ABSORPTION of IR photons. To understand the difference between emission and absorption spectra, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line .
(4) “some of this [LWR] radiation reaches the Earth’s surface and causes additional warming”. This is wrong, except when there is a temperature inversion near the Earth’s surface [for example, within several hundred metres during Polar winters (nighttime)].
To understand this, imagine a passive perfect 288.2 K black body shell (with no internal energy source) 1 km above and enclosing the Earth’s 288.2 K surface (emissivity 1). The Earth’s surface, and both sides of the shell would emit 391 W/m^2. What would escape the outer surface of the shell? Since it is a perfect black body, it is opaque, and none of the Earth’s surface emission would escape. So the emission is 391 W/m^2, exactly the same as if the shell were not there. But a spectrometer looking up from the Earth’s surface would see 391 W/m^2 “back radiation”, which on the right side of energy budget diagrams in the literature (e.g. Kiehl & Trenberth’s) is shown “warming the surface”. But both the inner surface of the shell and the Earth’s surface are at 288.2 K, the same temperature, so there cannot be a net flow of “downwelling” energy (this would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The obvious explanation is that the Earth’s surface emits 391 W/m^2 which is totally absorbed by the perfect black body shell, so the 391 W/m^2 back radiation can be considered to be made up of photons originally emitted from the Earth’s surface and reflected, after a delay, back to the Earth’s surface. The net change in energy & temperature for the Earth’s surface would then be exactly zero.
There is no additional warming due to back radiation.
In reality, the Earth’s temperature usually decreases linearly with altitude (the lapse rate is -6.8 K/km, which simply says that the temperature changes from 288 K to 220 K over 10 km). So at steady state the “back radiation” is less than the emission from the Earth’s surface (unless there is a temperature inversion in the lower troposphere). The photons in this back radiation can again be considered to be the reflection of photons originally emitted from the Earth’s surface, with no net change in energy or temperature for the Earth’s surface.
4. Because there is a temperature difference between the Earth’s surface and higher altitudes, some have argued that there is no equilibrium, and that this difference is caused by the presence of greenhouse gases (supposedly the loss of IR photons emitted from greenhouse gas molecules at the TOA explains the low temperatures there, and therefore the lapse rate).
5.(a) We will first derive the dry adiabatic lapse rate from first principles.
(b) The gravitational potential energy of a molecule of mass m at height h is U = mgh, where the acceleration due to gravity is g = 9.81 m/s^2.
(c) Gas molecules are also in motion, and therefore contain energy of motion. The heat content (enthalpy) for diatomic molecules like N2 and O2 that make up 99% of dry air is H = 7kT/2 where k = 1.38 x 10^-23 J/K is Boltzmann’s constant [see Cp for diatomic gases at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity , where Cp = dH/dT. ].
(d) If there is no heat transfer into or out of each layer of the troposphere (i.e. if conditions are adiabatic), then as molecules move up against gravity, their potential energy increases, but at the expense of a decrease in heat content (enthalpy). I.e. dU/dh = -dH/dh
(e) Using the Chain Rule for derivatives on the right side, dU/dh = – (dH/dT)(dT/dh)
(f) Therefore d(mgh)/dh = – [d(7kT/2)/dT][dT/dh]
(g) mg = -(7k/2).dT/dh
(h) dT/dh = – 2mg/(7k)
(I) For dry air which is 78.1% by volume nitrogen (N2, molar mass = 28.0 g), 21.0% oxygen (O2, 32.0 g) and 0.9% argon (Ar, 39.95 g), the molar mass = 0.781(28.0) + 0.210(32.0) + 0.009(39.95) = 28.95 g = 0.02895 kg.
(m) Dividing by Avogadro’s Number, 6.022 x 10^23 molecules/mol gives m = 4.81 x 10^-26 kg.
(n) Substituting for m, g and h in 4(h) gives dT/dh = -9.8 x 10^-3 K/m = -9.8 K/km . This is the dry adiabatic lapse rate, which says that temperature decreases linearly with altitude, by 9.8 K per km.
(o) Compare this derivation with the more confusing one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate .
(p) Note that this derivation does not require, or even include, trace amounts of greenhouse gases. The fundamental principle is that at equilibrium, temperature is not the constant with altitude, but it is the total of U + H which is assumed constant (so that dU/dh = -dH/dh ).
6.(a) The actual lapse rate of -6.8 K/km is only 69% of the dry adiabatic lapse rate in magnitude. This is roughly constant over a wide range of surface temperatures (the temperature profiles of the troposphere are parallel).
(b) The difference in lapse rates is due to injection of heat into the layers of the troposphere due to absorption of outgoing IR photons by greenhouse gases, absorption of outgoing IR by clouds (which emit less at colder cloud tops compared to the warm surface of the Earth), convection currents, and transfer of heat by condensation of liquid water or sublimation of ice crystals in clouds from water vapor produced from condensed states at the Earth’s surface.
(c) We can actually rationalize the magnitude of the actual lapse rate as follows: the MODTRAN spectrum available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing shows that at 300 ppmv CO2, the TOA emission at 20 km is 260.12 W/m^2, from a 288.2 K surface which emits 383.34 W/m^2 (assuming emissivity = 0.98). This is a transmission factor of 260.12/383.34 = 0.679, or 68%. In other words, we expect the deviation due to heating of all layers of the troposphere should be 100 – 68 = 32% of the dry adiabatic lapse rate. I.e. the actual lapse rate should be 68% of -9.8 = -6.7 K/km, very close to the actual -6.8 K/km. Coincidence?
I think not. The heating due to NET greenhouse gas absorption (not emission) determines the equilibrium lapse rate. The approach to this equilibrium value is aided by the absorption of clouds (which absorb and emit at all frequencies, since condensed phases are Planck black bodies with emissivities close to 1) and by heat transfer through condensation/sublimation of cloud particles. Since radiative exchange processes take time, and can be too slow over rapidly heating surfaces (e.g. cloudless desert surfaces or equatorial oceanic waters during the daytime), convection currents can carry heat rapidly upward. All these different processes, however, end up driving the temperature profile to the equilibrium lapse rate of -6.8 K/km when there is 32% absorption of the Earth’s surface emission by greenhouse gases.
(d) This means that even though there is a temperature difference with altitude, and an imbalance in backradiation from clouds and greenhouse gases compared to upward emission from the Earth’s surface, there is no change from an average steady state profile, unless greenhouse gases change (for example, CO2 is doubled). Doubling CO2 results in shifting the steady state temperature profile by about 0.5 degrees at all altitudes, including the Earth’s surface. This is the climate sensitivity, which I have calculated separately at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/12/negative-climate-feedbacks-are-real-and-large/comment-page-1/#comment-2218029 and following Comments.
I would like to add a small perturbation to the final result, getting 0.59 K for climate sensitivity, including increased stratospheric CO2 emission and 8% positive water vapor feedback, but not including cloud feedback, which is strongly negative, and could lower the total to 0.45 K or even 0.19 K. However, I have to go now, and will Comment further when I have time.
Roger,
I agree with most of what you said, but there a few points that need clarification.
You said,
“Collisions between a ground state (v=0) molecule and ambient molecules (mainly N2 and O2) will occasionally result in the formation of an excited (v=1) molecule”
This is nearly impossible in the Earth’s atmosphere. The linear kinetic energy of a CO2 molecule at 500 m/sec is about 8E-21 joules and the energy of a 15u photon is 1.3E-20 joules. There’s simply not enough energy available to result in a transition to the v=1 state, but the fact that it’s close means that the probability of emission upon collision is rather high. Also, while there’s the possibility that the speed of a CO2 molecule will increase upon a collision and emit of a slightly lower frequency photon, there’s an equal probability that the speed will decrease and a slightly higher frequency photon will be emitted. This is the underlying physical mechanism of collisional broadening and is symmetric around the line’s resonant frequency. Note as well that if some energy was transferred in either direction and a photon was not emitted, the state energy will deviate from resonance increasing the probability of spontaneous emission. This can be tweaked to one side or the other under special circumstances, but such circumstances don’t exist in the atmosphere (i.e. laser cooling, etc.)
The example of a BB shell at some temperature surrounding the Earth has a significant difference from Earth, which is that the shell is in equilibrium with the Sun rather then the surface of the Earth whose equivalent ‘shell’ is semi transparent and closer to a gray body then a black body. If the region between the shell in equilibrium with the Sun and the surface was very dense, the temperature closer to the surface would be higher and potentially much higher (as in Venus, where the ‘shell’ is the cloud layer enclosing the planet) owing to a lapse rate imposed by gravity.
Roger: THANKS for your very detailed comment! I can’t say I understand it all at any level, but it seems to me you know what you are writing about.
Ira
PS: I also appreciate the comments of dbstealy very much. As for the others, I read every word, and thank you all for taking the time and effort to express your opinions, and for keeping this conversation going.
Great presentation. I do have a quibble with:
“Yes, the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” effect is real. It is responsible for the Earth being about 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be absent “Greenhouse” gasses in the Atmosphere.”
If you take the coldness of the ocean abyss into account the surface temperature of the earth is less than the surface air temperature. Remembering that the weight of the atmosphere only amounts to the weight of 33 feet of ocean the cold of the abyss significantly lowers what the surface temperature of the earth is as measured in the air at the surface. This cold really does need to be accounted for when calculating the theoretical surface temp of the earth versus the measured surface temp. From afar the thickness of the atmosphere and the ocean compares to the thickness of the skin of an apple. I could be mistaken but I believe the number quoted in the textbooks for earth’s surface temperature overestimate it.
¨Gasses¨ is a verb. ¨Frank gasses up the boat¨. Gases is a noun.
‘Gases’ is also plural.
“The greenhouse effect is responsible for the Earth being about 33 C warmer than it would be absent “Greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere”.
That statement is utter rubbish!
It is based on several erroneous assumptions. the most glaring one diminishes the input solar radiation to the Earth by about 37 % because of the Earth’s albedo, while at the same time it ignores the lessening of the IR radiation to free space by those same blocking clouds. In addition it assumes that all surface entities are black body emitters. This issue is considered in more detail in my paper in Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, No 1 2009 pp 83-93. The paper is entitled “Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance”. The erroneous calculation is referred to as “the Cold Earth Fallacy”.
The calculation is based on many “ifs”…… If, if, if…… As the old saying goes:
“If the Queen had balls she’d be King!”
King Caitlin?
Or Queen Caitlin?
It’s all so confusing…
Nicholas Schroeder May 19, 2016 at 10:43 am
Say what? That’s dumb as a bag of ball bearings. Google “measurement downwelling radiation” and you’ll find reports from scientists all over the world who are measuring downwelling radiation. The idea that it is “fictional without physical reality” is a sick fantasy.
As I said above, you get your own theories, but not your own facts.
w.
PS—Here’s a partial list of the people measuring downwelling longwave radiation … you’ll have to visit each one in turn and inform them that they are so stupid that they haven’t realized that what they are measuring is “fictional without physical reality” …
With regard to measuring downwelling infrared; it is trivially easy for essentially anyone willing to spend $60 (footnote 1) or so on a reasonably good quality infrared remote measuring thermometer. On a partly cloudy night, point it at a cloud, then at clear sky. The clear sky will go to the lowest possible reading (on my device, -60 F) but clouds will be more or less at their dew point temperature.
This measurement is possible because the device “sees” the infrared radiation from the cloud.
It can also read below ambient which is remarkable. The sensor is itself warm, and radiating infrared. The idea therefore is to insulate the sensor from ambient temperature (in a small capsule with nitrogen or some such gas) and it seeks equilibrium — its own outgoing radiation balances incoming radiation. If you aimed it at absolute zero, and it was adequately insulated, the sensor would reach absolute zero eventually.
1. [http]://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IT0ODPQ?psc=1
Regarding “suppression of peer review”, the full context of the quote you are responding to makes it clear I’m talking about peer review:
“If blog auditors such as yourself were tearing giant holes in prevailing scientific knowledge as you claim, I still believe you would fare much better in publishing these criticisms. I know you might disagree, claiming there is suppression/conspiracy against contrary views”
I’m saying, if anti-AGW blog auditors were truly finding gaping holes in science, I personally expect there would be more evidence of them having success publishing these views in journals around the world (across disciplines) and seeing that published research be successful, i.e. influential (referenced, endorsed). I was simply acknowledging that others are free to disagree, as you may put more faith in belief that there is conspiracy-like suppression of contrary views (i.e. science as an institution is broken / not trustworthy). Sounds like you indeed disagree in this manner – great. I don’t have any interest in discussing claims of persecution further; not my first rodeo. Have your last word.
To Ira: Congratulations on a well-written summary of skeptical arguments which carry weight. There is, however, a better estimate for the magnitude of the greenhouse effect than the 33 degrees calculated by Hansen. Here’s my argument:
1. The Sun, with an equatorial radius of 6.963 x 10^5 km, radiates at a Planck black body temperature of 5778 K, at a mean distance of 1.496 x 10^8 km from the Earth [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ].
2.(a) By the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the Sun radiates from its photosphere surface at
5.670 x 10^-8 x(5778)^4 = 6.320 x 10^7 W/m^2 . [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law ].
(b) By the time this radiation reaches the Earth, the inverse square law reduces the flux to
6.320 x 10^7 x [6.963 x 10^5/(1.496 x 10^8)]^2 = 1369 W/m^2 . This is the Solar insolation [a value of 1366 W/m^2 is quoted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation ].
3.(a) If the Earth were a perfect Planck black body, the incoming 1369 W/m^2 would be totally absorbed, and then for energy balance totally re-emitted at longer wavelengths to outer space, which is at 3K for the background microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang.
(b) Because the insolation is applied to a circular cross-section of the Earth, but the outgoing radiation is from the surface of a sphere which has 4 times the area of the cross-section, the outgoing flux would be
1369/4 = 342.25 W/m^2.
(c) When this 342.25 W/m^2 is plugged into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be 278.8 K (5.5 Celsius). Since the Earth’s mean temperature is 288.2 K (15.0 Celsius), warmer by 9.5 degrees than a perfect black body that absorbs all incoming Solar radiation, there must be a mechanism for reducing the amount of radiation lost to outer space. Thus the atmospheric greenhouse effect is real, and those who deny even the possibility are simply wrong. Thus one must honestly admit that there is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is part of the cause.
(d) The “explanation” I have seen in the literature, however, is incomplete. Infrared (IR) photons emitted by the surface of the Earth are absorbed by CO2 at 667 cm^-1, forming excited state molecules in the bond-bending vibration mode. These excited state molecules can then re-emit IR photons, but because the energy levels are quantized, they have the same frequency & energy. So complete absorption followed by re-emission cannot by themselves result in warming of the troposphere, no matter how many times this occurs. The vibrationally excited CO2 molecules can also be quenched during radiationless collisions with N2, O2, and Ar molecules that make up 99.9% of dry air. The energy does not appear as an emitted photon, but is distributed among the translational and rotational motions of all molecules leaving the collision zone.
Because N2, O2 and Ar are non-polar molecules, they cannot and do not re-emit any significant IR photons, black body or otherwise. So they retain their extra energy of motion; i.e. the troposphere has warmed up (the greenhouse effect). Because N2, O2 and Ar outnumber CO2 by 2500:1 (for 400 ppmv CO2), and because the heat capacity at constant pressure, Cp, for each linear molecule N2, O2 or CO2 is the same, 7k/2, where k is the Boltzmann constant, almost all of the heat content (enthalpy) ends up in the non-radiating main molecules. Thus even a small concentration of CO2 can have a significant effect on the temperature of the troposphere. [Cp for the monatomic gas Ar is only 5k/2 per molecule because it cannot store energy in rotation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity .]
4.(a) The measured outgoing IR flux at the TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere) is 240 W/m^2. This corresponds to a perfect black body (emissivity 1) at 255 K (calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann law backwards).
(b) Hansen then said that the greenhouse effect is 288 – 255 = 33 K [see the original paper in Science, 28 Aug. 1981, Vol. 213, No. 4511, pp. 957-966, which may be available at
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf . Note that there was a typo in the very first equation that got by all the referees and proofreaders (the exponent 4 from the Stefan-Boltzmann law is missing)].
(c) However, this assumes that the albedo of the Earth remains the same, with or without greenhouse gases. This is unrealistic, since water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, and clouds dramatically affect the albedo.
5.(a) Thus we ought to consider an Earth totally devoid of clouds, which means no water vapor, no oceans, lakes, rivers, etc. There would also be no life forms, including trees. Then the albedo would be similar to that of the Moon, at 0.136 [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon ].
(b) Since 13.6% of the incoming Solar radiation would be reflected back to outer space, the flux absorbed would be reduced by that amount, and at energy balance the flux emitted as IR would be reduced to
1369(1-0.136)/4 = 295.7 W/m^2. This would correspond to a black body with emissivity 0.98 at 270.1 K. Therefore the greenhouse effect, still real, would be approximately 288.2 – 270.1 = 18 degrees.
(c) It is true that we have used a hypothetical Earth in this derivation, but so did Hansen, and his hypothetical Earth is IMO less defensible.
All very interesting but we do not even know what the averagee temperature of this planet is. There areNASA papers putting it as low as 8degC, but that is an outlier, and 10 to 16 degress is probably more typical.
However, you overlook 2 important facts. First the storage capacity of the oceans which smooths the tempèrature extremes. Second the average temperature of the oceans is only around 4degC. It is only because we are living in an inrterglacial that the surface seems warm. In perhaps 8,000 years time the low average temperature of the oceans will come back to bite as we reenter the ideep throes of the ce age that we are currently in.
When considering the average temperayure of the Earth it is important to bear in mind that after some 4.5 billion years of solar plus DWLWIR, the average temperature of the oceans is only abot 4 degC
One question that should be answered is why are the oceans so cold?
Perhaps your average temperature of 4 Celsius (the temperature at which pure water has its highest density) includes the entire bulk of the oceans. But the emission comes from the opaque layer at the surface, which on average must surely be greater than 4 Celsius (maybe 15 Celsius?). Ditto for the land masses; for example, the thin opaque desert surface emits at a very high temperature in the daytime, but burrowing creatures are quite comfortable fractions of a metre down, due to the low thermal conductivity of the dry sand. The 10 km of the troposphere if compressed 1000 times to solid/liquid density would form a layer about 5.4 m (18 ft.) thick. Adjusting for the different heat capacities of 1000 atm. air molecules per unit volume compared to those for rocks and water, this still corresponds to several feet of water, and more for rocks/sand. The survival of desert animals means that most of the heat involved in daily or seasonal warming is stored as enthalpy in the troposphere, and not in the land and water skins. So using average temperatures for the bulk oceans or solid Earth is not valid (and due to heat stored in the molten core of the Earth, the temperature increases going down mine shafts a km or more deep, but these are not relevant for the Stefan-Boltzmann emission from the thin surface skin).
@Richardd
It is certainly an open question regarding the temperature of the earth’s mean surface temperature. If that mean temp number is higher (highly likely) than the rest of the calculation below is meaningless.
“(c) When this 342.25 W/m^2 is plugged into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be 278.8 K (5.5 Celsius). Since the Earth’s mean temperature is 288.2 K (15.0 Celsius), warmer by 9.5 degrees than a perfect black body that absorbs all incoming Solar radiation, there must be a mechanism for reducing the amount of radiation lost to outer space. Thus the atmospheric greenhouse effect is real, and those who deny even the possibility are simply wrong. Thus one must honestly admit that there is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is part of the cause.”
The earth’s mean surface temperature as defined by the models is not actually measuring the physical surface. Land can reach a temperature significantly higher than the highest MSAT temperature used to calculate the average for the IPCC earth mean.
See https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/roy-clark-where-it-all-went-wrong-with-climate-science/
“During the middle of the day, under full summer sun conditions, the peak solar flux is ~1000 W.m-2. The corresponding surface temperature is at least 50 C for dry ground. The increase in LWIR flux for a black body going from 288 to 338 K (+30 C) is about 227 W.m-2. Most of the solar heat is dissipated by convection. Heat is also stored below the surface and released later in the day. It is just impossible for a small change in LWIR flux from CO2 to have any effect on surface temperature when it added correctly to the surface flux balance. At night, convection more or less stops and the surface cools mainly by LWIR emission. The downward LWIR flux from the first 2 km layer of the atmosphere slows the night time surface cooling, but the atmospheric heating process is controlled by convection, not LWIR radiation. Furthermore, this is not an equilibrium process. The troposphere acts as two independent thermal reservoirs. The upper reservoir radiates to space all the time, mainly from the water bands near 5 km. The lower reservoir acts as a night time ‘thermal blanket’. The atmosphere is an open cycle convective heat engine with a radiatively cooled cold reservoir.
Manabe and Wetherald were quite honest about what they were doing. They simply produced an invalid hypothesis that should have been superseded. Later workers just allowed themselves to be seduced by the mathematics of the flux equations and never bothered to validate the models or investigate the real physics. The result is the global warming dogma that we still have today. And the associated corruption.
Now we get to the fraudulent part. Manabe and Wetherald were quite clear that they were calculating a surface temperature, however it was defined. This means the temperature on the ground that we feel with our bare feet. However, there is no long term record of the surface temperature. Instead, the meteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) was substituted for the surface temperature. This is the ‘weather temperature’ that is the air temperature measured in a ventilated enclosure placed at eye level, 1.5 to 2 m above the ground. It is simply impossible for there to be any observable change in MSAT caused by a small change in LWIR flux at the surface below the weather station enclosure.”
rogertaguchi: Thanks for your comment. As I’m not a physicist, I had trouble following your argument that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is only responsible for about 18 C of warming, rather than the 33 C the is usually cited. I’d appreciate it if other WUWT readers who are more knowledgeable would comment on rogertaguchi’s claim. advTHANKSance.
Ira
Ira,
GHG’s may cause 33C of warming, but they also cause 15-18C of cooling owing to reflection from ice and clouds. You can’t get the warming without the corresponding cooling. This is a significant problem with the way the science is presented where only the warming part is acknowledged (positive feedbackl like) and the cooling is ignored (negative feedback like).
“GHG’s may cause 33C of warming, but they also cause 15-18C of cooling owing to reflection from ice and clouds”
Eh? Are you saying that GHG warming also inevitably *increases* ice (albedo) somehow? Is this a cloud feedback argument?
Your subsequent statements seem to make it clear you are conflating feedback questions with this description of the net GHG effect. The 33C figure concerns idealized equilibrium states and illustrates the order of significance of the GHG effect itself; it’s not trivial to calculate the total feedbacks in a hypothetical planet where all GHGs are spontaneously stripped away. In general I don’t see how it is helpful to muddle these concepts.
The mainstream view does not only acknowledge positive feedbacks and ignore negative (e.g., negative lapse rate feedback). That just sounds like a relatively shallow and unsupportable accusation of academic incompetence/bias/fraud. In general albedo feedback is positive (over time, warming reduces total ice and therefore total ice reflectivity, as so far observed.) Cloud feedback is also not clearly negative because some types of clouds have a heat-trapping effect; it is about the type and locations of cloud changes in response to warming – as IPCC concludes, prevailing trend in research and analysis is that net cloud feedback is perhaps smaller but positive, but with significant uncertainty about that (contributing to the general wide range of ECS estimates).
geoff,
I’m saying that most of the GHG surface warming (I agree its not properly called feedback, at least per Bode, but conventionally it seems to be), comes from water vapor. Water vapor also results in clouds and ice and you can’t get the surface warming from water vapor without the corresponding surface cooling. from ice and clouds. Clouds, ice, latent heat, weather and water vapor absorption/emission are all co-dependent, so you must always consider the end to end effect of the hydro cycle and not just one of its influences.
To calculate the actual net warming of the planet, you need to start with a planet with no ice and clouds which will receive more solar power and be intrinsically warmer.
“Water vapor also results in clouds and ice and you can’t get the surface warming from water vapor without the corresponding surface cooling”
Certainly no guarantee increased water vapor drives increased ice, as you are also necessarily talking about increasing temperature which causes net ice melt as we’re seeing. In practice, cooling in a global sense has to be an adjustment of radiative equilibrium – a shift in balance between incoming and outgoing radiation from/to space. (Meaning, for example, just piling some more snow on East Antarctica isn’t likely to change earth’s average surface temp – there was already snow there). The main way ice can do this is by reflecting more sunlight back to space, i.e. albedo. But some increase in precipitation on a warming world does not guarantee more total ice cover (as we are seeing).
Anyway, conceptually the remainder of your comment seems not unreasonable. But the logic doesn’t extend to the current predicament the way you implied previously. The thought experiment of removing all GHGs allows you to sort of sidestep the strong positive feedback of water vapor absorption/emission, but this feedback is currently operating (directly observed increases in specific humidity, associated changes in longwave gaps, etc.)
Geoffmprice says “increased water vapor drives increased ice, as you are also necessarily talking about increasing temperature which causes net ice melt”
I believe the idea is that the evaporation takes place in warm climates. The atmosphere then takes the vapor to a cold climate where vapor precipitates as snow. Most of Greenland is permanently below freezing (as is most or all of Antarctica); both places depend on vapor transported from warmer climates.
Should it happen that Greenland becomes the new Temperate Zone well then I’ll just go there.
He also writes “I’m saying, if anti-AGW blog auditors were truly finding gaping holes in science, I personally expect there would be more evidence of them having success publishing these views in journals around the world (across disciplines) and seeing that published research be successful, i.e. influential (referenced, endorsed).”
Your mileage obviously varies. WUWT seems to be highly influential with large numbers of people, but not perhaps influential with the relatively tiny number of people that cluster around each other and are called “peers”, deciding what is true and what is not, but also deciding what gets published.
For reasons too complicated (and redundant) to delve into here, these peers have decided to allow only one opinion to be published. Climategate assures all interested readers that this is indeed the case. What that means is that there *might* be meaningful contrary opinion that on a different planet might well constitute the peer opinion but isn’t permitted here. Then again, it might be as you believe, that there isn’t because there cannot be a contrary opinion.
I don’t need no steenkin peer to tell me what to believe. Just lay it out and let the jury (that’s me) decide. But I need to know that the whole story is on the table. It is like a court of law; if only the prosecutor (or only the defense) was permitted to speak, it is not a proper trial. Also like a court of law, if 20 witnesses all agree that a thing is so, but these witnesses have decided in advance what to say, that is collusion and they are at best worth no more than one witness, but likely none at all. Collusion is bad; I do not trust claims that originate from such arrangements. But neither do I assume they are wrong solely for that reason.
So what opinion might be contrary? Variable opinion seems to exist primarily in consequence and mitigation. It is easy enough to drill an ice core, measure oxygen isotopes (no diffusion problem), and decide it corresponds to temperature somewhere. That’s reasonable. Not proof; but good enough for me. What is not proven, and in my opinion cannot be proven (and therefore isn’t science) is what the temperature is going to be in New York City in 80 years and what the sea level is going to be and whether this is a good thing (for some) or a bad thing (for others) and whether the United States should commit suicide right now versus wait for possible doom. However if the rest of the world can be persuaded to de-industrialize and de-populate, well, that’s how you win at the game of “Risk”.
I also have come to the opinion that GAT (Global Average Temperature) is absolutely meaningless. It might mean something if all measurements were made in exactly the same places, in the same way, without encroachments that alter the micro climates. It still would not be a temperature, it is just an index, an average, a number. It would be like taking the average between a genius and an idiot and getting an I.Q. of “100” which is of course pretty much how you get the “100” in the first place. What does the 100 mean? Nothing! You can decrease the genius, increase the idiot, and still have “100”.
Too many people, (maybe including you ) treat the Earth as if it had the same temperature over its entire surface and could instantly equalize temperature such that a block of ice in the arctic can actually stop global warming until it is all melted OR that, as you suggested above, if the Earth warmed to make more ice it would also melt more ice. There’s little question that the hydrologic cycle would increase its activity with more energy in the system, and decrease its activity (and essentially stop altogether) the colder the Earth becomes. That being the case, increasing this activity seems “good” as that is the principle mechanism for producing fresh water out of salt water.
” The atmosphere then takes the vapor to a cold climate where vapor precipitates as snow.”
This isn’t a cooling relative to the energy budget, unless you claim albedo increase (ice coverage spreads despite warming temps). Per prior comment, more snow on an already snowy ice sheet doesn’t cause some kind of additional cooling.
“Should it happen that Greenland becomes the new Temperate Zone well then I’ll just go there.”
Yep, you and a few billion more. Isn’t it strange how alarmists don’t recognize how awesome that plan is?
“I don’t need no steenkin peer to tell me what to believe. Just lay it out and let the jury (that’s me) decide.”
Turns out there can be some weaknesses to that approach that unfortunately are inherently invisible to you. 🙂
“if 20 witnesses all agree that a thing is so, but these witnesses have decided in advance what to say, that is collusion and they are at best worth no more than one witness”
This sounds like a flowery way of pushing improbable anti-science conspiracy theories. This is not remotely what peer review is.
“What is not proven, and in my opinion cannot be proven (and therefore isn’t science)”
Common misconceptions about “scientific proof”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
“is what the temperature is going to be in New York City in 80 years and what the sea level is going to be and whether this is a good thing (for some) or a bad thing (for others) and whether the United States should commit suicide right now versus wait for possible doom.”
There’s lots of uncertainty on all of these things. At the same time, if you put the heat on the water in the pot will warm. It’s not a coincidence that the planet has warmed as generally predicted by Hansen in 1981. The laws of physics govern the overall system. The preponderance of evidence puts some constraints around the uncertainty (AR5 WG1). And the preponderance of evidence points to net negative impact (AR5 WG2).
But you are right this is not the domain of “proof”. This is the domain of likelihood, costs and benefits, and perhaps arch-skeptic Bertrand Russell’s quote that “I am prepared to admit any well-established result of science, not as certainly true, but as sufficiently probable to afford a basis for rational action.”
“However if the rest of the world can be persuaded to de-industrialize and de-populate, well, that’s how you win at the game of “Risk”.”
This is just not sounding very grounded. Who first came up with this diabolical scheme, Arrhenius 1896? US Office of Naval Research in 1945? Revelle 1957? Manabe and Wetherald 1967?
“I also have come to the opinion that GAT (Global Average Temperature) is absolutely meaningless.”
It’s a metric measured in an overall consistent way. Why is it going up?
In general the kinds of questions you raise are addressable in the data. I.e. you can use math and statistics to ask questions and get at answers (or uncertainties) in the data. For example, claims like “well it could be urban heat increases” have been floated for decades, but you can test that by doing things like comparing urban trends to rural trends, and if you can show it necessary, you can build an improved metric which quantifies those problems and adjusts for them.
Again, it is not “divine truth” of global temperature (which would require exactly measuring every vibrating molecule across the surface of the planet) but it is a physically consistent and logically sound (known inaccuracies adjusted) and yet it is still showing warming. Is it *possible* there is some as-yet unknown bias that changes this? Well people have been looking hard for well over a decade, and the process is not *that* complex for an infinite number of massive sampling biases to hide, but many folks here are still looking. Still as yet there is no *compelling* reason to bet the future on this sort of wishful hope.
“Too many people, (maybe including you ) treat the Earth as if it had the same temperature over its entire surface”
This is not remotely the underlying assumption or belief. There are many ways to build a GMST metric to watch (surface air temp, trop. air temp, ocean surface temp) – any reasonable building of that metric shows multi-decade global warming.
“and could instantly equalize temperature such that a block of ice in the arctic can actually stop global warming until it is all melted OR that, as you suggested above, if the Earth warmed to make more ice it would also melt more ice.”
Don’t really follow this part. Acceleration of ice melt at the edges of the sheets (esp. Greenland and West Antarctica) is utterly uncontroversial. Ice mass balance measurements are not very precise, so there aren’t highly reproducible answers to total ice mass balance (the real yardstick of science). Paleoclimate makes it very clear that the sea rises with temperature.
“increasing this activity seems “good” as that is the principle mechanism for producing fresh water out of salt water.”
There are many, many effects of warming and climate change. Unfortunately there is some confidence that “The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase”, and extreme precipitation events in already wet regions doesn’t turn out to be good.
meanwhile…
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/world/asia/climate-related-death-of-coral-around-world-alarms-scientists.html
etc. (and no, Steele is not correct, heat bleaching of already stressed coral is not a positive event, and evidence is overwhelming that the world’s coral reefs are declining not thriving.)
geoffmprice wrote: (re: The atmosphere then takes the vapor to a cold climate where vapor precipitates as snow.) “This isn’t a cooling relative to the energy budget.”
That is correct. It is energy transport involving phase changes of water (among other things), but that is not why I responded as I did. It seemed you were arguing that a warmer Earth won’t have snow at all as though the entire Earth must be the same temperature; if it is warm enough to evaporate water it is warm enough not to create snow.
Since you admire reality so much I will offer some. This increased transport of energy captured by water vapor, when condensed in the arctic, releases that heat of vaporization into the atmosphere and thus warms the arctic disproportionally as compared to the tropics. “We” have observed this to be so.
It is thus established that water evaporation has increased, but so has precipitation since such things need to balance.
(Re Should it happen that Greenland becomes the new Temperate Zone well then I’ll just go there.)
“You and a few billion more. Isn’t it strange how alarmists don’t recognize how awesome that plan is?”
Yes, it is not strange that alarmists are not like me. The alarmist plan is to implement global socialism immediately; a thing they’ve wished since the days of Plato. Whether doing so has any impact on climate is uncertain, unlikely and for many, irrelevant.
I make no prediction how many human beings will still be alive to migrate to Greenland but as it was Vikings (well, Icelanders to be precise) that found it, it will likely be Vikings that migrate there and it will be thousands, not billions.
I notice that you have not offered your plan what to do with Greenland should it become the new temperate zone. Northern Canada and Siberia will also then be in the Temperate Zone; perhaps one of those locations would be more to your liking.
Re: (I don’t need no steenkin peer to tell me what to believe. Just lay it out and let the jury (that’s me) decide.) “Turns out there can be some weaknesses to that approach that unfortunately are inherently invisible to you. :)”
I appreciate your lack of more substantial response. It confirms my sense that you do not subscribe to personal decision making or democracy. I suspect you feel contempt for libertarians and are very likely a left-wing authoritarian willing and preferring to tell other people what to think and believe rather than try to persuade. If only you had the power…
Re: (if 20 witnesses all agree that a thing is so, but these witnesses have decided in advance what to say, that is collusion and they are at best worth no more than one witness) “This sounds like a flowery way of pushing improbable anti-science conspiracy theories. This is not remotely what peer review is.”
Strange you did not detect the significance of “20”. That’s the RICO 20 headed by Shukla.
Re (I also have come to the opinion that GAT (Global Average Temperature) is absolutely meaningless.) “It’s a metric measured in an overall consistent way. Why is it going up?”
I do not accept its consistency. As to why it is going up, well, here I am studying science so that I can develop my own answers despite the inconsistencies. The hockey stick goes up because its inventor wishes it to go up, more or less.
“and yet it is still showing warming.”
I have not argued otherwise. Few here argue otherwise.
Unfortunately there is some confidence that “The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase”, and extreme precipitation events in already wet regions doesn’t turn out to be good.
That seems reasonable to me. More energy is contained in the atmosphere. However, the predicted increase in storms has failed to materialize, in my opinion, because you need a sink for the heat. Inasmuch as the arctic has warmed faster than the tropics, this “sink” has become filled and is no longer much of a sink, hence fewer storms.
http://www.nytimes.com…
The New York Times — famous for announcing that rockets cannot fly because there’s no air in space to push against.
http://www.pddnet.com/blog/2015/01/today-engineering-history-ny-times-claims-rockets-cant-fly
“That Professor Goddard, with his ‘chair’ in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action and reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react — to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”
Sounds a lot like the insults handed out to skeptics on a daily basis.
“It seemed you were arguing that a warmer Earth won’t have snow at all as though the entire Earth must be the same temperature”
I haven’t argued anything remotely like this. Seriously, this is a major disconnect, which might concern you. How are you going to address arguments if you are so polarized on a subject that you have difficulty accurately reflecting what others say?
“Since you admire reality so much I will offer some. This increased transport of energy captured by water vapor, when condensed in the arctic, releases that heat of vaporization into the atmosphere and thus warms the arctic disproportionally as compared to the tropics. “We” have observed this to be so.”
There are a number of proposed or studied reasons for arctic warming, but yes this seems a part of it. It is non-trivial to directly observe/measure this, however, so it is a stretch to say “we have observed this to be so” without supporting justification. The studies I have seen supporting this were model based (if you have stronger citations, I’m happy to see them.)
Btw, in general, you can blanch at the use of “we” all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that (the world is consistently and verifiably interpreted as a place where) we share a common objective reality. Whether this philosophically horrifies one or not is up to individual preference. Part of me agrees it would be nice if we each could control our own objective reality. We would probably both choose to make spectroscopic greenhouse energy absorption go away in that scenario, given that it is basically a pain.
“Yes, it is not strange that alarmists are not like me. The alarmist plan is to implement global socialism immediately; a thing they’ve wished since the days of Plato.”
I don’t think I need to bother commenting that this is pretty far out there. Most conspiracy theorists put the origins of the great “scientific socialist hoax” back to Fourier in 1824 at the earliest, but you go to Plato! In what part of Plato’s writings did he lay the seeds for the “global warming scientific hoax” and associated modern (secret) conspiracy for “global socialism”?
What an epic arc this plan has had! You would think this is one where they all had to work together to pull it off at this scale and over such a long arc of history: Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Knights Templar, freemasons – all of them, across the board.
“I appreciate your lack of more substantial response. It confirms my sense that you do not subscribe to personal decision making or democracy.”
Well, it’s fair to say I am not a supporter of the idea that democracy means that all opinions are equal and valid, if that is what you mean. There are such things as objectively verifiable facts. Asimov put it rather bluntly: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
“I suspect you feel contempt for libertarians”
Your judgement is not serving you well. I am a libertarian.
“preferring to tell other people what to think and believe rather than try to persuade.”
Pointing out factual errors is not “telling people what to think”. You are both free to believe things in contradiction of evidence, and you are free to try to present counter evidence.
RE: global average temperature.
“I do not accept its consistency.”
It’s not enough to just assert things. I am talking about consistency in time – measurements are made, and calculations from that, consistently over time. What specifically is inconsistent?
Yes, the context acknowledges that you can have issues like siting changes over time etc. This is why homogenization is done, and this is the sort of thing that I pointed out is subject to statistical analysis and validation. But pointing out the existence of such problems (long studied and addressed) does not prove that the metrics are meaningless as you assert. It remains the case that no longer how you choose to construct a metric reflecting global mean surface temperature, that metric is going up over time. It is not an accident that this is so (and in and of itself this demonstrates that these metrics are not physically meaningless.)
“The hockey stick goes up because its inventor wishes it to go up, more or less.”
You seem to be missing the absolutely crucial role of independent replication in science. The ‘hockey stick’ shape is absolutely in the data no matter how you come at the problem, as at this point many different efforts (using many different kinds of proxies) have shown. Per above if you are talking about the blade (sharp, modern warming uptick) it is the best measured part of the hockey stick shape – it goes up because the planet’s temperature is going up.
“More energy is contained in the atmosphere. However, the predicted increase in storms has failed to materialize, in my opinion, because you need a sink for the heat. Inasmuch as the arctic has warmed faster than the tropics, this “sink” has become filled and is no longer much of a sink, hence fewer storms.”
The interactions are complex, IPCC tends to report low confidence in predictions of this sort. What you say may have an element of truth if the AMOC is slowing due to arctic icemelt and this is slowing hurricane development out of the Caribbean, e.g., which is possible:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic/
with an update just a few days ago from oceanographer Rahmstorf:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/amoc-slowdown-connecting-the-dots/
Imagining that the world’s coral reef crisis isn’t happening because the NY Times reported it (and you don’t like the NY Times) is formally called an ad hominem logical fallacy.
geoffmprice wrote: “I haven’t argued anything remotely like this.”
I suppose it’s time to scroll back and locate the item that aroused my interest.
geoffmprice May 20, 2016 at 11:37 pm “Certainly no guarantee increased water vapor drives increased ice, as you are also necessarily talking about increasing temperature which causes net ice melt as we’re seeing.”
Thus, increased temperature increases water vapor which increases ice formation but that same increased temperature increases “net ice melt”. Those were your words.
“Seriously, this is a major disconnect, which might concern you.”
Hence my continued participation.
“How are you going to address arguments if you are so polarized on a subject that you have difficulty accurately reflecting what others say?”
By avatar (mental model). It’s a bit simple minded as it necessarily only gets a bit of the left brain. Curiously, it can do things my mind cannot or is unwilling even though it is a product of my mind.
It is a common saying that “you are not entitled to your own facts.” But that misrepresents the truth; you choose which facts to put in the library of your mind. Well, I choose my facts; I presume you choose yours. Perhaps sheep do not choose their facts but someone does the choosing for them. That’s the intended purpose of a public education.
“Btw, in general, you can blanch at the use of ‘we’ all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that we share a common objective reality.”
Unless you sit where I sit, sleep in my bed, eat my food, have my experiences in life, we do not share a common objective reality.
Your comment is astonishing but also interesting. How can anyone imagine that we share a common reality? We would be ants for whom “everything not forbidden is compulsory” (*).
* (re: T.H. White, “Once and Future King” [https]://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Once_and_Future_King)
“Part of me agrees it would be nice if we each could control our own objective reality.”
Indeed, but that would be boring; kinda like making your own first person video game and then playing it.
“We would probably both choose to make spectroscopic greenhouse energy absorption go away in that scenario, given that it is basically a pain.”
I wouldn’t change a thing. I exist, either by luck or by God (both). I exist because my body is adapted to the way things are, not the way I might wish them to be.
“I don’t think I need to bother commenting that this is pretty far out there.”
Yes; you would be wandering into my turf. Besides, why discuss common things already in agreement?
“Most conspiracy theorists put the origins of the great ‘scientific socialist hoax’ back to Fourier in 1824 at the earliest”
By now you’ve noticed that I am not strongly influenced by what “most of” anything does or does not. I have also said nothing about a hoax. Sokal’s hoax was marvelous, but a hoax is no fun if you don’t reveal it at some point.
“but you go to Plato!”
Yes; Plato’s Republic specifically. I’ll admit that I don’t quite comprehend it and may be interpreting it somewhat differently as compared to persons more academically involved in it.
It’s about governance; who should do it, what is the aim of government, that sort of thing.
There’s plenty about U.N., UNFCC, IPCC that is not secret and is decidedly socialist. Simply google “global warming” “social justice” (quoted that way to reduce spurious responses) to see how they are tied together.
“Global Warming and Social Justice. Eric A. Posner. University of Chicago – Law School”
[http]://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121781
“Social justice is the only solution to global warming”
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/01/15/social-justice-solution-global-warming/
“What an epic arc this plan has had!”
Yes. The herd instinct never gives up and is numerically superior but relatively unimaginative. So it isn’t really so much an “arc” as the same old ideas born fresh in the minds of most college students who want Free Stuff and have been getting it all their short lives (*). The Force is strong on weak minds. (**)
* [http]://www.socialistinternational.org/ (section on representation at COP21)
** [http]://scifiquotes.net/quotes/154_Weak-minded
“You would think this is one where they all had to work together to pull it off at this scale and over such a long arc of history”
Had they actually worked together (and had the same goal) then global socialism would have happened with King Hammurabi and the Sumerians. The main problems are deciding who is going to lead the herd and where is the herd going?
In the past it was warfare that decided this question. In the future it will be warfare that decides this question. Right now we seem to be between leaders. Make the most of it while you can.
“Well, it’s fair to say I am not a supporter of the idea that democracy means that all opinions are equal and valid, if that is what you mean.”
That is exactly what I mean. On its face I agree with you. The opinion or decision of an intelligent, educated person is inescapably superior. But that superior opinion and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at Mickey D’s (maybe) and maybe a poke in the eye.
The problem is that the herd rejects differently abled persons; either superior or inferior. The herd wants Conan the Barbarian, and in the modern age of instant communication, wealth and rudeness is taken for leadership, hence Trump and Putin.
The best one can do is hope that Conan the Barbarian chooses wisely his counselors and for you (or me) to be that counselor.
“There are such things as objectively verifiable facts.”
I look forward to the occasional objectively verifiable fact. For now, I accept Descarte’s judgment that the only absolutely verifiable fact is “cogito ergo sum”. Every other fact is perceived through one’s senses and might not actually be there. On the other hand, what seems to be real might as well be treated as real since the alternatives are not productive.
“Your judgement is not serving you well. I am a libertarian.”
Congratulations. It would be interesting to see how the ATTP regulars treat you. They seem to think all libertarians are stupid clones and not very pleasant.
“Pointing out factual errors is not ‘telling people what to think’. You are both free to believe things in contradiction of evidence, and you are free to try to present counter evidence.”
You have expended quite a bit of time “pointing out factual errors” presumably to some purpose. It is an indirect method of telling other people what to think by leveraging their wish to be right; you need only define right and wrong when it is more correct to understand that I define right and wrong.
“This is why homogenization is done, and this is the sort of thing that I pointed out is subject to statistical analysis and validation.”
I comprehend the purpose of homogenization but in the court of public opinion the data has been tampered. Thus the untampered data must always be available for comparison (and so far as I know, this is indeed the case). Where tampered data seems to (nearly) always endorse the Consensus it seems a bit suspicious.
“But pointing out the existence of such problems (long studied and addressed) does not prove that the metrics are meaningless as you assert.”
You conflate my comments to your own sinister purposes. I accept that metrics and indexes are what they are; but an average of temperatures is not itself a temperature because the concept has no meaning. Temperature is a description of the intensity of vibrational energy of atoms and molecules, but not the energy thereof (measured in ergs or joules for instance).
Averaging energy can make sense, averaging temperature does not. Global warming proxies are entirely or for the most part representing temperatures, not energy. Temperature can easily be changed with no change in energy in the case of a gas. So temperature, all by itself, already means little BUT it is what has been measured.
“It remains the case that no longer how you choose to construct a metric reflecting global mean surface temperature, that metric is going up over time.”
So it seems, except for the past 18 years or so, depending on who you ask.
“You seem to be missing the absolutely crucial role of independent replication in science.”
That is so. Everyone is waiting for the independent replication of climate. Perhaps Alpha Centauri has a planet where we can perform this independent replication.
“The ‘hockey stick’ shape is absolutely in the data no matter how you come at the problem”
It is in some data, not in other data. The entire purpose of PCA (Principle Components Analysis) is to choose which proxies to use. For instance, Briffa’s treemometers are highly variable in terms of utility to advancing the hockey stick. Some of them, perhaps the majority, show a decline, hence the phrase “hide the decline”. A few show a nice hockey stick. PCA will detect the correlation and use those particular proxies, not because they are correct, but because they are strongly correlated with other proxies.
Is it correct, meaningful, and actionable? Maybe. This is where your “religion” kicks in. Your faith in the process probably exceeds mine.
“[http]://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic/”
There’s a few advocacy websites that I just don’t see much benefit in visiting. It’s a bit like going to pretty much any website of any religion and noticing that each pronounces itself correct and all others wrong.
Some quotes from it:
“That the real flow may be more unstable than previously thought would be bad news for the future.”
Doom! We’re all going to die. It’s worse than we (well, the models) thought!
“the AMOC has a well-known ‘tipping point’ (Lenton et al., 2008).” Well known to Lenton anyway.
“Hank Roberts says: Wili, we know we’re f*ed.”
“Slioch says: it would appear also to be the first step towards utter catastrophe.”
“richard pauli says: The ramifications are beyond all comprehension. Nothing in all history of civilization is this momentous.” (50 million dead Russians last century probably thought starvation was at least this momentous).
Gotta have anticapitalism: “Leif Knutsen says: Capitalism, unrestrained by the requirements of Planetary life support systems, is guaranteed mutually assured destruction.”
[End of quotes from realclimate]
“Imagining that the world’s coral reef crisis isn’t happening because the NY Times reported it is formally called an ad hominem logical fallacy.”
Your comment is called “straw man”. I have not argued that there is no world coral reef crisis (*).
I have argued that the New York Times is not an authority on climate change (or rockets); or in other words, I have challenged your own “appeal to authority” fallacy. I accept that authorities exist, and to cite an actual authority speaking within his expertise is not a fallacy. But the New York “rockets cannot fly in space” Times is not a science authority.
* I have no opinion on the topic of a coral crisis. I will go on record saying that I reserve the word “crisis” for things that seem a lot more threatening to my existence. Homo sapiens exists because everything that prevented Homo Sapiens experienced a crisis and lost their battles. I am here because dinosaurs are not here.
Geoff,
On Earth, more water vapor does mean more ice and snow. The average summer temp at the S pole is still well below freezing, although the average N pole summer temp is close to freezing. Winter is guaranteed to bring snow to the poles and far below them, so the seasonal ebb and flow of ice and snow will continue no matter what. In fact, even today, the average winter snow line is below the max extent of the glaciers from the last ice age. We can use data from the winter to tell us what the effect on albedo was during the last ice ages.
What you are calling ‘positive’ feedback from water vapor is misleading and only includes its GHG effects. When you account for clouds, the apparent feedback is negative, But like I said, Bode’s feedback analysis has been misapplied to the climate system because the climate does not have powered gain (i.e. an implicit source of infinite power to supply the amplifiers output demands), so calling this feedback is somewhat misleading. There is a static bias which increases the average surface temperature, while feedback from clouds tends to moderate, which is another indication of something that is like negative feedback. Conventionally, its considered that all increase above 255K is due to feedback, but in fact most is due to gain. If you understand Bode’s analysis, you will see that feedback and gain are interchangeable from a mathematical perspective and this can lead to confusion.
“On Earth, more water vapor does mean more ice and snow.”
Except, that’s not what we actually have been observing on earth. More water vapor only happens if the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, which drives an (actually not even controversial) positive albedo feedback i.e. less ice and snow coverage – unless you are disputing the obvious acceleration of ice melt in Greenland and West Antarctica, the net sea ice trends (Despite Antarctic Gains, Global Sea Ice Is Shrinking http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246), *and* the paleoclimate record which clearly shows retreating ice and rising seas with temperature.
Some increased snow precipitation at the top of East Antarctica doesn’t provide an additional cooling feedback to the climate system.
“the average winter snow line is below the max extent of the glaciers from the last ice age”
Don’t know why you think comparisons like this are meaningful. Why would the winter snow line be expected to be above the max extent of the glaciers? Why even compare these things? What would this mean relative to the topic?
“What you are calling ‘positive’ feedback from water vapor is misleading and only includes its GHG effects.”
In climate science water vapor feedback refers to total water vapor feedback in two parts: (huge, positive) greenhouse and (smaller, negative) adiabatic lapse rate feedback. Clouds are not technically described under “water vapor” because they are not composed of water vapor. There is nothing “misleading” here, just a minor point of terminology confusion on your part.
“When you account for clouds, the apparent feedback is negative”
Yes, clouds are obviously related to water vapor content. No, they are not ignored by climate science. And no, it is not even in the ballpark of the factual to claim that WV + clouds is negative, this is *wildly* wishful. Clouds both warm (trap) and cool (reflect), and the WG1 summary of available evidence is that cloud feedback *alone* is uncertain but more likely positive (small), i.e. increasing WV generating trapping-type clouds a bit more rapidly than reflecting.
Summing this with the huge positive WV feedback and expecting negative takes you completely out of the world of reason. The entire (large) uncertainty range for ECS (1.5 to 4.5 degrees per doubling) is a net positive feedback range.
If clouds acted as a massive dampening feedback on warming and kept the climate system stable (a) we would have seen evidence of this happening already in the past 50 years and (b) it would become incredibly difficult to explain how the climate changes so significantly into and out of glacial/interglacial states (the cloud feedback would prevent this from happening, especially up against a wimpy long/slow forcing like orbital variation.)
“calling this feedback is somewhat misleading”
The definition in climate science is internally consistent, though the physical characteristics and complexity of the system varies from electrical engineering, yes. Subtle differences in terminology are not proof that electrical engineering principles are being misapplied here, though this is a common bias/error seen in the commentary of electrical engineers who imagine they are instant experts on climate.
“Conventionally, its considered that all increase above 255K is due to feedback, but in fact most is due to gain.”
I still think you are muddying vs. illuminating. The greenhouse effect itself is not “considered to be feedback”.
Rogertaguchi wrote “Since the Earth’s mean temperature is 288.2 K (15.0 Celsius)… Thus one must honestly admit that there is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is part of the cause.”
Interesting argument. Earth is warm therefore CO2.
The infrared (IR) absorption spectra show that water vapor, CO2, and ozone are the three main greenhouse gases responsible for the temperature being greater than that of a perfect black body (emissivity 1) that absorbs 100% of the incoming Solar insolation and then re-emits all the energy as IR. Skeptics do harm to their cause if they deny reality. The CAGW cultists are of course in total denial, but we ought to be better.
rogertaguchi “Skeptics do harm to their cause if they deny reality.”
1. Skeptics do not have a shared cause. They simply doubt the prevailing cause.
2. I suspect nearly everyone (a) denies some aspect of reality and (b) defines what is real as needed.
“Reality” is not captured by averages or means.
Suppose I have two blackbodies of identical size and shape. One is twice warmer than the other. S-B says the warmer one will be radiating 2^4 or 16 times more energy than the cooler. Together they radiate 17 times more than the cool one alone.
Now we average them together, each is 1.5 times as warm as the previous cool body. S-B says the cool one will now emit 5 times what it did before, and the warm one will emit the same 5, for a total of 10.
So you see, by averaging temperatures in a linear manner you have gone from 17 units of radiation to just 10. Willis E. had quite a bit to say on this a few years ago on “The Moon is a Cold Mistress”.
I suppose you could apply the T^4 term of the S-B formula to all measurements BEFORE averaging them, in this manner you aren’t actually calculating an average “temperature” but a total theoretical radiation of energy. Of course, emissivity would have to be factored at all measurement locations.
Melting glaciers indicate a warming world. Let’s look at the big picture. We are still in an ice age since 2.58 million years ago. Today’s global temperature is one of the coldest in the last 540 million years. The world has been cooling for the past 3,400 years. Current warming began 250 years ago long before man started burning substantial amounts of fossil fuels. Despite this 250-year warming trend, the longer 3,400-year cooling trend has not been broken. It is intact and we are still heading to the next glacial period.
Even if we burn all our fossil fuel proven reserves at a constant present rate, we cannot stop the coming glacial period. To do that we have to somehow stop the natural CO2 sinks that sequester 14.6 gigatons every year. In the meantime, we can panic and argue about decadal warming and cooling trends.
“Despite this 250-year warming trend, the longer 3,400-year cooling trend has not been broken. It is intact and we are still heading to the next glacial period.”
argument by assertion fallacy. According to energy math, this isn’t remotely true – greenhouse forcing in watts per square meter is an order of magnitude larger than orbital forcing.
“Even if we burn all our fossil fuel proven reserves at a constant present rate, we cannot stop the coming glacial period. To do that we have to somehow stop the natural CO2 sinks that sequester 14.6 gigatons every year”
There are also large natural carbon sources, and sources/sinks had previously found a rough sort of equilibrium (i.e. relatively stable atmospheric concentration). The oceans have absorbed more as we drove the concentration up, absorbing a portion (quarter/third), but the ocean’s ability to do this is declining – as I understand it generally, the thermocline is getting saturated, at which point the rate limiting factor becomes transport from the thermocline to the deep ocean which is much slower. And as the ocean warms it can hold less CO2 generally – eventually it will shift to being a source of CO2 and not a sink, as seen coming out of the last glacial (i.e. the source of the misguided “CO2 only follows temperature” arguments that are common in these parts.)
The declining uptake rate of atmospheric CO2 by land and ocean sinks
http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/3453/2014/bg-11-3453-2014.pdf
No reason to think the atmospheric concentration is “self healing”, especially as we will be burning more sequestered carbon at a good clip at least through most of this century.
“No reason to think the atmospheric concentration is “self healing”, ”
No reason at all. We are all going to die. I figure I’ve got 10 years or so, maybe more, maybe less. Turn off the light and heat and it will be rather definitely less.
““Despite this 250-year warming trend, the longer 3,400-year cooling trend has not been broken. It is intact and we are still heading to the next glacial period.”
argument by assertion fallacy. According to energy math, this isn’t remotely true – greenhouse forcing in watts per square meter is an order of magnitude larger than orbital forcing.”
Seems to me the first sentence plus the first clause of the 2nd sentence is probably correct and not in error by the assertion fallacy. Of course the 2nd clause of the 2nd sentence is an assertion, but 3,400 year trends are not typically broken by 250 warming periods and it seems that the cooling in the past 3,000 plus years from the Holocene optimum is real and is still intact. When and if we see something unprecedented in the Holocene perhaps that will change.
“3,400 year trends are not typically broken by 250 warming periods and it seems that the cooling in the past 3,000 plus years from the Holocene optimum is real and is still intact.”
Well, you are just repeating the assertion, and seem to be making the same mistake.
The logic is circular: you are assuming that longer term trends must be driven by more powerful forces than shorter term trends, and you use this assumption to argue that the longer trend must be more powerful.
But what is happening physically? Where we’ve seen a sharp change in trend is in the last 150 years:
http://www.countercurrents.org/Marcott_PAGES2k.png
The best supported explanation for the glaciation / ice age cycles are that they are driven by long, very slow changes in solar insolation due to orbital wobble. How much influence do you think this factor has had in the past 150 years? Right – not very much. Orbital angle has barely changed in that geologic eyeblink. However, the greenhouse effect – which is quite powerful and raises the planet’s temperature on the order of 33°C – has been spiked by anthropogenic increases in multiple GHGs. This has caused a much more dramatic change to the energy that escapes into space, which we can directly observe. In climate science such energy influences are measured as forcings in watts per square meter and can be compared. Why do you assume that the slow, subtle, weaker orbital cooling effect must somehow be more powerful (because it is longer/slower) and win out over the new strong anthropogenic greenhouse forcing? Why hasn’t it so far? As the greenhouse effect is only getting jacked up higher, why won’t physics continue to play out how it must? The answer is that there is no reason to believe otherwise; it’s overwhelmingly likely that it will. Your argument is counter-physical. This is why climate scientists keep winning in their predictions of continuing warming.
geoffmprice,
By posting that spliced Marcott chart, you lost credibility. Do a search here for ‘Marcott’ and you will see Marcott et. al thoroughly demolished. Anyone who believes a chart like this reflects the real world is just avoiding reality:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
All your links are to thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs like Tamino, realclimate (are they still in business?), Marcott, and even the NY Times, and Psychology Today.
You constantly deflect, like you did when the issue was rising snowfall. You changed the subject to polar ice.
The bottom line is this: there is nothing unusual happening with global temperatures. Nothing unprecedented is happening. Everything observed now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.
You’re just trying to sell a pig in a poke, and we’re not buying.
Thanks for stopping by to ad hominem dbstealey. 🙂 Don’t expect responses to non-substantial points. I don’t know what you think I deflected regarding snowfall, or what point of significance you think that connects to. I am not selling anything; I’m a skeptic, and I couldn’t help pointing out a number of factual inaccuracies in the original article. It remains the case that Ira’s point about modern warming just being what happens coming out of a glacial is nonsense. You can (and I’m sure will) ad hominem any paper you like, but the slow cooling of the Holocene is reproduced across a great many global and/or multi-proxy reconstructions – as a result, claiming reality is radically different is counter-factual relative to *available* evidence. No hand-waving or name-calling changes this, sorry.
geoffmprice says:
Thanks for stopping by to ad hominem dbstealey.
I copied your own style, but I wasn’t nearly as ad hominem as your comments to others were, so there’s no need to complain about it. You wrote lots of things about other folks, such as…
Sounds like you are from the “it’s all about pressure” splinter of that particular fringe camp. …completely out of the world of reason. …pushing improbable anti-science conspiracy theories. …I understand your confusion. …you are super far from basic understanding of climate science here …an alternate reality internet bubble. …profoundly counter-factual premises and wild assertions.
That’s more insulting to them than anything I wrote. So, to answer your complaints:
Regarding snowfall, you took exception to the statement:
“On Earth, more water vapor does mean more ice and snow.”
It appears that you believe there has been increased snowfall. Correct me if that’s not what you meant.
Next, you say:
…claims of “fraudulent data” have continually turned up nothing for a couple of decades, certainly including the original hockey stick controversy.
I disagree, and upon your request I’ll post plenty of evidence showing fraudulent data. Just say the word.
Next, re: Mann’s hockey stick. That was so thoroughly deconstructed by McIntyre and McKittrick that the journal Nature was forced to publish a Corregendum. If you’d like to read it, just say the word and I’ll post it (and BTW, a Corregendum is a pretty rare admission).
Next:
…climate scientists keep winning in their predictions of continuing warming.
That self-serving statement can easily be deconstructed. First, it has been known for longer than Michael Mann has been an earthling that the planet has been emerging from the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene — in fits and starts, for the past few hundred years. No one who is around today can take any credit for “winning their predictions” of global warming. That’s just another baseless assertion.
The correct question is this: What is the primary cause of global warming?
No one has all the answers, but it’s pretty clear that the rise in CO2 is not the primary cause.
No one has ever produced verifiable, empirical, testable measurements quantifying AGW; measurements that are acceptable to both sides of the global warming debate. For one thing, if AGW had been empirically measured and verified, then the question of the climate sensitivity number would be answered, and we would know how much global warming to expect from a specific rise in CO2.
But no one knows the climate’s sensitivity to 2xCO2. There are plenty of guesstimates, ranging from a preposterous 6ºC, to ±3ºC, and on down through ≈2ºC, to ≈1ºC, to a fraction of a degree — to 0.00ºC (F. Miskolczi). Some scientists even say that CO2 causes cooling. So there is still wide disagreement over the effect of CO2 on global warming. Thus, there is no verifiable, testable measurement quantifying AGW, and without that, everything is guesswork. You write:
There is in fact a planetary change in atmospheric conditions – an unambiguous 40% increase in the global concentration of CO2, unprecedented on geological timescales.
You don’t know that, so your “in fact” is merely your opinion. The past century has seen an extremely flat global temperature change — only about ±0.7ºC. That is as flat a temperature change as anything seen in the geologic record. But as we go farther back in the geologic record, we lose the ability to discern decadal CO2 changes. Thus, we don’t know if, or how many times, CO2 has changed by 40% or more over several decades.
What we do know is that quite recently, temperatures have fluctuated by TENS of degrees — and that happened before human CO2 emissions were a factor. So now we see CO2 changing by ≈40%, but current global temperatures have been amazingly flat, while global T fluctuated much more in the past when CO2 was not changing. That pretty much falsifies the belief that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ of planetary temperatures.
You also say:
I’m a skeptic, used to scientific method.
For someone who posts Marcott’s alarming charts, and links to various alarmist blogs (while downplaying published, peer reviewed skeptics like Willis Eschenbach, and attempts to denigrate the sites of scientifc skeptics like McIntyre’s), I’m being polite when I say that your claim of being a skeptic is highly questionable, to say the least.
You’ve clearly taken sides against real scientific skeptics, by ignoring the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on the climate alarmist side to support their conjecture. Specifically, the unproven and measurement-free belief that there is a human ‘fingerprint of global warming’. That conjecture has failed due to the lack of measurments quantifying ‘man-made global warming’.
Your comments amount to merely personal opinions and beliefs, but little else. The rise in CO2 has not caused the endlessly predicted runaway global warming and climate catastrophes, thus debunking the “carbon” scare. Every scary and alarming prediction made by the climate alarmist crowd has failed. Not one of those predictions has ever come true; no exceptions.
When a conjecture like CO2=cAGW results in every alarming prediction based on that conjecture failing to come true, then that conjecture is falsified. As Prof Richard Feynman explains it, if your ‘theory’ is contradicted by observations, then your ‘theory’ is wrong. Feynman added, “That’s all there is to it.”
“You wrote lots of things about other folks, such as…”
You didn’t list any ad hominem arguments that I made. Look up what the term means. I didn’t write “about other folks”, but I did address their arguments. Yes, I wrote that “summing this with the huge positive WV feedback and expecting negative takes you completely out of the world of reason”, because it does. Pointing out when claims clearly contradict plentiful evidence is not being nasty. The WV feedback is well characterized and observed, and it is definitely not negative. I think your dispute is with reality.
“It appears that you believe there has been increased snowfall. Correct me if that’s not what you meant.”
I did not bring up the topic of increased snowfall. I don’t know that I’ve seen any reliable measurements of global snowfall. In specific locations like East Antarctica, I think the evidence tentatively supports saying increased snowfall. Globally, I wouldn’t know – there has probably been some increase in total precipitation, but the planet has also been warming. I am just disputing the claim (perhaps it was implied) that ice albedo increases in a warming world – it clearly doesn’t.
“I disagree, and upon your request I’ll post plenty of evidence showing fraudulent data. Just say the word.”
Note that “fraudulent” is a strong term. It has a specific meaning. It doesn’t mean “data I don’t believe”. Nor does it mean “data I think is botched because they applied the wrong statistical technique [even though there’s a good chance I don’t really understand the statistical technique.]” It means data that was made up, and passed off in peer review and the media as real measured data. If you have a case of true, fraudulent data that has corrupted significant findings of climate science – absolutely I’d like to see, this will be big news. Fire away. But don’t think the typical Goddard “look they adjusted Paraguay and I don’t know why!” type claim is going to shock me. I’ve been around the block on the conspiracy blogs.
“Next, re: Mann’s hockey stick. That was so thoroughly deconstructed by McIntyre and McKittrick”
I don’t want to talk about urban legends, even cherished ones. If you really care (I don’t), read one of the many internet summaries of that debate. Pay attention to papers like Wahl & Ammann 2007. This topic is also a good chance to learn about the important role of reproduction in science (critics tend to resist this, because they prefer the conversation to be about whether scientists are trustworthy, as that’s something more easily understood and spinnable via character attacks etc.)
“First, it has been known for more than Michael Mann has been an earthling that the planet has been emerging from the LIA”
This is a meaningless, unphysical statement. First, Pages 2K made it clear “there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”. But let’s say there was a global LIA energy budget event. Giving a name to a low point doesn’t provide any information at all about why the temperature is warming. The implied argument is tautological: “the cause of modern warming is coming out of the LIA”. Well, what’s causing temperatures to rise since the LIA? Something mystical, apparently.
“For one thing, if AGW had been empirically measured and verified, then the question of the climate sensitivity number would be answered, and we would know how much global warming to expect from a specific rise in CO2.”
Meaningless arguments over definitions. AGW is empirically validated in the sense that every scientific national academy, society and agency in the world endorses it – i.e., significant (on same scale as shift into/out of glacial ‘ice age’ states) global warming from significant greenhouse gas increases.
This doesn’t imply every detail is known, and ECS is one particularly large area of important uncertainty about the total system response, but this has more to do with clouds than GHGs.
“You don’t know that [unambiguous 40% increase in the global concentration of CO2, unprecedented on geological timescales], so your “in fact” is merely your opinion”
Merely an opinion… here’s where I make you angry by pointing out that your comments are completely divorced from available evidence/reality. I take it you do not believe ice cores and the like can be used to measure CO2 concentration back in time, despite trapping literal air bubbles and the amount of study and validation that has gone into this process.
I think if we keep talking you’ll end up cycling through every endlessly-debunked climate myth that still circulates on the internet. I’m afraid I won’t be able to keep up.
“For someone who posts Marcott’s alarming charts, and links to various alarmist blogs (while downplaying published, peer reviewed skeptics like Willis Eschenbach, and attempts to denigrate the sites of scientifc skeptics like McIntyre’s, I’m being polite when I say that your claim of being a skeptic is highly questionable.”
We are using different definitions of skepticism. I am using the traditional one – skepticism is a method of critical thinking, not a position.
geoffmprice says:
Pointing out when claims clearly contradict plentiful evidence is not being nasty.
Good thing, no? Because the claims of those who believe that CO2 is the control knob of the planet’s temperature have no credible supporting evidence — and they haven’t been able to credibly refute the solid arguments falsifying that belief.
All of your “evidence” for AGW comes down to the same old ‘Appeal to Corrupted Authorities’ logical fallacy:
AGW is empirically validated in the sense that every scientific national academy, society and agency in the world… &etc.
Thanx for admitting that AGW is nothing more than a belief. A conjecture. An opinion.
That belief is the total supporting “evidence” of the entire ‘CO2=AGW’ argument. Belief isn’t science, it’s really anti-science. It’s religion; in this case, it’s your eco-religion.
And:
I did not bring up the topic of increased snowfall.
Well, you replied to that comment by implying that snowfall has declined. It hasn’t.
Next, you say:
Note that “fraudulent” is a strong term. It has a specific meaning… It means data that was made up, and passed off in peer review and the media as real measured data.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of examples of “adjusted” so-called ‘data’, and in almost all cases the post-adjusted ‘data’ shows more (or scarier) warming. How many more examples would you like?
It’s like Bill Cosby saying, “I didn’t do it!” After dozens of unrelated women step up and say he did, his protests become unconvincing. Same-same.
Next, you talk about Mann’s debunked ‘hokey stick’ chart — and then mention the LIA?? Since you don’t seem to know: Mann attempted to erase the LIA. And also the MWP. They don’t appear on his chart:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/hockeystick.gif
Since you’re not aware of why Mann was forced to write a Corrigendum that Nature was forced to publish, why go on? Your mind is made up and closed tight.
But for other readers: there is nothing unprecedented or unusual happening with global temperatures. Nothing. Despite the large rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, global temperatures did not go up as endlessly predicted.
That fact alone falsifies the CO2=CAGW conjecture. QED
About 340 W/m^2 strikes the ToA (top of atmosphere). About 100 W/m^2 reflects straight away by albedo which is clouds, ocean and vegetation. This leaves about 240 W/m^2 to be absorbed by the atmosphere, about 80 W/m^2, and reach the surface of the earth, about 160 W/m^2. All of these power fluxes are “abouts” because the uncertainties range from +/- 0.4%, +/- 1.5 W/m^2, to +/- 5%, +/- 17 W/m^2. (Trenberth et. al. 2011, Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses, Figure 10)
If something, anything, interferes in the amount of energy leaving ToA and reduces it by, say, CO2’s 2 W/m^2 then leaving ToA becomes 238 W/m^2. If the amount entering exceeds the amount entering, all thing being equal (which they aren’t) then the temperature will have to rise until the ToA is once again 240 W/m^2 per the heat transfer equation Q = U * A * dT. If U goes down from added insulation (blankets), then dT must go up. If the balanced earth hot side is 15 C, 288 K, then it will have to increase to make up for the decrease in U.
But suppose albedo increases from 100 W/m^2 to 102 W/m^2. Now only 238 W/m^2 reach atmosphere and earth, but at 15 C, 288 K, and per the equation, 240 W/m^2 are still leaving ToA. So to rebalance the heat flow net heat will be lost until the temperature drops to the point that 238 W/m^2 are leaving ToA.
Suppose the oceans absorb 2 W/m^2. Same scenario. Now there is only 238 W/m^2 leaving the atmosphere and earth’s surface and 240 W/m^2 leaving ToA. The atmosphere will have to cool until the dT equals 238 W/m^2.
This is why 7 of the 8 re-analyses discussed in the Trenberth paper and displayed on Figure 10 show – W/m^2, +/- 3.6% or +/ 12.3 W/m^2. As you can see even RCP 8.5 is lost in this 24.6 W/m^2 uncertainty band.
Whether the 340 W/m^2 GHG loop is real or not, it isn’t, is moot because al that matters is the ToA balance and, considering the magnitudes and uncertainties of the various power flux components, CO2/GHGs role in this balance is trivial.
I’ve been watching how some people are throwing about all this watts per square meter nonsense for some time, as some sort of justification in their understanding of a subject that is based on the idea of energy balance, it is laughable, seriously??
GIGO
Reply to co2isnotevil re posting on May 24, 2016 at 9:56 pm, and to Ira Glickstein on May 24, 2016 at 11:08 pm:
1. Re: impossibility of translational energy forming v=1 excited state CO2 molecule. At any temperature, there is a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular velocities proportional to v^2.exp[-mv^2/(2kT)]. This means that there are a few molecules moving at velocities higher than average, even 2 or 3 times greater, and also some moving more slowly than average. Therefore there are going to be collisions between molecules with components toward each other with relative translational kinetic energies easily greater than the energy gap between the v=0 and v=1 vibrational states.
2. Re: the black body shell is in equilibrium with the Sun, not the Earth. First, the Sun at 5778 K, the Earth’s surface at 288.2 K, and the cosmic microwave background radiation at 3 K are not at thermal equilibrium. There is a net flow of energy via photons (via radiation, since the vacuum of space is a lousy conductor of heat, and convection is irrelevant) from Sun to Earth to the cosmic microwave background. This is basically a steady state situation (where there is a flow, or flux of photons), not an equilibrium where flows are equal in both directions. The net flow of energy/power from the Sun to the Earth means that some of the incoming Solar radiation is reflected (the albedo) and the rest is absorbed by the dark Earth, which then warms up. However, solid and liquids with emissivities very close to 1 at 288.2 K emit LWR (IR photons) outward to space, trying to warm up the 3 K background. At steady state (energy balance), the LWR emission + the reflected radiation from the Earth must equal the incoming Solar radiation (usually expressed as a power per square metre, which is energy per second per square metre, so they are proportional, and may be used interchangeably without being used ignorantly, as some naïve critics might conclude). At such a steady state, the surface temperature of the Earth would be constant (or at least vary sinusoidally daily or seasonally). Is there a flow of photons from the 288.2 K Earth to the 5778 K Sun? Sure there is, but at
(288.2)^4 relative to (5778)^4 from the Sun to the Earth, so the NET flow is from the Sun (higher T) to the Earth (lower T), in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is there a flow of photons from outer space to the Earth? Sure there is, at 3^4 relative to (288.2)^4, but the NET flow is from the Earth to outer space. At thermal equilibrium, outer space, the Earth and the Sun would be at the SAME (surface) temperature, and the flux from outer space to the Earth to the Sun would equal that in the other direction.
But we aren’t there yet. As the stars, including the Sun, run through their nuclear fusion fuel at the centers, they will eventually all die, leaving slowly cooling white dwarf stars (for the Sun). And the Earth would eventually cool, as heat from the molten interior slowly moves outward by conduction to the surface and then radiate out to space. This would then approach the “heat death” of the universe, and since the distant clusters of galaxies appear to be accelerating outward from each other and us, thermal equilibrium via radiation may never be reached as everything cools toward an unattainable limit of absolute zero.
In our present steady state situation, I asked the reader to consider a thin black body shell around the Earth which would be in thermal equilibrium with the Earth’s surface, at 288.2 K, in order to see that although there is undeniable back radiation as seen from the Earth’s surface, it cannot warm the Earth. The reason is that the Earth’s outward IR radiation (without the shell) is powered by incoming visible radiation from the Sun. The thin 100% opaque shell (with the Sun taken out of the picture) would absorb outgoing IR radiation from the Earth’s surface until it is at the same 288.2 K, and then radiate both outward and inward. The inward flux would just balance the flux outward from the Earth’s surface, so we could then set them to net zero. The outer surface of the shell would emit at 288.2 K, but being thin, it would rapidly cool since it has no power source inside or outside to maintain the temperature. But the high heat capacity of the massive Earth would maintain its outward emission at 288.2 K, and THIS would be the power source that maintains the thin shell at 288.2 K. So basically a photon emitted from the outer shell is equivalent to a photon emitted from the Earth’s surface and travelling unimpeded through the shell (a perfect black body will absorb with 100% efficiency, but then re-emit with 100% efficiency). We can immediately see the equivalence if the thin shell were shrunk inward until it touched the Earth’s surface at all points. We now would have a single black body surface emitting outward from a 288.2 K surface. Both the back-radiation and the photons needed to balance the back-radiation instantly disappear when the gap disappears. Back-radiation does not lead to warming of the surface, so it ought to be taken out of energy balance diagrams.
In the case of the real Earth, the outgoing IR photons emitted from the 288.2 K surface experience net absorption by greenhouse gases water vapor, CO2 and ozone (with a smidgen methane, CH4). This absorbed energy warms the troposphere and the surface until the surface temperature is high enough that the increased Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 emission minus the net absorption equals 240 W/m^2, the radiance needed to exactly balance the incoming Solar radiation that is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, clouds and atmosphere. I have to say “net” absorption, because there is about 19 W/m^2 emission from CO2 and ozone in the stratosphere which is added to a greater CO2 absorption ditch [net absorption consists of about 38.1 W/m^2 for CO2, 80.4 W/m^2 for water vapor, and 4.7 W/m^2 for ozone, for a total of 123.2 W/m^2, although the accuracy may be only to the nearest W/m^2 for any gas].
I have expanded my explanation into great detail which I hope clarifies any confusion due to my shorter, less understandable one.
3. I have taken the time to write this out, because I respect the general knowledge and thought processes of co2isnotevil, Ira, rishrac, cba (on May 7 at 3:00 pm) and Phil who have raised valid points. There is no shame in being wrong, or partially ignorant, is one is willing to consider alternative arguments, admit mistakes, and make corrections when necessary. For example, there is a typo in Point 5(n) in my posting of May 24 at 3:19 pm: “m, g and h” should have read “m, g and k”, and I trust that this will not be used to condemn me for utter stupidity and/or incompetence. The CAGW cultists, however, I don’t trust.
I appreciate your detailed explanation.