By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
I do apologize for not having replied sooner to my friend the irrepressible, irascible, highly improbable but always fascinating Willis Eschenbach, who on August 15 had commented on a brace of earlier postings by me on the vexed question of climate sensitivity.
The delay is because my lovely wife and I are on a two-week trip to the thrusting new Scotland of the ghastly totalitarians who call themselves the Scottish National Party. We had left our beloved Scotland five years ago when we had sensed the advance of the legalists – as the early Chinese philosophers would have called today’s totalitarians. We are what the Chinese would have called Confucians – in today’s money, libertarians.
How said it is to see the Scotland we left just five years ago in such rampant and almost entirely unreported decline. Even in Perth, our old and once prosperous county town, the thriving shops have largely gone, to be replaced by dismal bingo-halls, desperate charity shops and boarded-up windows.
The cottage where we were unwise enough to lodge during our first week’s visit cost us well north of $1000 for the week, and the wretches who let it to us did not provide free electricity or even logs for the fire. The place was filthy; the oven unusable; the wood-burning stove so clogged with clag that one could not see through the glass to where the fire within would have been if there had been any logs; the gutters not maintained; the water not even basically filtered to remove the lumps of peat that turned my white shirts brown. And the internet? They said that if we stood in the kitchen corner we might occasionally get a flicker of a signal. Well, we didn’t get one.
In Paris last December, while playing the piano for the late and much missed Bob Carter in the swank foyer of the grandest of grand hotels on the Champs-Elysees, I mentioned to him that we were by no means the only ones who had left Scotland. Had I been younger, I said, I’d have stood and fought. As it was, a tide of talent and brains and wealth was pouring southward; businesses were closing down all over the boarded-up shop; the oil price had collapsed; and everyone who was anyone was getting out.
Bob said, “Monckton, you’re exaggerating. And I’m going to prove it.” He got out his cellphone and telephoned a friend in Aberdeen who employed 400 people there. “Is it true,” he asked, “that there is an unreported exodus from Scotland?”
“I can’t speak for the whole of Scotland,” said Bob’s friend, “But I will say this. I and all 400 of my employees are leaving just as soon as we can get out.”
Which explains why there was no internet. The notion of providing a service has now largely vanished from Scotland. Inferentially, the signal from furth of Shangri-La did not reach our corner of the damp cottage kitchen because the Amalgamated Union of Semaphore Flag-Wavers and Mountain-Top Beacon Fettlers was on strike. Again.
So to Willis’ posting.
Willis thought I was wrong (Wrong? Moi?) about the value of the pre-feedback climate-sensitivity parameter, widely known in the climate literature (see e.g. Roe, 2009) as λ0.
Misleadingly, Willis refers to this “Planck parameter” as a “feedback”. Properly understood, it is nothing of the kind: for, as the equation that I had illustrated in my previous postings demonstrated, its role in determining climate sensitivity – and that was the role in which I had cast it – is manifestly distinct from that of any true feedback.
Willis says: “The Planck feedback is how much the outgoing long-wave radiation of the globe increases per degree of increased temperature.” It is much better understood the other way about, for the models use its reciprocal, the Planck parameter, to convert Watts per square meter of long-wave radiation change (i.e., of forcing) to Kelvin of temperature change (i.e., climate sensitivity). See the interesting discussion in Roe (2009) on this point.
The Planck parameter, which I shall accordingly denominate hereafter in Kelvin of temperature change per Watt per square meter of radiative flux-density change, occurs twice in the official climate-sensitivity equation.
First, at the pre-feedback stage, the Planck parameter is the constant of proportionality that converts any change in long-wave radiation as a result of a radiative forcing such as atmospheric CO2 enrichment into a corresponding change in temperature.
Secondly, the Planck parameter acts in exactly the same way on temperature feedbacks. Feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of temperature change arising from the original, direct forcing. The product of the Planck parameter (in purple) and the sum of these feedbacks (in bright blue) is the unitless temperature-feedback factor f (in pink) in my illuminated presentation of the official climate-sensitivity equation.
The value of the Planck parameter is, therefore, of paramount importance. And Willis, who is prone to rush to the data (which, to be fair, are usually not a bad place to start), rushed to the data and determined the value of the Planck parameter not as the 0.313 Kelvin per Watt per square meter that I (supported by IPCC and dozens of scientific papers and models I could name) had asserted, but a mere 0.2 Kelvin per Watt per square meter.
How come this discrepancy?
Simple. Willis, in his posting, made the same mistake that I had myself made in the very first article I had written on climate sensitivity, which had appeared ten years ago all over the front page of the Weekend section of the London Sunday Telegraph and had been so popular with readers that it crashed the Telegraph website for the first and only time in its history, attracting the then-unheard-of hit-rate of 127,000 hits in two hours at midnight on a Sunday morning. By that metric, it was the most popular article the Telegraph group had ever published.
Fig. 1 The official climate-sensitivity equation. Pre-feedback sensitivity ΔT0 = λ0 ΔF. Post-feedback sensitivity ΔT is the product of ΔT0 and the post-feedback gain factor G. By a suitable choice of the feedback sum, the equation can model transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity.
The mistake that Willis (and, at that time, I) had made was to perform the calculation to determine the Planck sensitivity at the Earth’s surface and not, as it should be performed for climate-sensitivity studies, at the Planck emission surface, whose mean pressure altitude is about 300 hPa up in the mid-troposphere.
The Planck emission surface is, by definition, the locus of all points of least altitude at which incoming and outgoing radiation are equal in the atmospheric columns that may be thought of as subsisting above all points on the Earth’s surface.
This strange surface is the surface from which satellites perceive outgoing radiation from the Earth to emanate. It is – again by definition – one optical depth down into the atmosphere as seen from above.
And it is at this emission surface, and not at the Earth’s hard-deck surface, that the Planck parameter falls to be determined.
Here is how it is done. There is really very little argument about the value of the Planck parameter, for its derivation is so very straightforward.
Begin with the data (Willis will like that bit). The SORCE/TIM data show that the mean total solar irradiance is about 1361 Watts per square meter, and all datasets are within a few Watts per square meter of this value, so I shall use the SORCE/TIM value.
The Earth presents a disk-shaped cross-section to the incoming radiation, but its surface is a rotating sphere. So it is necessary to divide the total solar irradiance by 4, which is the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to that of a disk of equal radius.
Next, one must allow for albedo. The Earth (or, in particular, the clouds, which account for some 97% of its albedo) reflect about 30% of all incoming solar radiation harmlessly straight back into space. So the mean flux density at the Earth’s emission altitude is 1361 (1 – 0.3) / 4 = 238.2 Watts per square meter.
Now it is time to determine the mean emission temperature represented by that radiation of 238.2 Watts per square meter. This is done by using one of the very few proven results in the generally slippery subject of climatology – the fundamental equation of radiative transfer.
The equation states that the radiative flux at the emission surface of a celestial body is equal to the product of just three values: the emissivity of that surface, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the fourth power of temperature.
Since we know the radiation at the Earth’s emission surface, and we know that after allowance for albedo the emissivity of that surface is unity, and we know the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is reassuringly constant at 0.000000056704 Watts per square meter per Kelvin to the fourth power, it is a simple matter to deduce the one unknown quantity in the equation: the Earth’s emission temperature, which turns out to be 254.6 Kelvin, or around 34 Kelvin cooler than the hard-deck surface where we live and move and have our being.
To find out the relationship between any change in radiative flux density at the emission surface and any consequent change in the temperature at that surface, it is necessary only to take the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer.
It is not always appreciated that, provided that one expresses the derivative in terms of both temperature and flux density, the relation between radiation change and temperature change is linear, even though the derivative comes from a fourth-power relation.
Here is the math:
K W–1 m2.
One final adjustment is needed, and, to verify IPCC’s value, some years ago I obtained from John Christy a datafile containing 30 years’ temperature-anomaly data for the mid-troposphere. Using these data (Willis would be pleased again), I was able to determine the Hölder coefficient from the integration of latitudinal values for λ0 using equialtitudinal latitudinal frusta, for are not frusta that are equaialtitudinal also conveniently equiareal? [Hint: yes, they are].
The bottom line: the product of the Hölder coefficient 7/6 (which allows for the fact that a sum of latitudinally-derived fourth powers, for instance, is not the same as the fourth power of a sum) and the first differential obtained by taking the derivative above gives a very good approximation to the current value of the Planck parameter λ0, namely 0.313 K W–1 m2.
Phew!
Can the value of the Planck parameter vary? Yes, if insolation varies, and yes, if albedo varies. But, since the solar “constant” is near-invariant, and since the albedo is unlikely to change much even if major ice losses eventually occur, lambda-zero will continue to be at or close to 0.313 K W–1 m2 for the foreseeable future.
With respect, therefore, Willis was infelicitous in referring to the Planck parameter as a “feedback”, for it is unlike any true feedback; he was incorrect (as I had once been) in attempting to determine it at the hard-deck surface rather than the emission surface of the Earth; he was accordingly incorrect (as I had once been) in determining its value to be of order 0.2 Kelvin per Watt per square meter; he was incorrect in imagining the Planck parameter to be non-linear (I knew enough calculus not to fall for that one); and he was incorrect in imagining that its value had been determined without regard to latitudinal non-linearities (I do more homework than I usually show in these columns for general family entertainment).
Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
But let us end with a richly-deserved compliment to Willis. Like me, he is largely an autodidact. Like me, he makes mistakes. And this time I am in no position to crow: for the mistakes he has made are the mistakes I had once made myself.
Above all, like me he is interested enough to ask questions – usually very good questions – and to do his very best to find the answers. To him, as to me, science is a matter not of belief but of diligent, disciplined inquiry. It is this passionate curiosity that unites us, and marks us out from the totalitarian true-believers who are wrecking Scotland and have done their best to wreck science too. To them, and not to him, I award the accolade “Thick as two short Plancks”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It surprises me to read that the precision with which albedo is known is claimed to be uncertain. A 0.5% change of albedo [in eq 1361 (1 – 0.3) / 4 = 238.2] results in a change of 1.7 W/sq meter. NASA seems to say 0.3 +/- 0.04 from CERES data [ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84499 ] Is this contested in any serious way?
The CERES page in the link has some good info on albedo, the maps are interesting. And this quote…
“What the results show is that even at global scales, Earth’s albedo fluctuates markedly over short time periods due to natural variations in the climate system,” said Norman Loeb, CERES principal investigator
Also, here is another case where the 24 hour averaging may be deceptive. Since albedo is a solar reflection parameter, and therefore only applies to the sunlit side of the Earth. Some unknown percentage changes of albedo may occur within hours due to cloud formation from surface convection. However, it seems reasonable that the CERES data show solar energy absorbed by the Earth averages about 240 watts per square meter over a year. At least as a starting point for the Planck function calculations.
BW,
Because the moon is not in the plane of the ecliptic, any measurements of Earthshine over time are going to be from different viewing angles, and of different regions of the surface, alone with changes resulting from weather and seasons. That is, the albedo, as estimated from Earthshine measurements, can be expected to vary considerably for natural reasons. From what I have read about the CERES measurements, they are modified with models. Need I say more?
A 0.5% change in albedo would alter the Planck radiance by about 0.5 Watts per square meter. However, albedo changes are accounted for not in the determination of the Planck radiance but by way of the albedo feedbacks. At present, observation suggests that the mean value of terrestrial albedo is about 0.3, so that is the value everyone uses. If it were to change, no doubt the official value of the reference sensitivity parameter would change. Be that as it may, the method of determining the reference sensitivity parameter is as descibed in the head posting, and, in may material respects, not as described in Willis Eschenbach’s posting.
Randy,
Please see my remarks above. There is an alternative albedo value in the literature — 0.367 — that carries some weight.
However, no one seems to have picked up on my claim that even if the albedo, as determined from Earthshine is known with great precision, it cannot capture the specular reflection from water, which goes off into space in a direction opposite from the moon.
And is only 2-3% at most.
G
It isn’t obvious to me that Confucians have much similarity to Libertarians.
The thing that separates Confucianism from Libertarianism is the former’s emphasis on family and social harmony. Confucianism is basically collectivist. The difference between the two is sheep and goats.
A basic principle of Confucianism is zhong xiao. Zhong is piety to the ruler. Xiao is piety to your parent. It requires total deference to both of them. The concept is highly nuanced and goes far beyond blind obediance.
If there is an ancient Chinese philosophy that comes close to libertarianism it would be the early Doaism of Laozi and Zhuangzi.
Worth reading the Analects, which I carry with me on my phone. Of course Confucius was publicly demonstrative of piety to the ruler: in those ungentle times, death followed otherwise. However, in the modern Chinese understanding, the contrast is drawn between totalitarianism, which is not only collectivist but subservient to the State, and libertarianism, which is not collectivist. To suggest that the family is a collectivist institution in the usual political sense of the term “collectivist” would be ridiculous.
You could simply look into the basic Confucian values. Those in themselves are pretty clear. Confucians do value social harmony, but that harmony is regarded as an emergent property of ethical behaviour on the individual’s part. Compare that with various schools of Libertarianism and you will find considerable similarity. Confucianism emphasizes individual action while the Legalists emphasized the rights of the state. Modern Chinese communist government falls into the same pattern “legalist” patterns that many Chinese governments have during the last three millennia. In those times individuals have no rights not permitted by the governing class – be it emperor and nobility or Chinese Communist Party.
Confucianism does not maximize autonomy. It focuses on the obligations people have to each other … the parents to the children … the children to the parents … the subjects to the ruler … the ruler to the subjects.
Clearly, obligations flow in both directions.
The Venn diagram circles representing Confucianism and Libertarianism certainly overlap. For instance, both emphasize individual responsibility. On the other hand, a good Confucian will subordinate his autonomy to his obligations to his family, community, and country.
Anyone asserting that Confucianism is Libertarianism has the problem of explaining zhong xiao.
In the document Zhong Jing (The Classic of Loyalty)
The root of Confucianism is service to others.
http://globalenergybudget.com/#Cloud
quote If GW is not AGW, then which is the next most dangerous human influence? unquote
Surfactant and light oil pollution of the ocean surface — fewer salt aerosols so stratocumulus reduction, reduced surface mixing and hence alteration of diatom and phytoplankton populations, albedo change, reduced wind surface engagement….
There you go.
JF,
The above shows that albedo can change quite easily. I have pointed out certain terrestrial changes will influence albedo those being snow cover, sea ice coverage and cloud coverage in particular.
I also stated that I think solar influences are likely behind this.
Look at my post sent at 2:07 pm Aug 22.
http://globalenergybudget.com/#Albedo
More info.
Mr del Prete seems to have an obsession with albedo. However, the Earth’s current albedo is of order 0.3; that is the value the models use; and that, therefore, is the value that is used in the head posting, which fairly points out that if albedo were to change the value of lambda-zero would also change.
And recall that I do not warrant that lambda-zero is fit for its purpose. I merely point out that it is determined by reference to emission temperature and not by reference to surface temperature – that was Willis Eschenbach’s error (I had formerly made the same error myself, but was willing to admit it as soon as it was pointed out to me). And it is at present determined – like it or not – under the assumption that albedo is of order 0.3, subsequent changes of albedo being treated not as forcings but as feedbacks and hence occurring at a stage in the calculation after the determination of lambda-zero.
As a matter of fact, 0.3 is the value the models use; as a matter of fact, lambda-zero is determined at the emission altitude; as a matter of fact, its value in the models and in IPCC’s reports is of order 0.3125, or 3.2^-1, Kelvin per Watt per square meter.
If Mr del Prete wishes to argue with IPCC on this point (and, as it turns out, there are excellent reasons why lambda-zero ought not to be used at all, but that is quite another story and not for today), then he should address himself to the IPCC secretariat and cease whining at me.
MODTRAN can be used to look both up an down from any altitude. The effective radiative altitude can be averaged, but the average masks enormous variation by wavelength and radiating gas.
From one meter. The red “background run” is looking down, and the blue looking up.
Ten meters.
One hundred meters.
Not until one kilometer do you begin to see a half baked signal in the CO2 bands looking down. The atmosphere simply does not radiate in the CO2 bands below 1km. It is all thermalized and mostly in the first few meters.
So much for the layer by layer photon hand-off approach from the surface to space.
If you wish to define the CO2 effective radiative elevation as the altitude where up and down flux are equal, it will be around 8km in the tropics, but this is not where the satellites see it. They see it at the tropopause, about 13km.
Mathematics is the art of making different things seem the same. The Plank constant relates temperature, intensity, and wavelength. Kirchoff will have absorption and radiation be equal at equilibrium. Evidently, the atmosphere, thought of as a material, has properties that demand a new equation.
Interesting; have you seen some of the first principles work that Clive Best has done in this
area also?
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5911
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6800
Thanks Jon,
Familiar with Clive but had not read those particular posts. What I am saying is radically different and I left a comment to that effect on the first link.
What I am saying is that NO photons from the surface EVER make it to space in the CO2 bands. Two lines of reasoning lead me to assert this.
The first, as I have been harping on about for some time, is that there is a flat zero transmission zone to the tropopause according to MODTRAN, that is defined by the fundamental bending mode of CO2 and its rotational sidekicks.
The 667.4 fundamental bend represents nearly 90% of the radiative potential of CO2. If none of this is getting through to the tropopause at 280ppm, there is already a fundamental disconnect.
The second reason, outlined in my initial comment, is that Modtran does not even see any CO2 radiation in the first kilometer of the atmosphere. Now THAT’S a disconnect.
This is all heresy, even here, so I very much appreciate your interest.
This is fascinating! thank you “gymnosperm”. Not that it matters much, but your MODTRAN runs and analysis here resonate with what my intuition has suspected. I just can’t seem to grasp how CO2:
o With its maximum extinction coefficient covering such a small portion of the spectrum, (especially when compared to water vapor, liquid and solid) and
o with its higher density than most other naturally occuring atmospheric gases, concentrating it into the lower altitudes of the atmosphere and
o with it’s solubility in water regularly “leaching” even that concentration out after a good storm, and
o with it never experiencing a (natural) phase change in the atmosphere . . . . .
that it can have anywhere near the impact to adversely warm the planet as the mythical 97% say it must have.
Bond albedo also is the fraction of the total solar radiation reflected by a planet back to space, but is dependent on the spectrum of the incident radiation because it’s defined over the entire range of wavelengths. Bond albedo is used to measure a planet’s energy balance. (It’s named for the American astronomer George Bond, who in 1861 published a comparison of the brightness of the sun, moon, and Jupiter.) Earth-orbiting satellites have measured the Earth’s bond albedo – the most recent values average approximately 0.33.
0.33, not “30%”
I wholeheartedly agree that dividing the flux from the Sun by 4 to make these calculations is an error. This is non-physical. The condition never exists.
CO2 is opaque to the spectrum it absorbs up until that altitude where it is no longer opaque. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere causes that altitude to vary. This variance causes the temperature at which the Earth radiates to space to vary. This variance causes the amount of heat found in the atmosphere to vary.
This altitude CANNOT BE CALCULATED!!!
It appears that Mr Moon is unaware that if about 30% of incident solar radiance is reflected harmlessly back to space one may express this either as a percentage, “30%” or as a fraction, 0.3. If Mr Moon multiplies 0.3 by 100 he will get 30. Simple once you have attended an elementary school.
Various values of the Earth’s albedo are given in various sources, but the modelers tend to use 0.3 (or 30%). Since the focus of the head posting was on how the reference sensitivity parameter is determined, it was and remains legitimate for me to take the figure that climatologists use and adopt it by way of illustration. If Mr Moon disagrees that the Earth’s albedo is about 30%, then he should direct his objections not to me but to the IPCC secretariat, which will want to see some evidence for his assertion.
.30 + .03 = .33. “30%” has one significant digit. Both “.30” and “.33” have two. I hope our good Count is aware of the difference.
When I took the final in “Transport of Heat and Mass” at the U of M, there were 180 kids in the class. Final counted for 90% of the grade, as the mid-term had been thrown out, and everyone got a perfect score in the labs. One problem, two hour test, NO ONE finished it. Nothing in my professional life has ever been so difficult. Elementary school indeed.
Your imprecise language concerning radiative flux (“density”?), and your confusion about significant digits, indicate that you have dipped your toe into a very deep, very foreign pond. None of your assertions are based on first principles. The IPCC does not base their assertions on first principles either. I have stated the fundamental first principles in my original post.
You should study the first principles before jumping into these deep waters…
And no reply? First principles, our Count…
The whining Mr Moon, if he were to go to a kindergarten and learn to read, would be able to discover that 0.3 (or, as a percentage, 30%) is the current value that nearly all models assign to albedo. Not 0.33; not 0.37; just 0.3, or occasionally 0.31. No error arises. therefore, from the assumption that albedo is as the models find it.
Mr Moon may well have taken an exam in transport of heat and mass, but he appears not to have been awake when the systeme internationale des unites was explained to his class. Briefly, the unit of radiant energy is the Joule. The absolute rate of energy flux (flux being the Latin word for “flow”) is expressed in Joules per second, also known as Watts. And the flux density, which is the rate of energy flux per unit area (in this case the square meter), is measured in Watts per square meter.
Mr Moon may care to avoid the unpleasant habit of assuming that an interlocutor with whom for some reason he wishes to manufacture a disagreement is using imprecise language when in fact his interlocutor’s use of language is precise but Mr Moon has insufficient elementary knowledge to appreciate that fact.
As to significant digits, I follow a simple rule. All input variables should be expressed to the highest precision available, but the output should be expressed to the least precision among any of the input variables. It is a good rule of thumb. My computer, which I program to perform flux-density and related calculations, uses an extended-precision routine that is capable (not always reliably: my calibration tests have identified one or two errors around which I must code) of determining results to 24-digit precision.
If Mr Moon, from some expert knowledge that he may possess, disagrees with IPCC’s understanding of the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to that of a disk, or if he disagrees with its finding, along with that of most of its models, that the Earth’s albedo is of order 0.3, then he should not snivel at me: he should snivel – for that is what he does best – at the IPCC secretariat, whose current email address will be found at ipcc.ch.
As for the determination of the mean emission altitude, it is a simple enough matter. One determines the emission temperature, deducts that from surface temperature and divides the answer by 6.5 to obtain the mean emission altitude in km.
If Mr Moon disagrees, he should snivel not at me but at the IPCC secretariat.
Wrong conclusions which is verified through the historical climatic record which shows the climate undergoes major and abrupt changes.
Can the value of the Planck parameter vary? Yes, if insolation varies, and yes, if albedo varies. But, since the solar “constant” is near-invariant, and since the albedo is unlikely to change much even if major ice losses eventually occur, lambda-zero will continue to be at or close to 0.313 K W–1 m2 for the foreseeable future.
Mr del Prete imagines a sudden climatic change in the near future. I acknowledge that possibility but do not consider it particularly likely.
But how could it happen ? Can you explain Mr. Monckton?
Monckton of Brenchley you are clueless when it comes to why and how the climate may change. Your focus of study is wrong and your statement that there is not much evidence a change in albedo can not change climate sensitivity is based on your opinion which is also wrong.
A change of albedo of .5 of a percent is all that is needed to have major climatic impacts.
Your line of study when it comes to the climate does nothing to explain why the earth has transitioned from glacial to inter-glacial conditions and why abrupt climatic changes occur sometimes in decades.
This whole article is a waste of time when it comes to why /how the climate may change especially if one like myself does not believe the GHG gas effect drives the climate but rather it is the other way around.
Question what factors do you think impact or change climate sensitivity ?
This argument for everything in the climate system is not subject to change is wrong.
I do not think you have ever looked at the historical climatic record for if you did the conclusions you apparently have would have never been reached.
Mr Del Prete, who has conducted this conversation in a generally vexatious and unscientific as well as discourteous fashion, has failed to appreciate that the purpose of the head posting was not to revisit the entire science of climate sensitivity analysis but instead to point out that Willis Eschenbach, in suggesting that I had erred in finding the value of the Planck or reference climate-sensitivity parameter to be 50% greater than he thought it should be, was himself in error, and to demonstrate the point by providing perhaps the most detailed and yet accessible account of its derivation that is at present publicly available.
The head posting specifically makes mention of the fact that the reference sensitivity parameter is only constant under the assumption – adopted ad argumentum in the head posting – that insolation and albedo are constant.
Finally, Mr Del Prete talks of his “belief” on a scientific matter. i have no beliefs on scientific matters. I examine the evidence to the best of my limited ability and report the results of my researches in the learned journals from time to time, discussing some of the ideas here too.
On weighing all the evidence, I consider that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentration will fall on the interval [0.8, 1.3] K. The rather sparse scientific literature on climate sensitivity is moving inexorably in my direction. It is possible that climate sensitivity could be less than the interval I have mentioned, but even if this were the case my derivation and determination of the reference-sensitivity parameter are both scientiically correct, and that of Willis Eschenbach was in several crucial respects in error. And that is all there is to it.
Here is the problem albedo and insolation are NOT constant because if that were the case the climate of the earth would stay in a highly regulated state for eternity.
This is what is frustrating with your approach which is a disregard for the historical climatic record.
What you are driving at I think is to show that the climate sensitivity to an increase in CO2 is very limited.
Which is fine but I would like you to express if possible your theory as to why Ice Ages come and go given your premise that albedo and insolation are constant.
I want to understand how you square that and then apply it to the present climate situation.
Do you believe albedo and insolation are constant ?
Mr del Prete persists in missing the point that in the determination of lambda-zero one is taking today’s albedo value, not some imagined past or future value. Any subsequent changes in albedo are reflected in the models by way of temperature feedbacks. Lambda-zero, however, is determined at the pre-feedback stage.
I think that Lord M. has formed a definition which has a precedent, but the terms he used aren’t used. The term that is typically used is the “Effective Emission Temperature” of the Earth. This is generally worked out to be 255 degrees K, which is about 40 degrees below the average “surface” temperature of the Earth. (See here: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/Lectures/chap2.pdf ) Using a normal lapse rate calculator to get to 255 you need to go to about 3500 meters. SO I think that Lord M’s Planck emission surface is the altitude at which the normal lapse rate gives us the 255 degree temperature. Now as to how this fits in with any “feedback”, I have no idea. HOWEVER, Lord M., am I correct on your meaning of “Plank Emission Surface”?
In response to Mr Hugoson, the head posting contains a surely clear enough calculation demonstrating that the Earth’s emission temperature is just shy of 255 K – and, more importantly, demonstrating how that value is arrived at.
To determine the mean altitude of the “surface” at which incoming and outgoing radiation are equal, one simply takes the surface temperature 289 K, subtracts the emission temperature 255 K, and divides the 34 K difference by the temperature lapse rate of 6.5 K/km to obtain the mean Planck emission altitude in km: thus: 34 / 6.5 = 5.2 km.
In case I didn’t make myself clear, your answer was “spot on”….and shows that despite the fact that you may have “coined a new label” (i.e. EMISSION SURFACE) it took me approximately 10 microseconds to figure out what it meant (your feedback to me IS exactly the point I was trying to make.) Ergo, Willis needs to be a little more DYNAMIC in his approach to things. He needs to be ready to understand “intent”. (Let’s put it this way, I don’t program in R code. I don’t engage in the marvelous statistical work that Willis does. YET, elucidating what the Good Lord meant, was…as they used to say oft times in my Engineering textbooks, a trivial exercise left up to the reader. (Which really meant, get a pot of coffee, two tablets, your Sci Calculator (my era) and prepare to stay up to 3AM to figure this out.) Now it comes to the need to understand the “intent” of words, I suggest anyone with interest, locate a PDF copy of Churchill’s “Complex Variables”. A textbook I had for a course with that name. Typically it took me three read through of a 12 to 15 page chapter. Then a word by word examination WITH the equations and graphs (which would take about 3 to 4 hours.) THEN, I could spend my 8 to 10 hours doing the problem set for the week. I continuously think of this, when I examine attempts to derive “utilitarian” models for a system with INFINITELY more variables than ANY problem found in Churchill.
IMO the very concept of ECS is bogus. If valid, it would only apply to the world as it is now in every climatically relevant detail, which won’t be the same between now and AD 2100, but might indeed vary significantly.
If there were an ECS 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000, 100,000,000 or a billion years ago, it was substantially different from now, as shown by recorded and geologic history.
Too many other factors enter into climate variability for a hard and fast rule to apply to ECS. IMO net feedback is liable to be negative, so even if there be such a thing as ECS, it’s probably less than the nominal 1.2 degrees C per doubling of CO2. IMO, a lot less.
In answer to Gabro, any mathematician, and certainly any physicist, will be familiar with the concept of performing a calculation holding some parameters fixed. It is a fact that, all other things being equal, returning some CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came will cause some warming. The climate sensitivity equation is designed to give us some idea of how much warming will be caused. As it happens, the official equation contains at least two material errors, one in the determination of the CO2 radiative forcing and the other in the analysis of temperature feedbacks. I suspect it is these two errors, in combination, that are the chief reason why models run hot. Further work is beng done as we speak. Watch this space.
Holding “everything else fixed” is useful for models. Otherwise it is totally unreal. We simply can not hold everything else fixed. That’s not how Mother Nature works. That’s why can not measure ECS, even in principle. That’s why we don’t know it with any accuracy after all those years and resources spent.
Another possible reason for the models running hot is using a total reflectivity that is too low!
In answer to Curious George, I do not say that the models hold everything else fixed – merely that they hold some things fixed. Any model, other than a complete representation of reality, which is unattainable, will hold some things fixed and parameterize others.
“Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. (!!!!!!!!) The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance (which at 0.04% is not going to happen, not when the alleged reflective steel/glass domes are colanders that are 99.96% hole.) by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
In my opinion the 240 W/m^2, 255 K, occurs at the top of the troposphere/tropopause where atmospheric and surface absorptions reunite, where atmospheric density has dropped to the point that conduction and convection no longer work and the only heat flow comes from radiation. That is why S-B applies in this case, but not at the surface. Also why S-B applies to the sun’s photosphere. The full 340 W/m^2 applies at ToA.
It is the thermal conductivity of the troposphere and Q = U * A * dT that makes the surface the temperature it is, not the thermodynamically unsupportable 333 W/m^2 perpetual loop that actually doesn’t produce any net change in the heat (power flux) balance anyway. It’s the same formula that makes your house 70 F inside on a 30 F day outside. It’s the same formula that applies to the blanket you wrap around yourself at a high school football game.
Above the tropopause density falls to the point that traditional thermo/heat transfer/physics etc. is compromised. When a molecule has to travel a km to interact with another, hard-deck surface/object concepts of heat and energy begin to fall apart.
NS,
Yes. For example, what is the vertical profile of the atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Does it stay at a constant 400 ppm by volume until with altitude it becomes so dilute that it cannot be detected, so dilute that it cannot take part in radiative energy exchanges? Or does it unmix because of its high gas density compared to major air components?
Or does it stay at 400 ppm until a certain altitude, above which it disappears in square wave form?
I do not understand this well enough, but I have much unease about the ability of GHG to do some of the claimed physics when the number of molecules per cubic metre becomes vanishingly small.
Geoff
The atmosphere is well mixed up to the mesopause at about 85km. The mesosphere (50-85km) gets cooler with increasing altitude primarily because CO2 emits IR radiation.
To add to Mr Clemenzi’s point, CO2 has been found to be near-uniformly mixed at all altitudes. Its partial pressure is just about the same throughout the atmospheric column.
Monckton of Brenchley August 24, 2016 at 11:47 am
To add to Mr Clemenzi’s point, CO2 has been found to be near-uniformly mixed at all altitudes.
Correct
Its partial pressure is just about the same throughout the atmospheric column.
Its partial pressure is not constant it decreases in line with the local pressure, it is the volume fraction (ppm) which is approximately constant.
How well-mixed? What are the flows the CO2 sensing sat. is now reporting?
CO2 appears to be very poorly mixed at low altitudes.
At low altitudes CO2 can vary by more than 100%, ie., about 300 ppm to over 600 ppm. I seem to recall that when I had exchanges on this with Ferdinand Engelbeen he provided examples where low altitude CO2 was more than 700 ppm,
It is because CO2 is very poorly mixed at low altitudes that the IPCC dismissed the restatement work by Ernst Beck. It is only at mid to high altitudes that CO2 becomes a well mixed (in relative terms) gas.
The scientifically-challenged Phil. seems not to appreciate that the partial pressure of a gas is the concentration of that gas: the ratio of its molarity to that of the atmosphere as a whole. Its partial pressure, therefore, remains constant at all altitudes, even though absolute atmospheric pressure diminishes with altitude.
Monckton of Brenchley August 25, 2016 at 1:44 am
The scientifically-challenged Phil. seems not to appreciate that the partial pressure of a gas is the concentration of that gas: the ratio of its molarity to that of the atmosphere as a whole. Its partial pressure, therefore, remains constant at all altitudes, even though absolute atmospheric pressure diminishes with altitude.
It is not I who is scientifically challenged but Monckton! The ratio of the partial pressure of a gas to the total pressure is equal to the mole fraction of that gas therefore as the mole fraction remains constant with altitude then the partial pressure decreases with altitude as the total pressure decreases. See Dalton’s law of partial pressures.
Phil. is not scientifically challenged. He is right.
” the partial pressure of a gas is the concentration of that gas”
Well, it’s proportional to it, for an ideal gas.
” the ratio of its molarity to that of the atmosphere as a whole”
Not true at all. The partial pressure is the pressure the gas would exert if there were no other gases present. As Phil. says, for a constituent of the atmosphere, it is basically mole fraction times atmospheric pressure.
Just for the elucidation of those reading, above about 25,000′ (sorry, old style)…CO2 has been classically considered an UPFLUX gas, as water is also considered (for pure IR transfer in the gaseous state) in the whole atmosphere.
Troposphere is 17 km at equator, 9 km at poles. 30,000′ is about 9 km. Power’s U-2 flew at 20 km.
I simply doubt that the clouds account 97 % of the albedo. I have relied on the research of Zhang et al. published in 2004, which is based on the huge measurement data from satellites and from the ground based stations. In the most common energy balance presentations, the SW flux from the surface is about 23-25 W/m2. This can be compared to the total outgoing SW flux, which is about 100-105 W/m2. If the surface reflected flux would be only 3 W/m2, it would mean a massive error in earlier studies. It should be noticed that the surface reflected SW flux can be measured on the ground-based stations. The satellite measurements cannot separate the sources in the clear sky conditions, whether the reflected SW flux originates from the atmosphere (aerosols and particles) or from the surface.
I still rely on the older results, which is according to my research paper in W/m2 fro the all-sky conditions: total flux 104, reflected by the clouds 68, reflected by the surface 23, and reflected by the atmosphere (air) 13.
In response to Aveolilla, I had read a paper a couple of years ago that had given 97% as the fraction of albedo that occurred above rather than at the Earth’s surface, and nearly all of that supra-surface fraction was attributed to clouds. But other values are possible, not that any of this has anything much to do with the determination of lambda-zero. The models find the value of lambda-zero broadly constant at or about 0.3, and that is the value I took, and, to the extent that the overwhelming preponderance of the albedo is of supra-surface rather than of surface origin, there is a good case for expecting the albedo to remain broadly constant under modern conditions. Insofar as the usual suspects may be correct in finding that albedo changes materially as a result of global warming, then they take account of that by treating the albedo changes as a feedback, whereas lambda-zero is determined before feedbacks are considered and, therefore, at today’s value 0.3 or thereby.
Monckton of Brenchley August 24, 2016 at 11:45 am
Oh, he’s good, our good Lord. In response to being told by myself and others that his numbers for cloud albedo are wrong, wrong, wrong, and despite being provided with references to back that up, he merely says something which is undeniably true, that “other values are possible”.
Yes, Lord Monckton, other values are indeed possible. What is NOT possible is your ludicrous 97% value, because it is wrong. Not just a little wrong, not slightly off, but way, way wrong.
If you could bring yourself to actually admit that you made a mistake, your stock would go way up … or you could continue to damage your reputation by issuing true but misleading statements that do not begin to acknowledge the depth of your incorrect claim.
w.
Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10 displays the values of 8 models. Albedo ranges from 94 to 117 W/m^2 with an average of 102, +15/-8 . Compare that 23 W/m^2 band of uncertainty to IPCC AR5’s 261 year additional CO2 RF of 2.
TSI ranges from 1,323 to 1,415 W/m^2, +/- 45 W/m^2 from 1,368 & 342 because of the eccentric orbit. The RFs of GHGs are lost in the magnitudes and uncertainties of natural fluctuations.
The calculation of lambda by Monckton of Brenchley utilizing the Earth’s energy balance according to Planck’s equation is simple and clear except one thing. Two parameters, which have been used, are based on the experimental measurements: the temperature corresponding to the emitted LW radiation and the absorbed SW energy flux of the Earth. Both values are the average long-term values of the Earth. This calculation shows that the lambda is 0.267 K/(W/m2). It means that this value is tied to the experimental parameters of the Earth.
My question is, why we should change this result by multiplying the lambda with the Hölder coefficient? If so, then we admit that actually the simple energy balance equation used for calculating lambda is not valid. I think that it is and that is why the lambda value of 0.267 K/(W/m2) is correct.
Aveolilla is of course correct that if one differentiates the SB equation by reference to emission-altitude temperature and flux density one arrives at a value 0.267 Kelvin per Watt per square meter. However, the true value is determined (I know, because I determined it to make sure the models had gotten it right) by the integration of latitudinal calculations – actually, quite a nice problem in spherical geometry, to make proper allowance for the Hoelder Inequality. I determined the coefficient to be approximately 7/6. Multiply that by 0.267 and you get 0.312, which is the canonical value of lambda-zero.
Lord Monckton, you say:
I fear your habit of not citing or explaining a number of your claims is coming back to bite you. What is the basis for your “97%” claim?
I ask because if you look at e.g the Kiehl/Trenberth budget, it gives cloud reflection as being 78 W/m2, and ground reflection as being 24 W/m2, for a total of 102 W/m2.
CERES also gives about those figures, with the ground reflection being observed as being 24 W/m2, and cloud reflection being 76 W/m2, for a total of 100 W/m2 …
In neither case do I get clouds being responsible for 97% of the albedo or anything near it. How have you done your calculations? What am I missing here?
Regards,
w.
I also wonder about that?
In answer to Willis Eschenbach, a paper of 2011 (of which I foolishly kept no copy, for I read it on the fly) gave the surface fraction of total albedo as 3% and albedo from clouds (with some contribution from the blue end of the spectrum) accounted for the remainder.
But all of this is peripheral to the main point, which is that lambda-zero is, like it or not, currently determined by reference to the Earth’s emission temperature 255 K and not by reference to its surface temperature 289 K. That is where Willis went wrong. Or, as will shortly be revealed, partly wrong.
Monckton of Brenchley August 24, 2016 at 11:39 am
So … no citation.
Perhaps it is peripheral to the main point (to be reveal\ed shortly, it appears), perhaps it is not.
What it is not peripheral to is your unfortunate habit of making uncited, unreferenced, incorrect claims. As I said above, when a man tells me a term means something “by definition”, and then later admits he made up the term and thus there is no definition for the term … well, I get nervous. And when he doubles down by making an error that is as basic to the science as claiming clouds make up 97% of the albedo … well, the perplexity goes into overdrive. That error just tells me you know very little about albedo.
I looked at the 97% number, busted out laughing, and said “Christopher’s at it again” … and that, my dear friend, is a problem.
Finally, you say:
Unfortunate, you are not doing that. You are using a reference temperature of 297 (7/6 * 255, according to you), which is even warmer than the surface.
w.
Willis, don’t whine. You incorrectly determined lambda-zero by reference to surface rather than emission temperature, and it is now time to stop wriggling and admit it. It’s not a difficult point, and your diversions around it do not impress.
Mr Escenbach should really stop digging. The Earth’s emission temperature is of order 255 K, and the value H = 7/6 allows for necessary latitudinal variations.
Monckton of Brenchley August 25, 2016 at 1:41 am
To begin with, let me suggest that if you won’t listen to me regarding your unpleasant ad hominem attacks, you should listen to Viscount Brenchley, who said:
That Viscount Brenchley guy has got a good handle on the useless (and unpleasant) nature of ad hominem attacks. He knows that accusing a man of “wriggling” is just a way to avoid actually dealing with the issues that the man brings up for examination, and the Viscount strongly condemns these kinds of attacks. You should pay attention to him.
So please, leave off the accusations of “wriggling” and the like. Perhaps you “wriggle”, I wouldn’t know … but I assuredly do not. I’m known for the fact that I can assuredly be convinced that I am wrong, and that when I’m wrong I say I’m wrong and make no bones about it.
But whether or not I wriggle, jiggle, or dance naked under the moon is immaterial to the science. It is just a nasty, cheap, and untrue attack on ME rather than on my SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS. It demeans you and damages your well-deserved reputation as a clever and sometimes inspired wordsmith.
Next, I indeed determined lambda-zero by reference to surface temperatures. But whether that is incorrect or not is the very subject in dispute. Once again you are prematurely trying to claim victory and close off debate, and as I said before, when someone announces that the the debate is over and they won, all that means is that a) they’d like very much for the debate to be over, but b) … it isn’t.
So let me suggest that you emulate the rooster and wait until it is actually dawn before you start crowing. And in the meantime, if you were to stop the puerile ad hominem attacks and actually reply to some of my questions and observations, we could have a discussion on the subject of lambda-zero, a fascinating subject indeed.
For example, you claimed that the global lapse rate is 6.5°C per 1000 metres elevation … but the CERES data not only says you are wrong because it varies from about 3 to about 9°C per thousand metres, but also … the area-weighted global average is only 4.8°C per thousand metres.
Now, that incorrect 6.5°C lapse rate is obviously used in your calculations … so what difference does it make to your results? It might be of no consequence, but since your number is 35% higher than the CERES observations, that seems unlikely … so what difference does it make?
Or you could continue to claim that pointing out your error is just a “diversion” and keep on not answering objections to your theory … up to you.
w.
Ref Willis Eschenbach August 26, 2016 at 5:01 pm
In the troposphere, there are 3 important Lapse Rates
* DALR – Dry adiabatic lapse rate, about 9.8 K/km
* ELR – Environmental lapse rate, 6.5 K/km
* SALR – Saturated adiabatic lapse rate, variable, 3 to 9.8 K/km, typically about 4.9 near the surface
When air rises via convection, it cools at the DALR.
When water condenses from rising air, it cools at the SALR (which varies with height).
However, when balloons measure the actual lapse rate, it is “usually” almost exactly the ELR.
In any sounding, there is a high probability of finding all 3 of those, DALR near the surface, SALR when clouds are forming, and ELR from the top of the clouds up to the tropopause.
The other important lapse rate is the surface inversion that occurs from shortly before sunset until a few hours after sun rise. (At the poles, this inversion lasts for several months!)
If you want a global average for models, the ELR (6.5 K/km) is the correct value to use.
Lord Monckton, I’m also confused by this claim:
Satellites, as far as I know, perceive the radiation from the surface, from the clouds, and from the atmosphere. For example, the satellites use that radiation to tell us the temperature of the cloud tops. How is this done if the satellites are solely perceiving radiation from the mid-troposphere as you claim?
Yes, there is something generally called the “effective emissions level” or the “effective radiation level”. But it is an EFFECTIVE level, meaning it is an AVERAGE of the various levels, not a real surface as you seem to assume.
Also, when you say “one optical depth” what frequency are you talking about? Because the atmosphere has different optical depths depending on frequency. The problem is that the effective radiation level is not the same everywhere, nor is the optical depth. And since radiation can clearly come from higher altitudes than the effective emission level, I’m sorry, but that radiation is coming from much less than one optical depth.
Nor is the effective emission level at “about 300 mb” as you claim without substantiation or citation. Here’s a map of the effective emission levels for both upwelling and downwelling IR:
SOURCE
Note that NOWHERE is the effective emission level at the pressure you specified, 300 hPa. Not at the poles, not at the equator, nowhere.
Finally, I note that you claim that the “Planck emission surface” (which may or may not be what the charts are showing since you have never bothered to define the term) has the same radiation up and down, viz:
This sounded nuts to me, so I went to MODTRAN, and used default values for GHGs. At 0.1 km looking up gives me 342 W/m2 downwelling, and looking down it’s 420 W/m2 upwelling radiation. And as I go higher, both values decrease until at 70 km., looking up gives me 0 W/m2 downwelling and looking down it’s 388 W/m2 upwelling.
The point I’m making is that the upwelling and downwelling IR are NEVER equal. At all levels, upwelling is larger than downwelling.
So it’s not clear what you mean when you say “incoming and outgoing radiation are equal”. This was a part of the problem I had with your curious term “Planck effective surface”, in that you seemed to claiming that the “Planck emission surface” was doing impossible things.
Thanks for the answers, these are puzzling questions to me that are not answered in your post or anywhere else I can find.
w.
The laws of thermodynamics require that in steady state as much radiation must go forth from the Earth as arrives thereat. There will, therefore, be some altitude at which, for each wavelength and in each place, outgoing and incoming radiation are equal. The mean altitude is determinable from the mean emission temperature.
Absolutely wrong! The incoming is in the wavelength band 0.25-3.0 microns, the outgoing in the band 5-50 microns, there is no requirement that they balance at any given wavelength. On the contrary the sum over all wavelengths is what must balance over the planet as a whole, the arctic in winter will still emit even though there’s no incoming radiation.
Agreed Willis.
Here’s an experiment using MODTRAN.
I zeroed out all the GHGs at the Midlatitude Summer setting (no clouds) looking down from 70km and a T offset of 5.8K. That gives a black body emission of 416 W/m^2 and a surface T of 300K (all emission from surface).
Restore all the GHGs except H2O and you’ll see the same BB curve with three absorption bands for CO2, O3 and CH4. So ignoring water for the moment this allows us to define a Planck emission surface for the permanent GHGs, emission 362W/m^2 for a surface T of 300K, needs ~12K warmer surface to reach 416W/m^2.
For CO2 (400ppm) the center of band is emitting to space at ~220K (12km), the Q-branch gives a spike at ~245K (35km), about halfway up the wings (~600cm^-1 & ~750cm^-1) it’s at ~260K (6.5km) and a little wider it’s back to 300K (0km).
It remains at 300K (0km) until the O3 band is reached at ~1000cm^-1 and then drops to ~270K (45km) then returns to 0km at about 1100cm^-1.
It remains at 300K (0km) until the CH4 band is reached at ~1250cm^-1 and then drops to ~280K (3.5km) before returning to 300K at ~1400cm^-1.
Addition of water reduces the effective altitude below 600cm^-1 and above 1200cm-1, giving 336W/m2 at a temperature of 312K, a further 19K rise is necessary to reach 416W/m2
So you end up with a rather funky graph, in terms of hPa:
cm-1 hPa
300 260
550 700
600 400
650 150
750 900
1000 1000
1050 550
1100 1000
1200 1000
1500 260
So not a chance of averaging out at 300hPa! My best guess would be that 300hPa would be the average for the CO2 band alone?
I hope the author’s knowledge and understanding of climate and the mechanisms of climate change are greater by far than his knowledge and understanding of Scotland. That he should write so much rubbish about my country makes me even more suspicious than I previously was of his “contribution” to the climate debate. If self regard and contempt for others were Olympic disciplines I suspect he’d have won golds in both.
Aha! A member of the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Scotland. Well, it’s my country too, but both my lovely wife and I were shocked to see the terrible decline of the past five or six years. Edinburgh is prosperous enough, because that is the center of the totalitarians’ web, and is draining the wealth away from everywhere else just as in the time of the Clearances. The same mistakes are being made. The same growing poverty is becoming visible. And the once-fair hills are scarred by bird-blending, bat-blatting windmills. How sad it is to see the decline that is the inevitable handmaiden of totalitarianism.
Fortunately, the people are beginning to notice. The democratic spirit of Scotland will arise again, as it has before, and sweep away the dismal bureaucratic centralizers. Not before time. But by then, our great birds will be extinct. The golden eagles, hen harriers, ospreys, capercailzie, blackcocks – all will be a memory, as those monstrous monuments to totalitarian folly, the 14th-century technology to address a 21st-century non-problem, rust in place. O Scotland of old, how we long for thee!
As I noted elsewhere NASA defines the “emission surface” as 100 km and where the 342 ISR & OLR must balance. The 333 endless loop does not effect this balance and can and should be simply erased from the picture.
It’s typical of a Tory to blame anything that happens under a Tory government on someone else. This time the excuse is not ‘a global recession’ or ‘the EU mandarins’ but a largely toothless Scottish National Party. For folk that prefer truth to bluster, the stated case by the SNP for Scottish independence is that Scottish politicians have zero power either with or without the current limited Scottish parliament to affect growth one way or another except in the rather limited promotion of Scottish goods; the sales of which have happily been enough to offset the oil-industry decline so far. That decline, which is inevitable, is, according to the independent Wood report, being made much worse by the numerous new Tory exploration taxes combined with the general inflexibility, inaction and malcomprehension of engineering industry that the Tories are famous for.
The reason Tories are as unwelcome in Scotland as a fart in a spacesuit is because they are to blame for its deindustrialisation in the ’80s – after which, having made many people unemployed they then started to taunt the newly unemployed Scots as ‘subsidy junkies’.
As for Wind power please note that if it will work anywhere then it will work in very windy Scotland and that currently it contributes to the 50% of power generated being renewable; not an unreasonable feat!
And nobody has clearly been put off touring Scotland by Wind turbines since tourism is 9% up on last year. Indeed many of us rather like them.
I wondered when the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Scotland would start sending its minions to post here. Well, here is the NSSAP policy on protection of Scotland’s great birds: Kill them! Kill them all! But that is not my policy, and it is not the policy of the people of Scotland.
The scientifically and economically illiterate NSSAP have achieved a world first in the dismal history of the dismal science. By closing down their last cheap, coal-fired power station and by depending on the vagaries of the wind, they have put themselves simultaneously at the mercy of a monopoly and a monopsony. When the wind is not blowing, they must buy electricity from England at any price England cares to charge; and when the wind is blowing too much, they must export electricity to England at any price it cares to pay. And the electricity these monsters generate is, in reality, thrice the price of coal-fired power.
If there is to be another independence referendum, this time prior to the vote, it should be made clear on what terms Scotland would depart the Union. Unlike the Brexit campaign it is very easy in advance to lay out the main terms of exit.This would obviously include (amongst other matters).
(i) whether Scotland may use the Pound (or whether it needs its own currency),
(ii) how much it is obliged to reimburse for the bailed out Scottish companies which were the main subject matter of the financial collapse,
(iii) whether Scotland should repay the overspend per capita resulting from the continued use of the unfair Barnett Formula,
(iv) if England is to help defend Scotland what contribution Scotland should make for this service, and
(v) the point raised by you regarding energy price, eg., England will buy the surplus Scottish electricity at the cost of the lowest coal fire generator price, and when Scotland needs to buy electricity to make up shortfall resulting from their renewables not providing the necessaries then Scotland will buy it from England at the most expensive strike price paid for wind (eg off shore wind strike price) even though England will be producing the electricity from fossil fuels (ie.take advantage of needs, supply and demand).
I have always considered that the SNP misunderstood how much revenues would be earned from oil (given that licences have already been sold, and the oil companies are not Scottish companies and the oil can be landed off-shore) and possibly even which oil fields would be in Scottish waters once one extrapolates the SW to NE line of the boarder out into the North sea.
if Scotland is to have any hope of making a go of independence, then it would need, in the early and formative years of independence, a right wing government who would prioritise earnings and export and minimise government spending making sure that it was balancing the books, and this would require pushing full ahead with Shale Gas extraction and cutting corporation tax and/or giving companies that relocate to Scotland advantage tax deals.
History shows that all socialist governments run out of money and do so rather quickly at that. Given that history, it would be likely that having the SNP in power when independence is obtained would be a disaster. The newly independent country would get off to a poor start from which it may never recover, or at any rate it would be a generational issue.
JasG: “The reason Tories are as unwelcome in Scotland as a fart in a spacesuit is because they are to blame for its deindustrialisation in the ’80s”
No, that was a combination of the militant trades unions and the Labour party’s nationalisation policies, which between them reduced not just Scottish industry but pretty much industry of the rest of the UK as well to irrecoverable basketcases, utterly dependent on exponentially increasing amounts of taxpayer subsidy and industrial disruption for exponentially decreasing levels of production.
All the Conservatives did was to put them out of their misery.
It is interesting to note that both Labour the Liberal democrats now possess only one seat, how do you explain that?
Scotland is a bit smaller than Maine w/ 5 times the population. “Solutions” are not universal.
Monckton ==> You have my congratulations, verily a Gold Star, for “Exemplary Patience”.
I submit, however, that eventually you have to acknowledge that some of these comments are simply “tweenage-style trolling” disguised as questions about your article and the science therein. If you keep replying to them, they keep trolling. I suggest giving them your best answer and then cutting them off, one at a time.
Good luck!
Kip Hansen:
You characterize “some of these comments” as “tweenage-style trolling.” Is there a way in which this characterization can assist us in reaching a logical conclusion regarding the cause of global warming? I don’t believe that there is. If your belief is contrary to mine let us hear your argument.
Reply to Terry Oldberg ==> My comment is addressed expressly to Monckton — I am communicating to/with the author of this essay, which is one of the major purposes of the Comment Section. It is not intended to add anything to the Climate Debate but simply to congratulate Monckton for his patience in dealing with the comments (with which, as an frequent guest author here, I am very familiar) and point out that he not only need not, but should not, over-engage with obvious trolls.
My view of the Comment Section here at WUWT is contrary to the seeming “consensus” view that this section is where combatants in the Climate Wars gather to snipe at one another endlessly, state the sections of the ‘Articles of Faith’, the talking points, of their side in the Climate Debate as if they were fact, denigrate one another, make random snide remarks, attack authors, attack ideas, and engage in all other sorts of non-constructive nonsense.
Mr Hansen is right: a number of trolls, no small fraction of them paid to cause disruption of these threads, pile in whenever I write. What is interesting is to observe that the trolling has become more subtle than before, as it slowly dawns on the paymasters that the official science is indeed as wrong as we say it is. They are now playing for time to go on profiting just a little longer from all this nonsense. And they show themselves up for what they are by their persistence in sheer inaccuracy.
I have had some very interesting comments privately from eminent scientists who would never dream of posting comments in fora such as this. Those comments show quite clearly that I have correctly and fairly represented the IPCC method ot determining lambda-zero. Though there is a lot wrong with that method, as my team will in due course demonstrate, to start the calculation at the emission altitude and not at the hard-deck surface is the correct first step.
“Those comments show quite clearly that I have correctly and fairly represented the IPCC method ot determining lambda-zero.”
Not true. The use of the effective emission temperature is correct, but the talk of Hölder coefficients is a Monckton fantasy. From Roe’s now much cited review:
“λ0 = … = 1/(4 σ T^3)
For an equilibrium temperature of 255 K, λ0 = 0.26 K (W m−2 )−1 . In practice, the finite absorptivity of the atmosphere in the longwave band means that, in global climate models, the reference climate sensitivity parameter, determined after removing all dynamic feedbacks, is 0.31 to 0.32 K (W m−2 )−1 (e.g., Hansen et al. 1984, Colman 2003, Soden & Held 2006).”
The “7/6” factor is due to absorptivity, not surface averaging, and is worked out from models. Soden and Held set it out (using an inverse convention):
“The strength of λ0 (Table 1) ranges from roughly -3.1 to -3.2 W m^2 K^-1. Intermodel differences in λ0 arise from different spatial patterns of warming; models with greater high-latitude warming, where the temperature is colder, have smaller values of λ0.”
Table 1 gives various model values.
Mr Stokes is, as usual, incorrect, as he would have discovered if he had done the math. Like it or not, the values of lambda-zero vary latitudinally, as his citation from Soden and Held makes quite clear, and as anyone familiar with spherical geometry would know. And small variations in lambda-zero from one model to another arise because the models assume slightly different latitudinal distributions of warming. Reducing the latitudinal variations to a single Hoelder-inequality coefficient leads to no error.
“Like it or not, the values of lambda-zero vary latitudinally, as his citation from Soden and Held makes quite clear”
That makes no sense. λ0 is defined as a global quantity. It has a single value, cited here as 0.312. It can’t vary with latitude.
What Roe and S&H say is that the modification from .26 to .31 is due to absorptivity in the atmosphere, determined by GCM. The effects of absorption do depend on the location of warming, and diffrent models reflect that to a small extent. In S&H Table 1, the (inverse) λ0 varies from 3.17 to 3.26. That is a far cry from saying that the correction is due to the difference between integrating T and T^4 )Hölder), as in the head post. There is nothing to support that in either paper.
Christopher, I’m with Nick on the question you haven’t answered, and me agreeing with Nick doesn’t happen often. Let me rephrase it.
Yes, you can do a double-integral to figure out the total radiation. OR, you can use actual measurements of 1°x1° gridcells and take an area-weighted average, which is what I did. Here’s that result.
Note that the situation is NOT as either Nick or Lord Monckton described. The negative of the slope of the line gives the value of the Planck parameter dT/dW. For most of the planet, there is no latitudinal change in the value of lambda-zero. But in the equatorial region, the slope goes NEGATIVE … how will using the Hoelder Inequality fix that?
Now, with my method (area-weighted observations), the calculated average LW radiation leaving the earth from all of those gridcells is ~ 240 W/m2. And we know this is correct, because that is the amount coming in.
SO … why would I need the Hoelder Inequality to determine the Planck parameter, when I not only do NOT need it to determine the outgoing radiation, but it gives me a WRONG ANSWER if the 7/6 fraction is applied? In both cases it’s just outgoing radiation, why one and not the other?
I also note that other than using argument by assertion, you have not answered Nick’s other question—why does the IPCC say the 7/6 factor is NOT from the Hoelder Inequality, but results from absorptivity? Yes, they could be wrong … but you not answering Nick’s questions is not a good sign.
Finally, although you keep claiming that the debate is over and you are right, the IPCC says you’re wrong … and whether they are right are not, that is clear evidence that the debates still rages, and you have NOT been declared the winner by anyone but yourself. Lucia thinks you’re wrong. I think you’re wrong. The IPCC thinks you’re wrong. Nick Stokes thinks you’re wrong.
So it is clear that the debate is far from over … and it will remain that way until you start answering the hard questions.
Finally, you say:
Right. And you have some data about cloud albedo that you can’t find. And you have data from John Christy that you haven’t revealed. I’m sorry, but anecdotes about unspecified claims made by un-named scientists do nothing but make me laugh. But if you want to go at it via anecdote, let me tell you that I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of my claims, which this margin is too small to contain, so obviously I must be right and the debate is over … you see the problem?
I know that you are used to your word being taken as gospel. But in the world of science, such claims are just anecdotes, and crappy anecdotes at best, whether they are told by an idiot or a Viscount. Without the claimed cloud albedo data, without the John Christy data, without the actual comments made by the scientists, it’s just more handwaving. The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
Best regards,
w.
PS—If your “eminent scientists” are unwilling to make their opinions public, claims about what they said are worthless, NOT because of you or whether you are trustworthy, but because we have no way to assess their veracity, value, or truth-content. In other words, your claims are neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
So I don’t care if they post them here, but for me to believe you, they’d have to post them somewhere and sign them. Because at present, we have no way to know if they understand you or not, we have no way to determine if their assessment is correct, we have no way to know if they are talking about the same thing you are, we have no way to know if they’ve read all of the very relevant questions that you have not answered, we don’t know if they’ve read my previous post, we don’t know if they are “eminent”, and we don’t know if they are “scientists” … and if you can’t tell if it is correct or not, if you cannot either verify or falsify a claim, IT’S NOT SCIENCE.