# The IPCC is Wrong

As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant.

Guest essay submitted by William Van Brunt

Summary

The following are the basic principles and assumptions underlying the calculations set out in this paper:

1. The heating provided by CO2 is radiant heating and for purposes of this paper, when calculating the increase in heating that is a result of the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere the only source of any increase in heating in these calculations is CO2 and the Water Vapor Feedback Effect it creates.

2. In order to maintain a given temperature, the power of the radiant heating absorbed by the Earth’s surface must at least equal the power of the thermal radiation emitted by the surface.

3.The total heating power, ΔF,  required to drive a given increase in the temperature of the surface of Land can be determined as,

ΔF =  [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)4 – 1] × RULo  / Eff

Where:       TLo is the initial average temperature of Land

ΔTL is the change in the average surface temperature of Land,

RULo is the initial Up Radiation at TLo

Eff is the percentage of an increase in Total Heating that heats the Earth’s Land     surface.

The increase in heating power, ΔRadCO2, caused solely by an increase in the concentration of CO2 from the initial concentration, C0 to C, in ppmv, is determined by this formula –

ΔRadCO2 = 5.35 × ln (C / C0) (w/m2),

which means that there is but one result for ΔRadCO2 for a given change in concentration.

4. The increase in heating from the Water Vapor Feedback Effect provided by an increase in average temperature, ΔTCO2, resulting solely from the increase in heating from a buildup in CO2 is determined by this formula:

ΔWV = 1.6 ×ΔTCO2  (w/m2)

5. The Maximum increase in heating power received at the surface cannot exceed the sum of the results of the calculations set out in statements 4 & 5.

6. The Maximum average increase in Land temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, ΔTL resulting from of the calculations set out in statements 4 & 5 of ΔRadCO2 and ΔWV is determined by this formula as –

ΔTL = TLo × [(1 + Eff ×WV + ΔF) / NHLo)1/4– 1]

where:

NHLo is the initial Net Heating of the Land surface in watts per square meter.

7. One cannot determine the increase in Average Global Temperature based upon a change in heating because the surface temperature change response of Land and the Oceans to an increase in heating is significantly different. However, it is possible to determine the increase in Average Global Land Temperature based upon a change in heating and then estimate the change in Average Global Temperature.

8. The Maximum increase in average temperature cannot exceed the increase in temperature caused by the result of the calculations set out in statement 6.

The following are the results of the applications of these principles:

A. The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of COover this period could have effected is 1.6 w/mand the Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of CO2 over this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF.

B. CO2 is not THE cause nor is it the primary cause of Global Warming

C. The Maximum increase in Average Global Temperature that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv can effect is 0.8oF. The IPCC’s predictions of 3.4oF to 7.9oF are 325% to 900% too high and this would require an increase in heating of 800% to 900% greater than that determined in accordance with the calculation set out in statement 3 above.

D. The IPCC is simply wrong.

Background

I have no direct, or indirect, links or ties to any business or investment that has any interest, whatsoever, in this matter. I have neither sought, been offered or received any funding, benefit or any form of consideration or promises to prepare this work – none. This has all been an independent pursuit of truth.

At the time, of the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to former Vice President Albert Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) which was accepted on behalf of the IPCC by Dr. Pachauri, then Chair of the IPCC, I was honored to accept an invitation from a colleague to attend a gathering to celebrate the granting of this award, in Oslo.

I should also note that my academic training is not in meteorology or climate studies but this is also true, not only for Al Gore, but Dr. Pachauri as well. And, unlike both, for several years I was part of a team of scientists designing vehicles for the vacuum of space and calculating the extreme rates of heating to which they are exposed as they slammed into the atmosphere of Earth or Venus. In the case of the probes into the planet Venus this work took into account radiative heating.

In terms of absorbing and emitting radiative heat, our planet is just another object in space, with sufficient mass to maintain an atmosphere that contains a small percentage of gases that both absorb and reradiate infrared (IR) radiation, the Greenhouse Gases (GHG).

With a basic grasp of physics, radiative heating and thermodynamic principles, a determination of the Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature (the Upper Bound) that a buildup in the concentration of CO2 can effect is possible. Otherwise, the only option is to rely on the purported “experts” which I did for a couple of decades.

I sat there the night of this celebration listening to the speakers with the belief that Global Warming had occurred and hoping that at this celebration there would be an explanation as to why there was this exclusive focus on an atmospheric increase of ~ one part per million per year or one part per ten thousand over a century, of CO2, the effect of which is merely logarithmically proportional to increases in concentration over 290 ppmv, (at this level, a 10% increase in concentration results in a 1.7% increase in heating power[1]) and on a molecule-for-molecule is less effective as a Greenhouse Gas than the primary Greenhouse Gas, Water Vapor, which, on average, is present in the atmosphere at levels, and varies by factors, that are an order of magnitude greater than that of CO2 and, …..what this had to do with peace?

There was no presentation that demonstrated how an inconsequential change in such a minor component of the atmosphere could be responsible for Global Warming. Instead, what I heard were assumption based conclusions, summaries of the results of unexplained computer models, political speak and predictions of a parade of horribles, which may or may not be realistic, but could be the result of warming, irrespective of the cause.

That night, as the advocates for this belief played on our fears of Global Warming including a totally irrelevant and nonsensical analogy to horrible conditions on planet Venus, something I knew a little about, at the same time they appeared to be seeking to impute an unquestioning sense of guilt for all of Humankind stemming from having so benefitted from the massive consumption of fossil fuels along with a need to make amends by paying whatever it takes to stem the tide of Carbon buildup and minimize the effects of various potential doomsday scenarios, (reminded me of some preachers, “Atone for your sins or suffer hellfire and brimstone for eternity.”). For the first time, I began to wonder, based on the lack of scientific proof offered at a celebration of a Nobel Prize on the work of the role of CO2 in Global Warming, whether, and if so, why, the world was being taken in, misdirected into thinking that CO2 was THE or the primary cause of Global Warming.

Since then, my question – why the exclusive focus on such an inconsequential component of the atmosphere – went unanswered. Having read many justifications from those who make claims that Global Warming was/is caused solely by increases in the concentration of CO2. They basically boil down to:

1. Correlations of temperature increases with increases in the concentration of CO2;

2. Formulations/approximations that do not comply with the basic laws of physics, ignore the actual effects of heating and, at times, either alone or together with a theoretical, inflated and incorrect Water Vapor Feedback Effect formulation, substantially overstate the increases in temperature that the buildup in the concentration of CO2 can effect; and,

3. Determining that CO2 must be THE cause, because, if one does not include subsequent increases in the concentration of CO2 since the 1800s in the climate change computer models, these models do not show global warming, Lindzen (2007), but only do when subsequent increases in the concentration of CO2 are included (and then they overstate the increase in temperature, suggesting they are premised on the above formulations[2]) which, of course, assumes that these models are correct; they are not; See Gray (2012);

concluding, therefore, that Global Warming has been driven by the buildup of CO2 since the advent of industrialization.

These responses are all based upon the assumption that the buildup of CO2, alone was responsible for Global Warming.

When it comes to CO2, I wondered, rather than make assumptions, why not simply calculate the Maximum incremental heating that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide can provide and the resulting MAXIMUM temperature increase? It is not difficult.

The average temperature of the surface cannot exceed the MAXIMUM average temperature that the Net Heating can effect. Therefore, if one knows the additional net-heating that a buildup in CO2 can cause, including the Water Vapor Feedback Effect, one can calculate the theoretical MAXIMUM increase in the Average Global Land temperature that the buildup in the concentration of CO2, alone, can effect.

While I could find many papers that calculated the increase in heating, radiative forcing, that increases in the concentration of CO2 could drive and then draw conclusions about the relationship to net surface temperatures based on the assumption that these temperature changes were caused by increases in the concentration of CO2, I could find very few analyses that went beyond the calculation of incremental heating.

There were only a few that purported to explain how to calculate the increase in the Average Global Temperature resulting from increases in the concentration of CO2. Of these there were only a few that calculated the historical increase and then only at the conclusion of the time period in question. (e.g. “Between 1880 and 2002 the temperature increase caused by the prior buildup of CO2 was equal to X.”) I found no studies for the changes in the temperature of Land caused by CO2, which for the reasons set out below, enables the most straightforward comparison.

My back of the envelope calculations for the heating power required from increases in the concentration of CO2 to effect the actual temperature increases over time called all of the IPCC’s conclusions about the role played by CO2 in Global Warming, into question. Therefore, I looked into this issue in greater detail, which resulted in this paper, in which, will calculate the MAXIMUM (not the precise) increase in average temperature that the buildup of CO2 can effect.

How to Calculate the Power and Maximum Temperature Increase Caused by an Increase in the Concentration of CO2

The Earth constantly emits thermal infrared radiation (IR) which I will term “Up Radiation”, RU.

The sole source of heating of the Earth’s surface is the net radiant heating absorbed from the Sun and the “Back Radiation” from GHG, the Net Heating.

If the average surface temperature is constant for a period of time, this means that the average power per square meter of the Net Heating, NH, is at least equal to the power per square meter of the average Up Radiation. Therefore,

Net Heating, NH = RU

Comparing Land to Ocean, the temperature of the surface of Land is far more responsive to the same changes in Net Heating. See Figure 1, below.

Figure 1. Average, Ocean and Land Temperature Anomalies (NOAA 2010)

Due to the percentage that goes into subsurface heating as a result of the thermal diffusivity of the Oceans, the surface temperature of the Oceans is not as responsive to the same radiant heating as Land.

Thus, changes in Average Global Land Temperature is a far better gauge of the changes in Net Heating than changes in the Average Global Ocean Surface Temperature or Average Global Temperatures (Land & Ocean, above), which includes the Oceans comprising 70.57% of the Earth’s surface. Therefore, I will use changes in Land temperature as a gauge.

The Up Radiation per square meter of the Land surface, RUL is equal to εσTL4 (Luciuk) where, ε is emissivity, a dimensionless constant between 0 and 1 that determines the efficiency of a body to radiate and absorb energy, which in this paper, for the surface of Land is assumed to be 1; σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.40×10-9 w/m2 T-4 and TL is the Global Average Land temperature in degrees Rankine.

RUL = εσTL4

At a constant average surface temperature, Net Heating, NHL = RUL, and, initially, NHLo = RULo

To maintain a given temperature, the Net Heating, NHL must equal the Up Radiation

NHL = RUL = εσTL4

Then,

NHLN / NHLo = NHLN / RuLo = εσTLN4 / εσTLo4 = TLN4 / TLo4

Since,

TLN  = TLo + ΔTL

And

NHLN = NHLo + ΔNHL

The increase in Net Heating power, ΔNHL, required to support this increase in temperature is,

ΔNHL = RULo × [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)4 – 1]

Where ΔTL is the change in the average surface temperature of Land, and

RULo is the initial Up Radiation at TLo

The minimum change in Total Heating power, ΔF,  required to drive a given increase in the temperature of the surface of Land can be determined as, ΔNHL / Eff

ΔF = ΔNHL / Eff = [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)4 – 1] × RULo / Eff

So for an increase of 2.6o from an initial temperature of 507.9oR and an initial Up Radiation of 360 w/m2, for this change in temperature, the minimum change in Total Heating, ΔF, required to effect this is,

ΔF =  [(507.9 + 2.6) / 507.9)– 1] × 360  / 0.55 = 9.5 w/m2

If there is a change in Net Heating, ΔNH

This will result in a change in temperature, ΔT and the new temperature, TLN

TLN = TLo + ΔTL

The new Up Radiation, RULN, is equal to the initial Up Radiation, RULo plus the change in Up Radiation, ΔRuL.

RULN = RULo + ΔRuL

and, as noted above, where NHn is the New Net Heating,

RULN = NHn

NHis equal to the initial Net Heating, NHo, plus the change in Net Heating, ΔNHL. Therefore,

RULN = NHn = NHo +  ΔNHL = RULo + ΔRuL

Since, NHLo= RULo

ΔNHL = ΔRuL

Further, given that

RULN = εσTLN4

Therefore, the ratio RULN / RULo

RULN / RULo = εσTLN4/ εσTLo4 = TLN4/TLo4

Since, RULN = RULo + ΔRuL

This ratio can then be written as,

(RULo + ΔRuL) / RULo = TLN4/TLo4

Given that ΔRuL = ΔNHL, then,

(RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo = TLN4/TLo4

And given that TLN = TLo + ΔTL, then,

(TLo + ΔT)4 /TLo4 = (RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo

Taking the fourth root of each side

(TLo + ΔTL)/TLo = [(RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo]1/4

Then solving for ΔTL

ΔTL = TLo × [(RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo]1/4– TLo

or,

ΔTL = TLo × [(RULo + ΔNHL) / RULo)1/4– 1]

The next step is to determine the increase in Net Heating as a result of an increase in the concentration of CO2.

The IR frequency band within which atmospheric CO2 can absorb IR radiation is nearly saturated, meaning that, today, the pre-existing concentration of CO2 effectively absorbs almost all of the Up IR Radiation that fall within this narrow band. In addition, this band overlaps with absorption band for Water Vapor. The consequence, there is very little IR radiation remaining that falls within this band that added CO2 can absorb. Therefore, the absorption within this band is not directly proportional to increases in the concentration of CO2.

The effect of this IR band saturation can be accurately modeled on the University of Chicago’s Modtran computer model, climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html, for simulating the absorption and emission of infrared radiation in the atmosphere, including the effect of variations in the concentration of CO2.[3] This computer model was first developed for the U.S. Air Force and has been verified by satellite measurements. It is a very accurate way of determining the effects of band saturation on the ability of changes in the concentration of CO2 to change IR Back Radiation. However, this model is both change in concentration and geographically specific. In order to gauge the heating effect of changes in the concentration of CO2, each change in the concentration requires a separate computer run.

Instead, in this paper, the increase in heating from an increase in the concentration of CO2 in watts per square meter, ΔRadCO2, is calculated, in accordance with the IPCC’s formula as:

ΔRadCO2 = 5.35 × ln (C / C0)

where, C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume at the later date, ppmv and, C0 is the concentration at the date from which the change is being measured, in ppmv,

not because it is correct[4] (it overstates the heating power from the increase in concentration) but because it is the only consensus model I have found and will clearly result in the calculation of the MAXIMUM temperature increase a buildup of CO2 can cause.

Knowing that the increase in heating from the buildup of CO2,  alone, ΔNHLCO2 is equal to the percentage of ΔRadCO2 that goes into heating the Land, Eff, and substituting Eff × ΔRadCO2 for ΔNHLCO2, the change in temperature caused solely by an increase in heating from the buildup in the concentration of CO2, can be expressed as,

ΔTLCO2 = TLo × [(RULo + Eff × ΔRadCO2) / RULo)1/4– 1]

or,

ΔTLCO2 = TLo × [(1 + Eff × ΔRadCO2 / RULo)1/4– 1]

Set out in Table 1, below, are my estimates of the key components of the Earth’s energy budget in 1880 and 2002 for Land.

### Earth’s Average Global Land Heating Budget[5] for 1880 and 2002, (w/m2)

 Land 1880 2002 Total Heating 471 485 Up Radiation Land, RUL or Net Heating Land, NHL 360 367 Solar Radiation 159 161 Back Radiation from GHG 312 324 Evaporative Power, Land 13 13 Thermal Convection Land 99 105

This heating budget for Land for 1880 and 2002 together with the Average Global Temperature for Land in these respective years sets a base from which one can calculate the MAXIMUM temperature changes increases in the concentration of CO2 can effect.

As both the Sun and the GHG heat the surface of the Earth they simultaneously drive evaporation, subsurface warming and convection. The power that goes into evaporation, subsurface warming and convection cannot go into heating of the surface. In this paper, Net Heating is defined as the percentage of Total Heating that does not go into the evaporation, sub surface warming and convection. The Effective heating percentage (“Eff”) is defined as the percentage of Total Heating that heats the Earth’s Land surface. Referring to Table 1, for Land, about 53% of the Total Heating of the Earth results in the Net Heating of the surface.

To be conservative, Eff is set at 55%. Therefore, to determine the Net Heating Power,

Net Heating Power = Eff × Total Heating = 0.55 × Total Heating

This increase in heating and temperature will gives rise to an increase in evaporation, which will in turn increase the GHG and give rise to an additional increase in temperature, determined as follows:

The increase in Average Global Temperature can be determined from the increase in Land Temperature. It is approximately equal to the increase in Average Global Land Temperature multiplied by the ratio of the increase in Average Global Temperature between 1880 and 2002,1.4oF to the increase in Average Global Land Temperature over this period 2.6oF = 1.4oF / 2.6 = 0.56

The Maximum measured and estimated long term Water Vapor Feedback is 1.6 w/m2 per degree Fahrenheit change in Average Global Temperature Dessler (2014).[6]

Thus, the heating caused by the Water Vapor Feedback Effect, ΔWVCO2, as a result of an increase in Average Global Land Temperature, ΔTLCO2, in degrees Fahrenheit, can be expressed as:

ΔWVCO2 = 0.56 × 1.6 × ΔTLCO2

Taking into account the Water Vapor Feedback Effect, WVCO2, the MAXIMUM increase in net heating of the Land, ΔNHL, that can be caused by an increase in the concentration of CO2 from a given date can be determined as follows:

The Net Heating Increase, ΔNHL = Eff × (ΔRadCO2 + ΔWVCO2)

Thus, this is how the MAXIMUM Average[7] Global Land temperature increase can be calculated for a buildup of CO2.

ΔTL = TLo × [(1 + Eff × (ΔWVCO2 + ΔRadCO2) / RULo)1/4– 1]

So, for 1880, which is a starting point commonly used,

C0 is 291 ppmv,

ToL for Land is 507.9oR

Ruo is 360 w/m2

Eff is = 0.55

ΔRadCO2 = 5.35 × ln (C / C0)

In 2002, C is 373 ppmv,

∴ ΔRadCO2 = 5.35 × ln (C / C0) = 5.35 × ln (373/ 291) = 1.33 w/m2

Then the increase in temperature from the increase in CO2, alone.

ΔTLCO2 = TLo × [(1 + Eff × ΔRadCO2 / RULo)1/4– 1]

ΔTLCO2 = 507.9 × [(1 + .55 × 1.3 / 360)1/4– 1] = 0.14oF

The Water Vapor Feedback Effect is:

ΔWVCO2= 0.56 × 1.6 × Δ TLCO = 0.56 × 1.6 ×0.36 = 0.22 w/m2

The increase in total heating from this increase in the concentration of CO2, ΔRadCO2 + ΔWVCO2 = 1.33 w/m2 + 0.22 w/m= 1.6  w/m is consistent with the IPCC estimates of total increase in heating from all man made sources between 1750 and 2007.)

Then the temperature increase on Land with Eff = 0.55, resulting from the buildup of CO2 between 1880 and 2002, including the Water Vapor Feedback Effect, is:

ΔTL = TLo × [(1 + Eff × (ΔWVCO2 + ΔRadCO2) / RULo)1/4– 1]

ΔTL = 507.9 × [(1 + 0.55 × (0.32 + 1.32) / 360)1/4– 1] = 0.3 oF

Compare this Maximum increase in the Average Global Land Temperature effected by the buildup in CO2, 0.3 oF, to the actual increase in Average Global Land Temperature of 2.6 oF.

Using the ratio of Average Temperature to Land Temperature, 0.56, the increase in Average Global Temperature effected by the buildup in CO2 over this period is 0.2oF compared to the actual increase in Average Global Temperature over this period of 1.4oF.[8]

Clearly the buildup of CO2 over this period, 1880 – 2002, is not the cause of this temperature increase.[9]

The IPCC Formulations for Determining the Temperature Increase from the Buildup of CO2 are Incorrect and Substantially Overstate the Resulting Temperature Increase

The IPCC uses different formulae for calculating the increase in average global temperature from a buildup of CO2, which appear to be based upon the formulation of Arrhenius (1896) who set out his formula for a change in Average Global Temperature in degrees Celsius, as

ΔTArr = S × log2 (C/Co)

S, is the doubling sensitivity and it is normally given in degrees Celsius.

In Arrhenius’ paper, S can be determined as equaling 5.8o C. However, in his subsequent book, he suggests a smaller climate sensitivity, S = 4. Arrhenius & Borns (1906)

The IPCC’s most recent report (2013) states: “equilibrium climate sensitivity (the doubling sensitivity) is likely in the range 1.5 K [S] to 4.5 K [S] (high confidence).” IPCC (2013)

Since the IPCC is focused on the effects of doubling the concentration of CO2 from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv, I will focus on this as well.

Such a doubling would result in an increase of 3.7 w/m2 in total heating power from the buildup of CO2, after applying the applying the IPCC formula for increases in heating of, ΔRadCO2 = 5.35 × ln (C / C0), increasing this for the Water Vapor Feedback Effect and with Eff = 0.55, this would give rise to an increase in Average Global Land Temperature, using the above formulas, of 0.8oF.

Referring to Figure 1, above, a 0.8 degree increase in Average Global Land Temperature corresponds to ~ a 0.4 degree, increase in Average Global Temperature.

Set out below in Table 2, below, is a comparison of the temperature results based on using the Arrhenius formulation for such a doubling, for values of S ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 and comparing the required increase in heating to effect such a change to the 4.3 w/m2 determined as set out above.

### Temperature and power required using Arrhenius Formulation for various values of S Proposed by the IPCC

 S oC ΔTArr   Deg. F % Increase over actual temperature increase of 0.4oF % Increase in Power required to effect this temperature increase compared to actual power increase of 4.3 w/m2 1.5 2.7 488% 274% 2.0 3.6 684% 386% 2.5 4.5 880% 499% 3.0 5.4 1076% 613% 3.5 6.3 1272% 728% 4.0 7.2 1468% 844% 4.5 8.1 1664% 961%

The IPCC formulation for determining an increase in heating, ΔRadCO2, is dependent solely on the change in concentration, ΔRadCO2  is proportional to ln (C / C0). There is no “S” variable in this formulation. Therefore, the increase in heating is 3.7 w/m2, regardless of the value of S.

An increase in heating of 4.3 w/m2 can cause a 0.8oF increase in Average Global Temperature – no more; much less a range of temperature increases as high as 8.1oF.

To publish a range of the Maximum increases in temperature for the same increase in concentration and, therefore, the same heating is nothing short of scientifically absurd. If the Maximum temperature increase that the rate of heating can cause, is 0.8oF, that is it. This is best illustrated by column 4 which sets out the percentage increase in heating power required to cause the corresponding increase in temperature.

While some propose far greater increase in power from the Water Feedback Effect based on some theoretical concepts, the fact is the Water Feedback Effect has been measured. Any theoretical calculation or computer model that predicts a greater heating from this effect is wrong.[10]

Moreover, the basic and fundamental law that energy is always conserved, stands as a complete and total bar to any increase in temperature greater than 0.8oF.

Further, that the Arrhenius formulation, ΔTArr = S × log2 (C/Co) is simply wrong can be shown as follows:

Converting this expression to natural log function, then

ΔTArr = S × 1.44 × ln (C/Co)

As noted above, according to the IPCC, the increase in radiative power per square meter, ΔRadCO2, from an increase in the concentration of CO2, can be determined as:

ΔRadCO2 = 5.35 × ln (C/Co)

Thus,

ln (C/Co) = ΔRadCO2 / 5.35

Substituting ΔRadCO2 / 5.35 for ln (C/Co) in the Arrhenius formulation for calculation for change of temperature results in,

ΔTArr = 1.8 × S × 1.44 × ln (C/Co) = S × 1.44 × ΔRadCO2 / 5.35

which means that ΔTArr is directly proportional to changes heating, ΔRadCO2.

As noted above, based upon the basic principles of radiative heating,

ΔTCO2 = To × [(1 + ΔRadCO2 / RUo)1/4– 1]

which means that instead of being directly proportional to changes heating, ΔRadCO2, as Arrhenius assumes, ΔTCO2 is proportional to the fourth root of changes in heating, ΔRadCO21/4. Arrhenius’ conjecture is clearly not founded on the principles of physics.

The Arrhenius formulation and IPCC approach cannot possibly be correct.

Another writer, Ellis (2013) derives the equation for the increase in temperature, ΔTEll, in degrees Fahrenheit, resulting from an increase in heating, ΔRadCO2, which can be expressed as:

ΔTEll = 1.8 × 0.31× ΔRadCO2 = 0.56 × ΔRadCO2

Comparing this to Arrhenius, effectively in Ellis’ formulation, S is ~ 2.

These and similar calculations, Jacob (1999: § 7.4.3), in which the change in temperature is also directly proportional to changes in ΔRadCO2, instead of being proportional to the fourth root of the change in ΔRadCO2 as (1+ΔRadCO2 / Ru).25, do not comply with the radiative heating laws of thermodynamics and are simply wrong.

Given how straightforward the correct formulation is, one wonders why this is not employed by the IPCC and why “The IPCC’s range of uncertainty in the value of k[S] extends from 1.5 C to 4.5 C, with a central value of 3.0 C.”

### Conclusion

The IPCC’s determinations overstate, significantly, the role of CO2 in Global Warming and are wrong.

The change in the Average Global Temperature for Land between 1880 and 2002 was 2.6oF. To effect such an increase requires an increase of 13.8 w/m2 in Total Average Heating Power. The Maximum total increase in total Average Heating Power that the buildup of COover this period could have effected is 1.6 w/m2. The Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature for Land that the buildup of COover this period could drive cannot exceed 0.3 oF. Comparing 1) the Maximum increase in heating power of 1.6 w/mto the required increase in power to effect a temperature change of  Land of 2.6oF, 13.8 w/m2,2) the Maximum increase in temperature that can be effected by this increased heating of 1.6 w/m2, 0.3oF in the Average Global Temperature of Land, resulting from the actual increase in the concentration of CO2 between 1880 and 2002, to the actual temperature change of Land of 2.6oF and 3) comparing the correct prediction for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 of a Maximum increase of 0.8oF increase in Average Global Temperature compared to the IPCC’s range of 2.7 to 8.1oF, demonstrates, conclusively, that the IPCC is wrong. As a factor in Global Warming, increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have been, and will continue to be, largely irrelevant.

This is not merely a scientific debate.

Governments across the globe are in the process of implementing and planning to implement, laws regulations, changes in taxing and offering direct and indirect subsidies and credits that in the future could result in costs that, in the aggregate, could equal the Annual Gross Domestic Product of the economies of all the countries in the World, based upon the determinations of and pronouncements from the IPCC. While potentially devastating to the economies and peoples of all nations, these efforts may not result in any meaningful reduction in the buildup of CO2, but even if they succeed in achieving this goal, this almost certainly will not result in a reduction of the Average Global Temperatures, because as a factor in Global Warming, the buildup of CO2 is largely irrelevant.

There will be no return on these economically damaging and tremendously costly investments.

Let me conclude with a few questions:

With all of the data possessed by the IPCC and all of the experts it has mustered, why is it that I have not seen any publications in which the IPCC, and its affiliates have:

1. Shown or discussed the increase in total heating power required to have caused the 2.6oF global average increase in land temperature since 1880?

2. Applied the computer models it uses for predictions to the period 1880 to today and compared the results to the actual average annual global temperature trends from 1880 to today?

3. Used the straightforward formulation, based on classical physics, to calculate the Maximum temperature increase a buildup in Carbon Dioxide can cause or explained why they view this as inapplicable?

Surely, the IPCC has considered these questions. If not, it should.

Looking back, it is now clear. The 2007 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarde because the work of the recipients would not qualify for an award of the Nobel Prize for Physics or Economics.

References

Arrhenius, S. & Borns, H. (1908) “Worlds in the Making; the Evolution of the Universe New York, Harper” pp. 53 & 56

Cox, J.D. “Understanding the Weather’s Water Cycle” Weather For Dummies (www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-the-weathers-water-cycle.html).

Dessler, A., (2014) “Measuring the effect of Water Vapor on climate warming.” (phys.org/news/2014-03-effect-vapor-climate.html).

Ellis, R. (2013b) (www.globalwarmingequation.info/global%20warming%20eqn.pdf).

Gray, W.M. (2012) “The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver” (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu)

IPCC (2013) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) WG1, http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Jacob, D.J. (1999)§ 7.4.3 Radiative forcing and surface temperature.”, Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry”, Princeton University Press, (acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html)

Lindzen, R.S. (2007) “Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously” Energy & Environment, Vol. 18 No. 7+8

NOAA (2010) “Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies January – December.”, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center

Trenberth, K.E. (2011) “Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change.” (www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=865).

[1] Imagine a football stadium filled with 10,000 people (representing the atmosphere), with 100 to 400 people close to the field hollering all of the time (representing the initial level of GHG). The noise increase at field level from the addition of one more hollering person assigned to the highest seating level is similar in effect to the heating increase of one part per ten thousand of CO2.

[2] “…general circulation models (GCMs) can be used to estimate the surface warming associated with an increase in Greenhouse Gas concentrations. The GCMs are 3-dimensional meteorological models that attempt to capture the ensemble of radiative, dynamical, and hydrological factors controlling the Earth’s climate through the solution of fundamental equations describing the physics of the system. In these models, a radiative perturbation associated with increase in a Greenhouse Gas (radiative forcing) triggers an initial warming; complex responses follow…… There is still considerable doubt regarding the ability of GCMs to simulate perturbations to climate, and indeed different GCMs show large disagreements in the predicted surface warmings resulting from a given increase in Greenhouse Gases. …. Despite these problems, all GCMs tend to show a linear relationship between the initial radiative forcing and the ultimate perturbation to the surface temperature, the difference between models lying in the slope of that relationship.” (Jacob §7.4) (Emphasis added)

As noted below, the relationship between temperature and radiative heating is that temperature increases as heating to the ¼ power. (∆T µ ∆F1/4). It is not linear, which would greatly overstate the increase in temperature by hundreds of a percent. A “linear relationship between the initial radiative forcing and the ultimate perturbation to the surface temperature” is contrary to correct “fundamental equations describing the physics of the system”. Basic thermodynamics also teaches that the rate of heat transfer to the Earth’s surface cannot exceed the sum of the net radiative heating from current solar and back radiation.

[3] The MODTRAN algorithm solves the Line By Line radiative transfer equations at very fine spectral resolution.

[4] This equation is based on a determination for the optical (IR) opacity of CO2 and the assumption that the most significant and variable GHG, Water Vapor, was constant. This is not a valid assumption. More importantly this calculation ignores the very real and complex effects of CO2 band saturation, which can only be determined accurately using a very sophisticated computer model. Based on the simulations I have performed; the IPCC model produces results that are consistently higher than the output of the Modtran computer calculations.

[5] Knowing that Land covers 29.4% of the Earth’s surface, the Oceans account for 84% of total evaporation (Cox), in 1880 the average Land temperature was 2.6oF lower, using the energy budget data from Trenberth (2011), measured changes in solar heating and the Water Vapor Feedback Effect for changes in temperature, with –

1. Up Radiation adjusted for relative changes in Average Global Land Temperature to the fourth power,

2. Back Radiation adjusted to take these changes in Up Radiation into account after accounting for the Water Vapor Feedback Effects, and

3. Thermal Convection calculated as Total Heating less Up Radiation and Evaporative Power Land for the respective year.

one can estimate the Earth’s average energy budget.

[6] “From 2002 to 2009, an infrared sounder aboard NASA’s Aqua satellite measured the atmospheric concentration of Water Vapor. Combined with a radiative transfer model, Gordon et al. used these observations to determine the strength of the Water Vapor Feedback. According to their calculations, atmospheric Water Vapor amplifies warming by 2.2 plus or minus 0.4 watts per square meter per degree Celsius. This value, however, is only the “short-term” feedback—the strength of the feedback as measured during the observational period. This value is subject to short-term climate variability. The true value of the feedback, the “long-term” value, is what the short-term observed values should trend towards when given enough time.”

Using a series of climate models, the authors estimate the strength of the long-term Water Vapor Feedback. Extrapolating from their short-term observations they calculate a long-term feedback strength of 1.9 to 2.8 watts per square meter per degree Celsius.” 2.8 watts per square meter is the Water Vapor Feedback measure employed in this paper for temperature measured in degrees Celsius which is converted to 1.6 for temperature measured in degrees Fahrenheit.

While this measurement relates this amplification in heating to linear changes in Average Global Temperature, not to changes in temperature to the fourth power, this is likely so because this is a measure of changes in concentration which, over time, are driven by evaporation which changes linearly with temperature, the effects of which are orders of magnitude greater than changes in heat flux from changes in temperature.

[7] Of course, temperatures vary across the globe. If one performs this calculation for a range of initial temperature changes, ± 30oF, for example, and adjusts the Up Radiation accordingly, the average temperature change of this range is within one percent of the average temperature change calculated using this formula. Therefore, the Average Global Land temperature increase is calculated as set forth above.

[8] Referring to Figure 1, it is evident that Global Warming did not commence until the late 1970’s and ceased prior to 2002.

If one does the same calculations for the 38 ppmv increase in CO2 over this period; the Maximum increase in the Average Global Land Temperature effected by this buildup in CO2 is 0.2 oF. The actual increase in Average Global Land Temperature over this period is 1.8 oF.

The increase in Average Global Temperature effected by the buildup in CO2 over this period is 0.1oF compared to the actual increase in Average Global Temperature over this period of 1oF, or 10% of the actual increase.

[9] Global Warming nonetheless occurred between the late 1970’s and 2002. I show in another paper what the likely causes of this were.

[10] There are those who believe a range is appropriate due to the inability to precisely predict the impact of delays in reaching an equilibrium temperature and the difficulties associated with modeling the thermal diffusivity and responses of the Oceans and the manner in which the atmosphere responds to increases in heating.

Given an increase of 1 -2 ppmv per year in the concentration of CO2, reaching an equilibrium temperature on Land should occur far faster than the rate of change. But, whether or not this is correct, this paper assumes that the equilibrium temperature, which is the Maximum temperature, is reached and while all of these oceanic and atmospheric factors make it difficult to predict the precise effects of increases in GHG heating, these ranges must all be less than the Maximum increase in the Average Global Temperature that the heating can effect. They cannot exceed the Maximum number.

William Van Brunt is a practicing lawyer and President and CEO of JFA, LLC. Before attending law school, he was a senior scientist and part of a highly successful design team engaged in state of the art research and development for, and writing the complex software necessary to determine the aerodynamics and heating of hypersonic vehicles for the U.S. Air Force and Navy and probes into the planet Venus, for NASA. Relevant to this topic are the degrees he holds from the Pennsylvania State University, B.S. (Aeronautical Engineering) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S. (Aeronautics and Astronautics), where he was elected to the Society of Sigma Xi. Fascinated by the claims made about the role of Carbon Dioxide in Global Warming and causes therefor, his is a novel, in depth and totally independent assessment of this topic.

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
December 11, 2016 11:21 am

The premises AGW theory was based on are all wrong . I do not know what more is needed.
No tropospheric hot spot.
No evolving +AO
No decrease in OLR
The pillars this theory is based on all not materializing.
The temperatures increase last century was all due to the terrestrial items which govern the climate pushing the climate into a warm mode.
As I have said now with low solar conditions post 2005 the terrestrial items are going to push the climate into a colder mode.

Geoff
Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
December 11, 2016 11:50 am

The benefits of more CO2 in our atmosphere should be extolled.
More coral.
Taller and healthier humans.
Faster growing, larger and healthier plants.
More rain.
CO2 is crucial for life. The idea we should reduce it is suicidal.

Trebla
December 11, 2016 12:52 pm

In the text, your Stefan Boltzmann relationship is off by a factor of 10. It should be 5.67 X 10^-8 not 10^-9.

MRW
December 11, 2016 1:56 pm

Better medical marijuana.

commieBob
December 11, 2016 3:27 pm

Trebla December 11, 2016 at 12:52 pm
In the text, your Stefan Boltzmann relationship is off …

It gets worse. From the article:

σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.40×10{sup}-9{/sup} w/m{sup}2{/sup} T{sup}-4{/sup} and T{sub}L{/sub} is the Global Average Land temperature in degrees Rankine. (the typographical mess is my fault)

Rankine temperature is a US Customary Unit. Mixing units is just begging for trouble.
SB in US Customary Units is: 1.714 x 10{sup}-9{/sup}

Greg
December 11, 2016 10:23 pm

Thanks Trebla
σ = 5.670367(13)×10−8 W m−2 K−4

Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.40×10-9 w/m2 T-4 and TL is the Global Average Land temperature in degrees Rankine.

Note the temperature units are in antediluvian “degrees Rankine.”, not kelvin, though he should not use T as a unit.
the rough scaling of Fahrenheit to celcius is 9/5 , (9/5)^4 =10.5 , so the value given is probably correct though I have not been able to find a reference using his units. Most people using Rankine for temperature probably passed away before the end of the last millennium.
This comes from the the days of ergs, slugs and Btu.
σ = 1.73 x 10~9 Btu/ft2/h/Rankine4
I would suggest the author uses units which everyone can follow and condenses the text to a quarter of the size in the hope that someone may get to the end.

December 12, 2016 6:00 am

Trebla December 11, 2016 at 12:52 pm
In the text, your Stefan Boltzmann relationship is off by a factor of 10. It should be 5.67 X 10^-8 not 10^-9.

That’s because of the author’s bizarre choice of a mixed set of units!
He’s using W/m^2.ºR^4 as opposed to the usual W/m^2.K^4 consequently his value for the S-B constant differs by a factor of (ºR/K)^4 i.e. (0.095), hence his 5.4×10^-9.

M Courtney
Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
December 11, 2016 11:50 am

No tropospheric hot spot.

This whole essay would be wrong if there was a tropospheric hot spot. The IPCC intellectual edifice was built around the amplification from water vapour.
Without that the limits that this essay describe come back into play. And thus, yes, the IPCC was wrong.
The real question is “Why hasn’t climatology been able to self-correct like a science does?”
The answer to that will identify the greatest legacy of the IPCC.

craig
Reply to  M Courtney
December 11, 2016 12:33 pm

I’ll tell you why Courtney, 1.5 trillion dollars, that’s what this green scam is worth. Do you think Elon Musk us just going to walk away from his investments in green energy? Or Al Gore, Soros?

Latitude
Reply to  M Courtney
December 11, 2016 12:56 pm

The real question is “Why hasn’t climatology been able to self-correct like a science does?”
…..amazing isn’t it….and they still call it science

Greg
Reply to  M Courtney
December 11, 2016 2:35 pm

There was no presentation that demonstrated how an inconsequential change in such a minor component of the atmosphere could be responsible for Global Warming.

That answers your previous question: what has this got to do with peace?

TA
Reply to  M Courtney
December 11, 2016 3:06 pm

“The real question is “Why hasn’t climatology been able to self-correct like a science does?”
The answer to that will identify the greatest legacy of the IPCC.”
Power and money are the answers.

Mike H
Reply to  M Courtney
December 11, 2016 7:01 pm

Because is it moved from the physical to the political science arena a long time ago.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
December 13, 2016 10:52 am

Apart from that the Nobel Peace Prize is political not scientific. That’s that.

ClimateOtter
December 11, 2016 11:21 am

Calling griff, tony mc, nick, attp………. eh, never mind.

Greg
December 11, 2016 10:01 pm

Given how straightforward the correct formulation is, one wonders why this is not employed by the IPCC and why “The IPCC’s range of uncertainty in the value of k[S] extends from 1.5 C to 4.5 C, with a central value of 3.0 C.”

If the formulation is that simple why does it half an hour to read his explanation. I got bored after about five pages?
When people who claim to have technical backgrounds don’t know the correct symbol for the unit of power is W and get the SB constant wrong, I soon lose motivation in digging through the rest.
BTW , if he was paying attention, the IPCC explicitly refused to give a “central value” in AR5 and the author has simply taken the mean of the two end values ( not the median of a the distribution of values ) and falsely attributed this to the IPCC.

7. One cannot determine the increase in Average Global Temperature based upon a change in heating because the surface temperature change response of Land and the Oceans to an increase in heating is significantly different.

Full marks for that observation. Something the IPCC has been brushing under the carpet since the beginning.
As we can see by looking at rate of change of temperature on land and sea; land needs to be scaled down by a factor or two.

December 11, 2016 11:20 pm

I’m with ya greg. The whole IPCC and this set of equations assumes a constant average albedo. Incoming radiation all gets absorbed by the system, and the earth or oceans.
But that’s rubbish. It gets reflected by clouds, it never arrives. Clouds are modulated by water vapour, at least. i.e. more water vapour leads to more clouds. There is as big a case for saying water vapour feedback is NEGATIVE, as positive.
Ergo the whole thing is far more complex than either the IPCC OR this post suggest.

Tom Halla
December 11, 2016 11:22 am

My math skills apall me, but if the IPCC models do not work even if using the NOAA data base on temperatures. . .

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 11, 2016 12:58 pm

TH, the IPCC models cannot be right. Simulating important physical processes like convection cells ( tstorms) require physical grids on order of 1.5-4km. Computational constrainst mean the finest grid in CMIP5 is 110 km at the equator. UCAR says doubling resolution by halfing grid sides increases computation 10x. The computational constraint is 6-7 orders of magnitude, not solvable for decades if ever. So such essential processes must be parameterized. Those parameters must be tuned to hindcast realistically; for CMIP5 expressly YE2005 back to 1975. This introduces the attribution problem highlighted in my comment to Any May’s guest post. For more details on this brief models comment, see my guest post here (last year?) on Models.

Greg
December 11, 2016 10:31 pm

models are tuned to do a best fit to the late 20th c. warming. Usually 1960-1990 and fail to match the equally strong early 20th c. warming. They are therefore necessarily wrong and mis-attributing the multiple causes of change.

December 12, 2016 8:38 am

somewhat off topic but, I’ve taken an interest in computing global averages for the Tmin and Tmax values, and have downloaded HadGHCND from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/grid and noted they defined the data grids as “grid spacing = 3.75 deg x 2.5 deg”, which would mean for every latitude the actual surface area of the grids change. Anything I would consider a Global average would have to weight the grids for varying surface area, does anyone know if this has been done for the global average temps published?

John M. Ware
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 11, 2016 1:37 pm

The author’s statement 5 near the beginning is incorrect; he means the sums of formula 3 and formula 4, not formula 4 and formula 5 (which doesn’t exist in that statement). I can’t criticize the article in any other particular, since it is technically beyond my knowledge.

TA
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 11, 2016 3:09 pm

The corrupt NOAA database.

December 11, 2016 11:25 am

I have a problem with:
6. The Maximum average increase in Land temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, ΔTL resulting from of the calculations set out in statements 4 & 5 of ΔRadCO2 and ΔWV is determined by this formula as
ΔTL = TLo × [(1 + Eff × (ΔWV + ΔF) / NHLo)1/4– 1]

I would think that the temperatures ΔTL and TLo should be on the same scale, in which case the arbitrary zero-point of the Fahrenheit scale becomes a problem for TLo.

Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 1:34 pm

TLo is in Rankine, (analogy Kelvin) so I think that is messy but OK.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 1:51 pm

Thanks. What a mess.

Greg
December 11, 2016 10:34 pm

numerically correct but technically wrong. He should use consistent units and preferable ones someone under the age 85 has heard of !

Clyde Spencer
December 11, 2016 11:29 am

William,
You state above, “5. The Maximum increase in heating power received at the surface cannot exceed the sum of the results of the calculations set out in statements 4 & 5.”
Shouldn’t that be “…statements 3 & 4.”?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 11, 2016 12:53 pm

Same with

6. The Maximum average increase in Land temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, ΔTL resulting from of the calculations set out in statements 4 & 5

S = 4. Arrhenius & Borns (1906)

Should that be 4.0 or some other number besides 0 since other numbers are given to 1 decimal place.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 11, 2016 1:06 pm

That’s the first thing I noticed.

ferdberple
December 11, 2016 11:35 am

which means that instead of being directly proportional to changes heating, ΔRadCO2, as Arrhenius assumes, ΔTCO2 is proportional to the fourth root of changes in heating, ΔRadCO21/4.
================
if this is found to be correct, the IPCC and much of modern climate science would appear to be fundamentally wrong.

December 11, 2016 11:43 am

I love it. I have no clue what I’m looking at, but I still love it!
I’ll get my coat………

Latitude
December 11, 2016 11:43 am

William, excellent essay…..thank you!

David S
December 11, 2016 11:47 am

That’s good lets fight models with more models. Whilst the maths seem

Clyde Spencer
December 11, 2016 11:49 am

William,
“Due to the percentage that goes into subsurface heating as a result of the thermal diffusivity of the Oceans, the surface temperature of the Oceans is not as responsive to the same radiant heating as Land.”
Also, the heat capacity of water is 4X most solid surficial materials, so one would expect that the surface is going to heat about 4X faster than water, even ignoring the cooling effect of evaporation at the ocean surface.

Greg
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 11, 2016 10:39 pm

Land is better approximated as ‘moist rock’ that solid rock. The specific heat capacity seems empirically to be about half that of water. This is a key point though.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/land-sea-ddt/

Clyde Spencer
December 12, 2016 12:10 pm

Greg,
Heat capacity will vary from about 1/4 that of water for dry sand and bare rock such as one finds in glaciated terrain, or relatively recent lava flows, to the equivalent of ocean water for open bodies of fresh water. I don’t know what the average value is, but the USGS has developed landuse classification maps from which one could derive a mean value for at least the US. 2X seems like a reasonably good starting point (with one significant figure), but like so many things related to climate, such as reflectance, these may not be constants and vary with the seasons and weather. When one starts looking at the details of the problem, the complexity is so great that it staggers the imagination that anyone would call the science “settled.”

Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2016 9:58 am

Just…,
Fig. 1 isn’t really a lot of help in adding more precision to the ratio. In recent years, the land high-temperature anomalies have been about 2X the ocean high temperature anomalies. However, about 1885, the land low-temperatures have been at least 4X the ocean lows. Also, the same is true for the ’50s through ’70’s. So, the relationship of land to ocean temperature anomalies doesn’t appear to be symmetrical. As usual, the relationships are anything but simple. The important take away is that land-temperature responses are at least 2X more sensitive to changes than the oceans.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 11:49 am

My argument has always been….since our weather is so chaotic…and that makes it almost impossible to predict the climate
How high would we have to raise CO2 to have a stable environment?

December 11, 2016 11:23 pm

How high would we have to raise CO2 to have a stable environment?
Sun isn’t a stable environment is it? And that’s quite hot….

December 12, 2016 7:17 am

Given that alarms in submarines don’t go off until CO2 is at 8,000 (yes that’s “eight THOUSAND) parts per million, I would venture to say that we have some wiggle room there.
Compare this with cyanide, which kills at 100 to 200 (that’s HUNDRED) parts per million in air (if I read correctly).
… NOT that breathing CO2 is so much the issue in the global-warming debate, but assuming we could stand a tad more heat, it certainly seems to be NOT so bad in larger concentrations, in other respects.

December 11, 2016 11:54 am

I wonder if anyone will actually read it to the end. I’m still trying to figure out
“5. The Maximum increase in heating power received at the surface cannot exceed the sum of the results of the calculations set out in statements 4 & 5.”

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 11:59 am

3 and 4 are the only ones with calculations….obviously

December 11, 2016 12:17 pm

They have calculations, but what are the “results”. (3) seems to yield both ΔF and ΔRadCO2. What to add?
There are a lot of lines in the post. If there is this much extra work per line – well, I’ll be interested to see if anyone gets to the end.
I’m a bit dubious when I read science in Fahrenheit, although the occasional diversion into Rankine adds a little spice.

December 11, 2016 1:00 pm

Nick, I already did. See detailed comment below.

Greg
December 11, 2016 10:42 pm

“I wonder if anyone will actually read it to the end. ”
Well apparently Risvan made it to the end, but he’s a superhuman. I doubt anyone else had that much patience. Needs condensing by a factor of four.

SMC
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 12:09 pm

Nick,
Apparently you missed Clyde Spencer December 11, 2016 at 11:29 am, above.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 12:16 pm

The post reminds me of what Euler said to Diderot:
“Monsieur, (a + b^n)/n = x ; donc Dieu existe, répondez ! ”
I, for one, cannot penetrate the ‘logic’ that supposedly underlies the post.

SMC
December 11, 2016 12:38 pm

Why, yes sir, God does indeed exist. I’m not sure that mathematics can prove it though. And apparently, Diderot was ‘dumbstruck’ when Euler confronted him. 🙂

December 11, 2016 12:43 pm

The point was that math will impress the unwashed whether correct or not.

SMC
December 11, 2016 12:53 pm

Especially when it’s expressed in French… cause that’s all fancy and romantic… in this day and age. :))

Latitude
December 11, 2016 1:04 pm

The point was that math will impress the unwashed whether correct or not…
..and you don’t know if it’s correct or not….just making a drive by insinuation
You been taking lessons from Mosh again?

December 11, 2016 1:05 pm

I have already pointed out one serious problem…

December 11, 2016 1:08 pm

Lattiude:
Perhaps you could show that my concern about the correctness of the math was unfounded…
If not, then your comment was a ‘drive-by’ without any foundation.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 1:12 pm

Why don’t you ask me to quote the entire dictionary while you’re at it..
Lame pathetic deflection….are you sure you’re not Mosh?

December 11, 2016 1:14 pm

No, just stick to the item at hand, if you can…

SMC
December 11, 2016 1:21 pm

Geez guys, chill.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 1:25 pm

The point was that math will impress the unwashed whether correct or not.
===
You insult the person that wrote this essay….you insult the people on this blog
….and now you are telling me what to do
You don’t know if the math is correct or not….but you had to make a crack about the post any way

December 11, 2016 1:27 pm

The math is not correct, as I have already pointed out. Again: if you can show that it is, do so, otherwise take foot out of mouth.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 1:36 pm

ROTFL…you are pathetic
I would have expected no less from you

December 11, 2016 1:37 pm

Your foot is still there…
How can you breathe?

Latitude
December 11, 2016 1:39 pm

continue to act like you don’t get it…….
“The point was that math will impress the unwashed whether correct or not.”

December 11, 2016 1:54 pm

It is nice to see that you get it. Congratulations.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 2:07 pm

I get it….

December 11, 2016 2:10 pm

Good for you. Others are less gullible.
BTW, Diderot got it too [and left in a hurry].

Latitude
December 11, 2016 2:16 pm

I didn’t have high expectations in the first place………

December 11, 2016 2:26 pm

Since you profess to ‘get it’, you could educate the rest of us, by going step by step. Staring with the first equation: ΔF = [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)4 – 1] × RULo / Eff
Why is this correct?
I’m sure the readership would appreciate your superior knowledge and commitment to demonstrate how you ‘got it’.

SMC
December 11, 2016 2:21 pm

Well, Diderot had to ask permission from Catherine, first.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 2:46 pm

The original theory of global warming was CO2 increases temps a little…which increases water vapor
…originally it was the water vapor that did it
All you are saying is that the theory is even more wrong…which is exactly the same thing I’m saying
So you’re saying Leif was right to insult the hell out of the person that wrote this essay…and people on this blog reading it?
Attack the math, theory, whatever….calling people that don’t agree with you “unwashed” is not necessary

December 11, 2016 2:57 pm

Got you hot under the collar, eh?
Just for you, I’ll lay it out slowly:
1) Euler’s comment was nonsense
2) Diderot [not being a mathematician] did not know how to respond
3) From Euler’s view Diderot was one of the ‘unwashed masses’ who you can impress with meaningless math https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unwashed_masses
4) I started to try to figure out what the salient points were and was stumped [on several equations] and expressed my frustration with the unclear and confusing post which did seem to impress several people
5) Since you profess to ‘get it’ you can be helpful [instead of just whining] and help me [and many readers] out by explaining the math [and more importantly the ‘physics’ behind it]
6) Start with the first equation ΔF = [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)^4 – 1] × RULo / Eff
This way, you can make a useful contribution.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 2:49 pm

Has nothing to do with equations….

SMC
December 11, 2016 2:55 pm

FYI, I wash, daily. I even have all my teeth and I wear shoes, too.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 3:06 pm

LOL…no I’m not hot under the collar…too funny
I told you already…I didn’t have high expectations

December 11, 2016 3:10 pm

I had high expectations that you could help out [since you ‘get it’] but it seems that you are not up to it, in spite of my expectation. Too bad. You are missing out on a marvelous chance of demonstrating our brilliance [and being helpful, to boot].

Latitude
December 11, 2016 3:19 pm

Wonder if William had those same expectations?
..instead of being told he’s writing equations to impress the unwashed whether correct or not

December 11, 2016 3:22 pm

You are evading the issue. You should wonder if you can educate the unwashed masses like me who didn’t ‘get it’. It seems that you cannot or will not. Too bad. I had high expectations about you being helpful. Ah well, such is life.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 3:40 pm

So you admit you’ve been playing games..and knew what I was talking about all along.
Insulting someone, William Van Brunt, by saying he is writing equations to impress the “unwashed” whether correct or not.
You don’t know him, you have no idea what his intentions were…
Doing that put you firmly in the unwashed category yourself.

December 11, 2016 3:44 pm

It would be useful if you actually read relevant comments.
So no, no games. Here, I commented that the post was not clear enough for me [one of the unwashed in that respect] to penetrate to the actual physical and mathematical meat of the issue. I had hoped that someone like yourself why claims that he ‘got it’ could do that, but, alas, that does not seem to be forthcoming…

SMC
December 11, 2016 3:44 pm

Latitude, Dr. Svalgaard is right, you aren’t contributing anything to understanding this post.
Dr. Svalgaard, Latitude is right, the insults/condescension is a real turn off… Same goes for you Latitude.
Why don’t you fellows break down this post into terms somebody like me can understand. Please don’t assume I’m unwashed, I actually have 2 brain cells left, just lay it out so somebody with a little technical knowledge and some math can understand. Or at least begin to ask some intelligent questions. As Ristvan said down thread, “I am trying here to educate dedicated skeptics so that their arguments are immune to warmunist counters.”

December 11, 2016 3:47 pm

Dr. Svalgaard, Latitude is right, the insults/condescension
What condescension? I have said numerous times that as far as this post is concerned I am one of the unwashed, and had hoped that someone who ‘got it’ could be helpful, but in vain.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 3:49 pm

The only thing I’m contributing to this post…is calling Leif out for insulting some older gentleman that was good enough to contribute to this blog.
unwashed….is the older version of ignorant white trash…..no bath…unwashed

December 11, 2016 3:51 pm

You are still evading the issue. Where is your demonstration that you ‘got it’? You are not being helpful.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 3:52 pm

‘nite

December 11, 2016 4:02 pm

running away…

gymnosperm
December 11, 2016 6:18 pm

Wash yourself in mathematics as you will, it is just logic written in Sanskrit. I agree that some of the Sanskrit above makes poor bathwater, and wish to add a criticism of the use of emissivity. “ε is emissivity, a dimensionless constant between 0 and 1 that determines the efficiency of a body to radiate and absorb energy”.
While this is generally true, Carbon dioxide and Kirchhoff do not appear to get along.
It appears that a material property of CO2 is extremely high absorptivity, but about .002 emissivity according to Monsieur Hottel and others. An unwashed bloke might say CO2 prefers to absorb and dance rather than absorb and spit.
Absorptivity is not commonly given a factor, but it is well known that the WN 667.4 fundamental bend is 98% absorbed in one meter at standard atmosphere and 400ppm.

December 11, 2016 9:40 pm

lsvalgaard @ 12:16
Can you and Latitude please stop acting like children…it detracts from what you both have to say and this site. Your behaviour is what one expects from a CAGW site, not WUWT. I really do respect both your comments from time to time but can’t be bothered to wade through the name calling.

Greg
December 11, 2016 10:49 pm

lsvalgaard “running away…”
yep, looks like it. I guess Latitude needs to be given some.

Latitude
December 12, 2016 8:18 am

This is the Twilight Zone….where when someone says “nite” it doesn’t look like they went to bed

hunter
December 11, 2016 12:09 pm

Thank you for posting this. It will be interesting to see how this holds up.

December 11, 2016 1:02 pm

It doesn’t. See why below, in nonmathematical terms.

Clyde Spencer
December 11, 2016 12:14 pm

William,
Last paragraph before references: “awarde” => “awarded”.

SMC
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 11, 2016 12:19 pm

There are several, minor, grammatical errors throughout the post.

Menicholas
December 11, 2016 3:18 pm

And, too many, commas,.

SMC
December 11, 2016 3:25 pm

I like commas. 🙂

David S
December 11, 2016 12:16 pm

The premise for this article is that if there is a causal relationship between more CO2 and temperature the maximum amount that could occur has been overstated dramatically by the IPCC. I am a layman both scientifically and mathematically. It has always seemed to me that even this basic premise is wrong and potentially the only correlation I believe is possible is that increased global temperature may lead to increases in CO2. I think that if man’s contribution to atmospheric CO 2 didn’t exist the temperatures would be the same. The only way that man influences the global temperature both past and future is how man manipulates the data and the models to suit the narrative. Ironically I think that the global warming narrative could’ve evolved on some other random gas or bi product of human growth output but was chosen because it was not easy to disprove ( except over time, which I believe has occurred ). To me this is not much different for blaming CFCs for the hole in the ozone layer. I have no idea whether it made any difference or whether even the ozone hole existed and was caused ( or impacted on ) by humans. All I do know is that as a specie man is manipulateable and gullible due to the emotions of guilt and empathy and these emotions can be exploited to make man to willingly part with huge amounts of money to those who are the exploiters. But the AGW movement ultimately has pushed things too far and the goose that has laid the golden eggs is about to meet its maker ( we hope). With so many vested interests aboard the global warming / climate change freight train it has been difficult to stop ( or even slow down) but hopefully the Trump era will cause the necessary derailment to finally bring this shameful era in mans history to a close.

Reply to  David S
December 11, 2016 1:08 pm

DS, your observation about deltaT=> delta CO2 is correct on long time scales, verified by ice cores and explaind by Henry’s law. Gore was wrong. But that does not speak to shorter time intervals given that CO2 is for sure a GHG. But that lab truth does not speak directly to AGW, because of known feedbacks like water vapor and clouds. Best present observational estimates are ECS~ 1.65, about half of modeled ECS. In which case there is no C in CAGW, and only a little gw.

TeeWee
December 11, 2016 12:16 pm

WOW! As a lay person I was lost at the first equation. However, thank you very much for your work and for offering a final Conclusion for a guy like me to take home.

December 11, 2016 1:36 pm

TW, the IPCC is wrong. But so is this post. Layman reasons and a ‘proof’ below in a longish prose only comment. From there you can work out the several math model ‘errors in formulation’ including but not limited to NHsubL, EFF, and WV multiplier. Too painful in comments to critique all the equations, and would go over many heads here.

SMC
December 11, 2016 2:54 pm

“…would go over many heads here.”
You kind’a sound like Dr. Svalgaard.

December 11, 2016 3:27 pm

SMC, Facts are facts. Tough if you don’t like my simply pointing that out– but then, I admit to being a Deplorable like Trump. Already amply demonstrated facts are upthread. Now go read my main comment downthread, and ponder. Google, even. Or, horrors, read my last ebook covering this in parts of several essays. With illustrations and footnotes.

SMC
December 11, 2016 4:06 pm

“Now go read my main comment downthread, and ponder. Google, even.”
I did, I do and I have.
“With illustrations…”
I like picture books…/snark
The condescension is still not appropriate. It’s one of the major mistakes the Watermelons made and, they still don’t ‘Get It’. It helps that the facts are on ‘our side’ but, if folks perceive you are talking down to them, they’ll ignore you. If folks ignore you in a political campaign (CAGW is all about politics in my opinion) it doesn’t matter what the facts are, you lose.

December 11, 2016 4:15 pm

The condescension is still not appropriate
There is no condescension. The term ‘unwashed masses’ should [as is customary] be understood as a [slightly endearing] reference to those of us who have problems following a technical [or in this case: confusing] exposition.

SMC
December 11, 2016 4:42 pm

Dr. Svalgaard,
You and I apparently have different definitions for ‘condescend’.
con·de·scend
ˌkändəˈsend/
verb: condescend; 3rd person present: condescends; past tense: condescended; past participle: condescended; gerund or present participle: condescending
show feelings of superiority; be patronizing. “take care not to condescend to your reader”
synonyms: patronize, talk down to, look down one’s nose at, look down on, put down
do something in a haughty way, as though it is below one’s dignity or level of importance.
“we’ll be waiting for twenty minutes before she condescends to appear”
synonyms: deign, stoop, descend, lower oneself, demean oneself;
Also, I don’t consider ‘unwashed masses’ to be an endearing term in customary use…not in my experience anyway.
unwashed-masses. Noun. (plural only) (idiomatic) The collective group (“mass”) of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated, uninformed, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in the speaker’s elite circles.

December 11, 2016 5:02 pm

Did you miss [or willingly overlook] that I counted myself among the unwashed masses as far as the post in case was concerned.

SMC
December 11, 2016 5:32 pm

Your first comment concerning the unwashed @ December 11, 2016 at 12:43 pm
“The point was that math will impress the unwashed whether correct or not.”
Sorry but this strongly implies you are one of the elite, not one of the unwashed. It was until later in the comment thread you considered yourself one of the masses, “Here, I commented that the post was not clear enough for me [one of the unwashed in that respect] to penetrate to the actual physical and mathematical meat of the issue.” Considering who you are and what you do, “Did you miss [or willingly overlook] that I counted myself among the unwashed masses as far as the post in case was concerned.”, is rather specious.
Let’s get something straight Dr. Svalgaard, I have a great deal of respect for you. You are an expert in your field. I look forward to the things you post and the links you provide. Consider me ignorant, by all means. But don’t think, or imply, I’m stupid.

December 11, 2016 7:35 pm

I am not in control of what you think my comment ‘implies’, and you are not stupid, but perhaps stubborn and self-righteous. I started out by stating that I had a problem with the post. This refers to me and my problem, not to whether the post had a problem, so it should be clear that I was one of the unwashed. And, indeed my problem was resolved when it turned out that the problem was the non-obvious use of the Rankine scale. For the rest, I will note that the derivation of many of the fundamental equations is not clear [to me and to most]. But nobody [including the genius who ‘got it’] has been forthcoming with the derivation, so at this point we are still unwashed.

December 11, 2016 6:38 pm

SMC, apropos this and following comments, how about applyong some analytic chops rather than unwashed offense at us unPC calling it like it seems. You got analytic chops, show them. You don’t, then don’t blame this deplorable for calling you out.

SMC
December 11, 2016 6:55 pm

I’m just as irredeemably deplorable as you are Ristvan.

SMC
December 11, 2016 7:04 pm

Also Ristvan, where in my comments have I questioned your facts, or Dr. Svalgaard’s?

Robert from oz
December 11, 2016 12:21 pm

At last the science of the religion of climate has had its tax free status removed , prepare for the whining .
It just goes to show no matter how smart you are there is always some one out there that’s smarter

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 11, 2016 6:40 pm

If the adherents of climate lunacism claim that it is not a religion then they should have their tax free status removed.

Greg
Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 11, 2016 10:57 pm

Not only does the IPCC in London have tax free status, they made fraudulent tax returns including undeclared revenue from UK govt ….. and retained their tax free status.
Looks like God is on their side after all.

December 11, 2016 12:23 pm
December 11, 2016 12:25 pm
Jeff B.
December 11, 2016 12:34 pm

I see it as a criminal manipulation of data and abuse of taxpayer dollars to foment division and sell a wealth redistribution scheme.
Every scientist, politician, bureaucrat and so on party to this whole scam should be tried based on this and other evidence.
Until Gavin Schmidt, Trenberth, Hansen, Jones, Gore, Pachuri, McKibben et. al. are serving time and paying massive fines, justice will not have been served.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Jeff B.
December 11, 2016 1:58 pm

True, they might be guilty of fear mongering for profit, so do they deserve a punishment similar to what Martha Stewart got for insider trading?

Rhoda R
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 11, 2016 2:38 pm

If they knowingly manipulated the data to further some private goal then the answer is “Hell yes they deserve jail time!”

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 11, 2016 3:33 pm

It will be “a good thing” to have the “adjustments” to the temperature record reviewed by non-government employed scientists.
However, I expect these folks will be covered in teflon-coated kevlar, like HRC.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 11, 2016 7:52 pm

“It will be “a good thing” to have the “adjustments” to the temperature record reviewed by non-government employed scientists.”
That has been tried. It collapsed. There’s nothing there.

scribblerg
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 12, 2016 5:13 am

Martha Stewart was locked up for lying to federal agents in the course of a criminal investigation, not insider trading. Based on that thin tissue of guilt, Schmidt, Trenberth, Hansen, Jones and other academics in the field should be locked up because they know they are lying at this point. Gore, McKibben and others? They don’t even know that they are lying, which means they have no mens rea and are not acting with a guilty mind.
Schmidt needs to be put under oath….

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Jeff B.
December 11, 2016 6:47 pm

Lock them up!

toorightmate
December 11, 2016 12:36 pm

Most of the “climate scientists” (?) have been constructing models then manipulating data to fit the model.
Which, as sure as shit, ain’t science.
It is encouraging to hear from someone who takes a considered scientific approach.
The CO2 horseshit has gone on for too long.
Enough is enough!

Menicholas
December 11, 2016 2:57 pm

Hey, you are talking pretty bad about good wholesome horseshit, fella.

Eric Simpson
December 11, 2016 6:54 pm

Climate ‘science’ is politicized science.
By definition politicized science is NOT science.
These ideologically driven zealots are advocates for a leftist cause, not for impartial knowledge. That is the opposite of science.
They had their theory given to them in advance, and every bit of their “science” is geared toward developing support for that theory. That includes construction of knowingly disingenuous / specious arguments, dubious fear-mongering often to children, overt manipulations of data, and fraud.

davidmhoffer
December 11, 2016 12:37 pm

THE GOOD
Calcs done at surface. One of my pet peeves, which I have voiced for over a decade, is that the IPCC appears to have done all their sensitivity calculations at the Effective Black Body temperature of Earth. That’s -18C, which occurs about 14km up from the surface, where neither we (specifically) nor the biosphere (generally) give a fig. The same calcs done using surface temps of +15C yield a sensitivity about 2/3 of what the IPCC quotes. So they’re not wrong per se, just engaged in some clever misdirection.
Trying to follow math that wanders between units (Fahrenheit, C, K, and oh my goodness, Rankine) is a challenge for everyone. Do it all in deg K. It would be a lot easier to follow your math, and you eliminate the possibility that you are fooling yourself by conflating units in the same equation (same observation as Leif above).
THE QUIBBLE
I don’t think you can treat water vapour feedback the way you have. Water vapour varies by altitude, latitude, season and so on. So CO2’s warming effects are rather different at surface (due to prevalence of water vapour) versus at say 10 km altitude (due to absence of water vapour to compete with CO2 in the absorption of IR).

Germinio
December 11, 2016 6:40 pm

Actually David, one of the worse parts of the post is the fact that the calculations are done at the surface
rather than at the “mythical” surface of last emission. It has to be done there else the energy balance equations do not hold. It is only at the surface of last emission that the solar energy in = thermal energy out.
And a simple calculation shows (as you know) this occurs at a temperature of about -18C.
Personally I do not have the time or inclination to go through this post to see if it is valid or not. But I
would strongly suggest that it is highly likely to be wrong. At the end of the day I do not think that any
flaws in the greenhouse gas theory are sufficiently large that that they can be demonstrated using high
school maths and result in a answer that is off by a factor of 4 or 5. Unless you believe that there is a
real conspiracy to lie about the effects of CO2 then you should at least think that any errors in the theory
are a lot more subtle than what is claimed here. As a first check I would ask if this new theory can correctly
predict the current average temperature of the earth. If it cann’t then it certainly cannot predict what effects
doubling CO2 will have.

December 14, 2016 5:25 am

justforumaccesscom December 12, 2016 at 5:23 am
The math is correct.

But the physics isn’t!
The IPCC assumes a linear relationship between changes in heating and changes in temperature
Which is correct.
when changes in temperature are proportional to the fourth root to changes in heating radiative cooling.
That is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

December 14, 2016 5:27 am

Shoule be:
justforumaccesscom December 12, 2016 at 5:23 am
The math is correct.</em.
But the physics isn’t!
The IPCC assumes a linear relationship between changes in heating and changes in temperature
Which is correct.
when changes in temperature are proportional to the fourth root to changes in radiative cooling.
That is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

December 11, 2016 12:37 pm

I wish he would simply linearise. To fuss around with fourth (and 1/4) powers in dealing with averages like
“ΔNHL = RULo × [(TLo + ΔTL) / TLo)4 – 1]
Where ΔTL is the change in the average surface temperature of Land, and”

when T_L has already been linearly averaged, is pointless. S-B does not apply to averages. Just write
ΔNHL = RULo × 4 × ΔTL / TLo

December 11, 2016 12:43 pm

While I agree the IPCC is wrong, I disagree that this is so for the reasons given in this guest post.
First. A number of the greenhouse ‘physics’ observations used to derive the post’s math model are simply incorrect misunderstandings. Therefore the math model cannot be correct. The only source of surface heating (both land and ocean) is incoming solar SWR not reflected by albedo. This is only at the surface since the atmosphere is obviously transparent to SWR. Not Surface heating =SWR plus IR backradiation. That is a too often repeated skeptical misconception. The GHE is occaisioned by diminution (via ‘scattering’ delay) of outbound IR cooling. The GHE is NOT a direct heating effect; it is a reduction of radiative cooling effect which therefore results in net warming. Outbound radiative cooling IR starts at the energetic IR wavelength of the generating surface temperature. Any IR absorbed then re-emitted by GHG (‘scattered’) in the atmosphere will be at a lower energy level due to the troposphere’s temperature lapse rate. IR escaping to space where it can be measured by satellites above TOA is energetically at the temperature of the effective radiating level (ERL); that temperature is used to infer the ERL altitude from the temperature lapse rate. CO2 saturation near the surface is not relevant to GHE. Only the ERL is, and more CO2 simply moves it higher so that the CO2 GHE effect NEVER saturates (another unfortunately all too ofter skeptical misconception); it is indeed ~5.35*ln(Csubt/Csub0).
Second, absent feedbacks a doubling of CO2 causes +1.1-1.2C (lindzen uses 1.2C, the third of Monckton’s recent error posts can be used to compute 1.16C). This can be calculated approximately from first principles and experimental values. The water vapor feedback is observationally positive. The post’s fourth Dessler 2014 Phys.org reference is wrong; it returns 404 error. But it is possible to find via google the March 2014 phys.org posting; it refers to an observational 2013 paper by Gordon et. al. discussed in footnote 6 of the post. Therefore the GHE of CO2 doubling MUST BE >1.2C (Lewis and Curry 2014 estimates 1.65C). Therefore it CANNOT be the 0.8F (0.44C) calculated by this guest post math model. Which is a separate way of showing the math model is wrong.
There are several ways to show IPCC incorrect: Discrepancy between model and observational ECS, attribution (see Andy May’s recent guest post and my main comment to it), no SLR acceleration, acceptance and use of the hockey stick in TAR, the Himalyan glacier goof in AR4, biased meta-analyses (essay No Bodies gives an AR4 WG2 example uncorrected in AR5), overstated certainty/confidence. This post is not one of them.

December 11, 2016 3:09 pm

“But it is possible to find via google the March 2014 phys.org posting; it refers to an observational 2013 paper by Gordon et. al. discussed in footnote 6 of the post. “
I think it refers to this paper by Dessler. But it makes no sense. Dessler gives wv feedback as 1.2 W/m2/K, But here it comes out as 1.6, said to be in F. But if so, the conversion is wrong.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 3:33 pm

Nick, nope. i already checked. The Dessler paper was Stratosphere H2O leakage across the tropopause. Suspect, but irrelevant. The ‘Dessler’ 2014 link to Phys.org is simply wrong. I tracked the correct reference to Gordon 2013 down already. See main comment for details. One of the few things this oldish JD/MBA leatned to do well is verify fast using googlefu. Writing three techical books plus several issued patents in the last few years tends ro teach that.

December 11, 2016 4:49 pm

Rather disappointed that those ‘obviously’ well armored climate warriors on this post like Latitude, SMC, and Hivemind have not yet replied to my main comment after several hours, my dinner and some nice wine. Easy clickbait for you all. Or NOT?

SMC
December 11, 2016 5:05 pm

Come in my wheelhouse and I’ll respond appropriately. Otherwise, a post like this is a learning experience for me. As for the rest, see above.

December 11, 2016 6:07 pm

SMC, don’t know where your wheelhouse is. Mine is grounded physics, math, and logic. Provide a roadmap from mine to yours, and I will perhaps journey forth.

Latitude
December 12, 2016 5:29 am

like Latitude,….
Well Latitude gave up…
Latitude only posted two sentences….the first was the original theory of global warming…and the second was my opinion that it was ridiculous, bunk, garbage
If you are having that much trouble with just two sentences….please don’t read anything I post when its a whole paragraph.

JohnKnight
December 12, 2016 1:15 pm

“The GHE is NOT a direct heating effect; it is a reduction of radiative cooling effect which therefore results in net warming.”
Well, ristvan, I don’t understand how the atmosphere can cool via “up” (away from the planet) radiation, and yet no radiation would be emitted “down” . .

JohnKnight
December 12, 2016 1:31 pm

PS ~ Could it be argued by your logic that radiation from a wood fire is not “direct” heating, because the original source of the energy was the sun?

Enkl
December 11, 2016 5:34 pm

“The water vapor feedback is observationally positive.” I thought that that was in doubt. A few years ago, I looked at the weather balloon data for specific humidity where the hot spot should be, and found that it had a negative correlation with temperature. That suggests (to me at least) that some aspect of the water vapour feedback is negative.

December 11, 2016 6:11 pm

wnkl, see the estensive (and Lindzen vetted) climate chapter discussion in Arts of Truth. Turns out the IPCC AR4 blackbox conclusion 8.1 is nothing more than meta analysis bias, including rejected conclusions, ignored conclusions, and over reliance on an obviously flawed single sat study since contradicted in spades.

December 11, 2016 6:41 pm

“The water vapor feedback is observationally positive.”

What was measured was a slight increase in dew points, but a decrease in average rel humidity.

December 11, 2016 7:13 pm

Yes, precisely. Specific humidity determines WV GHE. So if relative is dropping, then specific is rising less than predicted by AR4 WG1 black box 8.1. So the WVF must be less than IPCC models assume. Telative humiditymis irrelevant to GHE, only specific humidity matters. See essay Humidity is still Wet if you are confused by the distinction. Absolute water vapor determines GHE, not how much is relatively present given some temperature and pressure.
That is still not a negative ‘first derivative’ feedback. It is only a less positive first derivative feedback. That suffices for all ECS calculations from whatever source. See other comments this thread for explicit clarification.

December 11, 2016 7:45 pm

Absolute water vapor determines GHE, not how much is relatively present given some temperature and pressure.

Possibly the effect, but it is definitely rel humidity that determines it’s lack of affect on cooling at night under clear skies.

Enkl
December 11, 2016 7:31 pm

When I looked (using data downloaded from NOAA) both specific and relative humidity fell with increased temps. Specific humidity was not rising less than expected. It was actually falling.

hunter
December 11, 2016 6:21 pm

ristvan, lsvaalgard, Nick, thanks.

Editor
December 11, 2016 7:36 pm

ristvan – I have no criticism of the main thrust of your argument, but I question the logic by which you arrive at “the GHE of CO2 doubling MUST BE >1.2C“. If cloud feedback is negative, as seems extremely likely, then the GHE effect of CO2 doubling could in fact be <1.2C. [As an aside: Water vapour feedback may be much less than thought, if the water cycle has not been properly taken into account, but it still seems very likely to be positive.]

Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 11, 2016 8:47 pm

MJ, you have a completely valid detail point. Very good for following my arguments astutely. Bravo.
BUT, all the albedo, cloud observation (ICOADS, ISCCP) and related results (precipitation) say cloud feedback is ~0. See essay Cloudy Clouds for AR5 details. The observational ECS given all non water non cloud feedbacks netting to about zero suggests wv is positive and cloud is about zero,or slightly negative. The 2010 2 Dessler paper is embarassingly bad, but actually suggests ~0. My own opinion is that cloud feedback is slightly negative, based on Lindzen’s adaptive iris hypothesis. But given positive WV uncertainty, in the net net, dunno. Can construct many math scenarios computing observational ECS~ 1.65. But none corr sponding to observations without some positive WVF and near zero CFB.
Highest regards

December 11, 2016 11:28 pm

The water vapor feedback is observationally positive.

Bindidon
December 12, 2016 2:57 am

Many thanks to ristvan for this very good explanation, formulated such that lay(wo)men can understand what is wrong in this guest post.
I agree to everything, with the exception of those bizarre critique points to IPCC having more to do with politics than with science. And sorry, ristvan: to the points I include the hockey stick, because the critque to Mann by MM was more politics than science.
Merci beaucoup.

Thomho
December 12, 2016 3:55 am

Dear Ristvan
Thanks for this particular post as it corrects an understanding I had picked up that backward
IR from CO2 and WV added heat to the atmosphere
I recall arguments along the lines that the IPCC had conceded that the warming from IR back radiation from CO2 was around 3 WM2
The implication being that this was very small
cf the incoming solar SW radiation at 1368 WM2 at TOA
If I have understood you properly you seem to
say there is no back radiation heating effect but the absorption of OLR by CO2 slows down the rate of OLR leaving the surface and the atmosphere meaning a warmer atmosphere than might otherwise have been- hence some global warming
Two questions
1 In light of the above is the IPCC estimate of 3WM2 from CO2? still valid or applicable or even relevant?
2 In your 11th line should that read Net Surface Heating (instead of Not ) ?

Clyde Spencer
December 12, 2016 2:01 pm

ristvan,
You said, “The ONLY source of surface heating (both land and ocean) is incoming solar SWR not reflected by albedo.”
That is not correct. ALL incoming radiation that is absorbed results in heating, with the exception of the red and blue light that drives photosynthesis. (and that is primarily a time-delay loop) Whereas, the back radiation is composed of reflected (un-absorbed) SWR radiation and emitted IR. (Actually, there is also a fluorescent red line from chlorophyll that is probably stimulated by UV and possibly blue light.) However, it is only the outgoing IR that is susceptible to absorption by CO2 and uncondensed water vapor.
Also, your use of the term “albedo” is unconventional. Strictly speaking, albedo is a measure of the property of things like clouds and plants to be able to reflect a fraction of the light impinging on them; albedo is that fraction. That is, albedo is a unitless ratio of measurements, and has no capacity to reflect light in and of itself.

Gerald Machnee
December 11, 2016 12:46 pm

The problem is not that IPCC is wrong.
The problem is what to do about it. How do you convince the media to do some checking, how do you convince the media to print more logical conclusions.
But most of all is how do you get the politicians to actually consider some real facts instead of “warming LINKED to increase in CO2”, and “97 % percent of scientists agree”?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
December 11, 2016 12:48 pm

At this point I still have some hope Trump will try.
But in Canada – we are toast (even at Minus 25)!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
December 11, 2016 2:27 pm

Gerald, are you in the part of Canada where -25 is a cold anomaly, or where it is a warm anomaly?
Years like this have always been tricky. The “bathtub slosh” theory (see Joe Bastardi) is showing up again. Nothing new here, so I’m hoping the -25s stay away from the upper midwest US this time around.

The Old Man
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
December 11, 2016 2:40 pm

GM: As dark as it seems in Canada, there still seems to be some social sunshine out there . I ran across this comment today. Made me chuckle all the same.
https://notonmywatch.com/?p=986

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
December 11, 2016 3:57 pm

Re Pop
I am near the middle so M25 is nothing unusual for minimums in the winter.Once in a while we may hi M40.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
December 11, 2016 6:46 pm

The politicians, bureaucrats and scientists President The Donald sends to the IPCC conclaves surrounding AR6 will tell the tale. I hope they point their fingers and go “BS, BS, BS” at the pseudo scientific junk from the watermelon NGOs that dominate at the IPCC.
An honest WG1, similar to the first two attempts, would blow the whole thing up.

John Manville
December 11, 2016 12:48 pm

I am a skeptic, especially of the proposal that CO2 can have, let alone, does have any effect on global temperature. I am a research scientist, retired, who has been disgusted with the ‘97% òf climate scientists.`
I have lost friends over my refusal to `fit in` and accept the consensus. I took early retirement after my director told me to just accept the newly announced (KYOTO) dogma as it would mean more \$\$\$ for research – good research. He implied that scientific truth would prevail. How wrong he was.
Over the years I have learned to become even more of a skeptic. Through the application of retroduction CO2 cannot have any effect on temperature. CO2 does not generate energy and thus cannot heat its environment. It is but a molecule of the atmosphere, and like all molecules it receives its energy from its environment. Regardless of the composition of the atmosphere, global warming can only result if energy in exceeds energy out. Conversely, global cooling results if energy out exceeds energy in. This is made apparent by examining the earth’s TOA energy balance.
So why do so many claim that CO2 is unique and, moreover, results in a runaway temperature effect? Logic would preclude such a belief.

Latitude
Reply to  John Manville
December 11, 2016 1:10 pm

John, CO2 is supposed to raise temps a little….that increases water vapor….it’s the water vapor that does it
Of course that’s ridiculous…..if that were true we would already have run away global warming

Hivemind
December 11, 2016 2:00 pm

It has been discussed many times on this site, and I think it is right, that the feedback from water vapour is negative. That is, any additional heating by extra CO2 causes more evaporation, which blocks the sun & reduces the energy input.

December 11, 2016 2:04 pm

Latitude, I am trying here to educate dedicated skeptics so that their arguments are immune to warmunist counters. Please consider this a friendly helpful comment; Leif was right and you weren’t upthread. Not a nice exchange.
You perhaps misunderstand (but certainly misstate) the notion of climate feedbacks to delta CO2. Conceptually, these are ‘first deirvatives’, a change in a GHE with respect to a change in CO2. At constant CO2 (say 280ppm) the primary effect of water vapor as a GHG is to keep Earth’s average temperature about plus 15C rather than minus 18C. That fact is whynwe are alive to have this conversation. You can google the reasoning. No thermal runaway, and ~thermal equilibrium SWR = OLR.
The CAGW feedback question is, what does an an increase in CO2 do to change that primary water vapor GHE. All the evidence points to a weak positive effect (a bit stronger warming than from CO2 alone, see comments upthread to others in the same hopefully helpful vein), expressed in Bode f terms as f~ 0.25-0.3. If cloud feedback is zero or weakly negative (the available evidence indicates this is so, and all other feedbacks net to about zero per IPCC) this translates to ECS ~1.65-1.7, which foots nicely to the observational energy budget models starting with Otto 2013. My preferred observational ECS paper is Lewis and Curry 2014. For many interesting details and footnotes accessible to laymen, see essay Sensitive Uncertainty in my ebook Blowing Smoke.

December 11, 2016 2:26 pm

Hivemind, you have it backwards. Watervapor is transparent to incoming solar radiation. Higher humidity days are NOT dimmer. Clouds are not water vapor, they are condensed from vapor water droplets. The water vapor feedback is observationally positive, but not strongly so. See separate comment to Latitude.

ferdberple
December 11, 2016 2:46 pm

The water vapor feedback is observationally positive.
==============
the fact that life exists on this planet for a billion + years argues strongly otherwise.
for example, the GHG effect is the wet air lapse rate X effective height of the atmosphere = 6.5C/km x 5km = 32.5C
remove water and the GHG effect would be: 9.8C/km x 5km = 49C

Latitude
December 11, 2016 2:47 pm

The original theory of global warming was CO2 increases temps a little…which increases water vapor
…originally it was the water vapor that did it
All you are saying is that the theory is even more wrong…which is exactly the same thing I’m saying
So you’re saying Leif was right to insult the hell out of the person that wrote this essay…and people on this blog reading it?
Attack the math, theory, whatever….calling people that don’t agree with you “unwashed” is not necessary

Gerald Machnee
December 11, 2016 4:03 pm

Some (or most) warmists accepted the “theory” that increasing CO2 has a positive feedback of water vapor which then increases the warming. However, this has never been proven or measured. It might still be in the equations of the models which is one reason they are always over calculating the warming.

December 11, 2016 5:08 pm

GM, in the spirit in which I am overactive on this post because incensed and disappointed in the basic GHE understanding of fellow skeptics on this thread, that the WVF has never been measured or quantified is just false. See this guest post’s own fn 6. That does not mean the observational value was correctly applied in the post math model.

December 11, 2016 5:14 pm

Latitude, I am after you because much of what you said on this thread is just easily provably wrong. Don’t feign skeptic hurt. You are hurting all true skeptics who want to combat warmunists with unassailable science arguements. In that, you continue to fail. As a Trump deplorable would say, shape up or ship out.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Latitude, I am after you because much of what you said on this thread is just easily provably wrong.
====
Ok Rud, I give up…you’re right
The original global warming theory was CO2 increased temps which was supposed to increase humidity which increased temps, I said that was ridiculous
Obviously I was wrong and it’s not ridiculous
Don’t feign skeptic hurt….bite me

December 11, 2016 6:51 pm

Truly, Latitude. Water vapor is essentially limitless.
Runaway positive feedback potential, anyone? Negative feedback must dominate.

Greg
December 11, 2016 11:36 pm

The water vapor feedback is observationally positive.
==============
the fact that life exists on this planet for a billion + years argues strongly otherwise.

No. Individual feedbacks can be positive or negative. The net sum will always be dominated the T^4 Planck f/b which is negative and why the system is long time stable. Clearly overall f/b is negative since we are here.
Much confusing has and continues to be caused the IPCC talking about net feedbacks possibly being positive or negative because they are NOT COUNTING Planck when saying that. Sadly Monckton has gone along with this ridiculous and misleading way of talking about feedbacks.
This misleading suggestion that net f/b may be positive leads to talk of tipping points in and run-away global warming which are the cause of much concern and hysteria.

December 11, 2016 11:41 pm

The easiest way I have of understanding the ‘right buggers muddle’ that is climate models a la IPCC, is to see that the IPCC position relies on three basic assumptions.
(i) That the physics of IR absorption and re-emission of CO2 is correct. It probably is.
(ii) That nothing else is driving climate change, ergo it its getting warmer faster, than (i) suggests, there is POSITIVE FEEDBACK, not some other driver as well. This is almost certainly a wrong assumption.
(iii) That water plays a huge part in feedback. This is almost certainly true. Negative feedback however. Not positive.
There are a couple of other assumptions as well, based in the fact that non linear partial differential equations can be accurately modelled by assuming they are linear, and adding in fudge factors (parametrisation) over broad ranges of variation. That sometimes works for small non linearities.
To my mind, the staggeringly convenient lie that is assumed to be true, by the alarmist community is (ii) .
This post asserts its truth (I think: the math obfuscates everything), but disputes its value…
At which point I kinda give up.

Reply to  John Manville
December 11, 2016 3:17 pm

Ferd, sorry. You just made the same mistake as Latitude concerning CO2 feedbacks. In CAGW terms, you have to think first derivates. Explained elsewhere in a Latitude reply. Go there read that, and ponder. Same gentle chiding sentiment.
Folks, I am on your side. I feel like a football coach (deep into game 2 of week 14) trying to prevent stupid team penalties. Get the GHE right, please. Stop feeding warmunists easy arguments as to why blogs like WUWT are populated by ignorant Flat Earthers who don’t get incontrovertible physics basics. Your opinions about physics do not help. Your basic comprehension of correct physics sure would. Learn. Grow. Stop repeating easily disproved misconceptions. Leatn the killer warmunist rebuttals, which I keep repeating and which you keep ignoring.
AW is not at fault for hosting this math post. It provides an educational opportunity. But you are for not being able to hunt out its faults and kibosh it in the ‘peer review’ comments.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 3:46 pm

Rud, please read what I said “of course that’s ridiculous” is for some reason the second sentence of that post not showing up on your computer?

davidmhoffer
December 11, 2016 3:47 pm

Folks, I am on your side.
Folks, he is, and I wish more would listen as Rud has an excellent grasp of the matter.

December 11, 2016 4:36 pm

Latitude, of course it is ridiculous. I saw your second sentance. My problem is you do not yet comprehend why that sentance is ridiculous, easily attackable, and that your own explanation of it is also. Being right for the wrong reasons hands easy target ammo to warmunists. Please stop doing that. You continue that bad habit here despite my several explanations and entreaties.
Let me be deplorably blunt. Your apparently ‘ignorant’ intransigence on climate basics is hurting, not helping, the skeptic cause here. STOP. Please. I assume you mean well, so learn how to do well.

Latitude
December 11, 2016 4:53 pm

Rud, why am I getting attacked and insulted…because you don’t understand what I said?
“John, CO2 is supposed to raise temps a little….that increases water vapor….it’s the water vapor that does it”
..do you understand what ‘supposed’ means and how it is used?
That was the original theory of global warming…supposed implies it ain’t
“Of course that’s ridiculous…..”
…that means it was not only wrong, it was ridiculous
That was not “my sentence” or “my explanation” of anything…that was the original theory….supposed means that is what was supposed to happen. It didn’t…it ridiculous
The lack of comprehension is on your part, not mine.

Greg
December 11, 2016 11:52 pm

“supposed implies it ain’t”
No, supposed means based on supposition, ie it is unproven, not that is wrong or disproven. Some people may sarcastically use “supposed” to imply something is wrong without bothering to disprove it in a falsifiable manner.
In “CO2 is supposed to raise temps a little” , supposed does not sarcastically imply “it ain’t”.
It may arguably be undetectable or insignificant but it would be hard to suggest ‘it ain’t” as in does not raise temperatures even a little. Even if there are very strong negative feedbacks, the new temperature would be marginally higher, otherwise there would be nothing to induce the feedback. That is how feedbacks work.
Just chill. Getting irritated does not help communication.

December 12, 2016 4:36 am

In “CO2 is supposed to raise temps a little” , supposed does not sarcastically imply “it ain’t”.
It may arguably be undetectable or insignificant but it would be hard to suggest ‘it ain’t” as in does not raise temperatures even a little.

During the day, you would get the warming from whatever the increase in ir “fog” there is. But it is radiated if not that night, the next clear night, lowering morning temps right down to the dew point, and then a bit as some of the condensed water goes into the water table, before reevaporating the next day.

Latitude
December 12, 2016 4:41 am

What’s wrong with you crazy people??…LOL
When someone says something…and then immediately says “that’s ridiculous”..do you have no idea what that means?

December 12, 2016 6:08 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/11/the-ipcc-is-wrong/#comment-2368605
“Stop feeding warmunists easy arguments as to why blogs like WUWT are populated by ignorant Flat Earthers who don’t get incontrovertible physics basics.”
ristvan,
That’s what I’m always thinking. Even skeptics have a big confirmation bias. We cannot use everthing which seem to fit to our belief.
Roy Spencer has a similar fight on his site and wrote certain times about it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

Reply to  John Manville
December 11, 2016 6:51 pm

Lat, don’t continue to plead your ‘case’ to a jury of your peers here. You will lose to any knowledgable skeptic. First rule of holes. When in one wanting out, first stop digging. Get yourself some physics comebacks, or stop digging.

December 11, 2016 7:02 pm

Increasing water vapor at the surface in response to rising temperatures is incontrovertible, everything else being equal. What happens higher in the various layers of the atmosphere seems to be the question.
It is obvious that the IPCC climate modelers got it wrong. The details are unclear to me, a knowledgeable layman.

December 11, 2016 7:38 pm

CS, you can read about this concerning the AR4 metabias in the climate chapter of Arts of Truth. Or in essay Humidity is still Wet in ebook Blowing Smoke. Relative humidity is not roughly constant with altitude. It appears to decline as delta T increases. Among the physical explanations are Eschenbach tstorms and Lindzen adptive infrared iris.

Latitude
December 12, 2016 4:16 am

Would you cut it out…are you drunk or something?
When someone says something is ridiculous..it means they don’t think it’s true

Latitude
December 12, 2016 4:44 am

Lat, don’t continue to plead your ‘case’…
LOL Rud, I’m not pleading anything….I think you’re off your rocker
You have latched on to the first sentence I said…and totally ignored the second.
When someone says something and immediately says “that’s ridiculous”..what does that mean?

Chimp
December 11, 2016 12:55 pm

Among the reasons why IPCC is wrong is that its GIGO models don’t do clouds.

December 11, 2016 1:17 pm

Not ‘don’t do’. Cannot do. And that is only one of several reasons.

Chimp
December 11, 2016 4:57 pm

Rud,
I meant to say among the many reasons.
Cannot of course is correct, but I was playing on the old “I don’t do windows” saw.
Hive,
Should also be RICO, ie Racketeering Influenced Criminal Organization.
Pop.
Hexameter, no less!

December 11, 2016 5:15 pm

Hey Chimp, regards. Got it.

Chimp
December 12, 2016 12:45 pm

And, of course, the computer gamers don’t want to do clouds.

Hivemind
December 11, 2016 2:01 pm

Not GIGO – FICO (Faith In, Confirmation Out).

Pop Piasa
December 11, 2016 2:50 pm

When is our world warming?
That depends on the sun
The ways oceans run,
Plus clouds, in complexity forming.

December 11, 2016 12:59 pm

I don’t understand the maths, but I like the appearance of it and the conclusion. It is in line with common sense unlike the UN, IPCC,our governments, etc. Thank you,William.

arthur4563
December 11, 2016 12:59 pm

Within the scheme of things, the issue of whether additional atmospheric CO2 would produce X or Y temperature effect is irrelevant, since there will never exist those levels of atmospheric CO2, due to transformation of power generation to molten salt reactors and automotive vehicles to electric.
The issue of concern is a significant reduction of atmospheric CO2. We know for certain some of the effects of such an event and they would be catastrophic. Yet I hear nothing from the folks who want to completely eliminate CO2 emitting processes from our world. The biggest errors otherwise intelligent folks make are due to embracing a false asumption , like “The less CO2, the better.”

December 11, 2016 1:30 pm

The problem with calling CO2 a greenhouse gas on a water planet is that CO2 reacts with water to form bicarbonate, HCO3-. That is an acid, not a gas, and with that, the radiance effect is nullified. In contact with a world ocean, CO2 reacts with sea water rich in calcium to make carbonate, CaCO3, which is used by microorganisms or precipitated. High atmospheric CO2 makes calcite ooze in the ocean continental shelfs.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 11, 2016 2:06 pm

The problem with your comment is that Henry’s Law in physical chemistry guarantees some of the CO2 remains in the armosphere where it remains a GHG.

son of mulder
December 11, 2016 1:37 pm

Where is the impact of clouds in all this? Is it the difference of 2 in Solar Radiation 159 and 161 between 1880 and 2002 in the heating budget. ie less reflection back to space? Intuitively I’d have expected less insolation and more cloud as the earth warmed.

December 11, 2016 1:45 pm

Arithmetic has gone wrong here
ΔTLCO2 = 507.9 × [(1 + .55 × 1.3 / 360)1/4– 1] = 0.14oF
It isn’t. It is 0.252°F.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 1:47 pm

It may be units. It’s actually 0.14°C. But everything else is in F at this stage.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 2:35 pm

Oy.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2016 2:29 pm

Nick, my analysis says the problems are much deeper that arithmetic or units. Pound on the basic math equation development reasoning, not the messy details. You will get there.

jonthetechnologist
December 11, 2016 1:57 pm

Instead of the football analogy I use rice with other non technical folks. 1 pound of large grain rice is approxiately 10,000 grains, pour on table, remove 4 which represents CO2 in atmosphere, now cut one piece into(try) 20(maybe 30) pieces of which 1 is mankind’s contribution(appr. .00012%). Always makes them stop and think. Anyone add to this, my math may be off.
By the way, it’s about time we heard from a rocket scientist – absolutely terriffic

tony mcleod
December 14, 2016 4:41 am

Math is off, so is the reality. Saying “our” contribution is .00012% is either a rookie mistake or a fib.

Arfur Bryant
December 11, 2016 2:25 pm

[“The following are the basic principles and assumptions underlying the calculations set out in this paper:
1. The heating provided by CO2 is radiant heating and for purposes of this paper, when calculating the increase in heating that is a result of the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere the only source of any increase in heating in these calculations is CO2 and the Water Vapor Feedback Effect it creates.”]

Could the author (or anyone else) please explain the exact physical mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 ‘radiantly heats’ the surface of the planet?

Reply to  Arfur Bryant
December 11, 2016 2:50 pm

AB, you have grasped the essence of the ‘misconceived physics’ problem with this post. Atmospheric CO2 doesn’t and from first principles cannot heat anything. The greenhouse gas effect retards radiative cooling by infrared radiation emitted by Earth’s surface heated to whatever temp by incoming solar radiation and watwr vapor as a transparent to solar GHG. The cooling retardation is because CO2 is a linear molecule that can absorb and re-emit (in any direction, ‘scattering’) IR wavelegths that correspond to Earth’s surface temperature. (Digression: It is not as potent a GHG as H2O becaue H2O is a ‘Mickey mouse eared’ polar molecule with more quantum vibrational IR photon absorption modes. That physics truth is your microwave oven.) CO2 and ‘backradiation’ cannot heat anything, only retard cooling. All heating comes from higher energy (shorter wavelength) incoming solar radiation. To repeat, AGW is not a physics warming problem. It is an impaired cooling problem when incoming solar ‘heating’ is roughly constant. See my longer comment upthread. For details with illustrations and references, see essay Sensitive Uncertainties, for which this basic stuff is just part one of a longer conceptual exploration of ECS.

December 11, 2016 4:13 pm

“4. The increase in heating from the Water Vapor Feedback Effect provided by an increase in average temperature, ΔTCO2, resulting solely from the increase in heating from a buildup in CO2”
Is it not the case that H2O, a bent molecule, also retards cooling but more powerfully because structure offers more quantum vibrational absorption modes = also not heating?

Arfur Bryant
December 11, 2016 4:35 pm

Thank you Rud for saying that I have grasped the essential misconception. It seems that the premise upon which this post is based is incorrect, therefore the rest becomes assumptive.
I do, however, have a slight doubt about the term ‘retarded cooling’. I understand what you mean but I would have thought ‘delayed cooling’ is a better term. And this delay is very short. As the backradiation from CO2 is at a lower frequency (and therefore unable to raise the internal energy of the surface), then as it interacts with the surface molecules it is either transmitted or re-emitted immediately at the same frequency (like reflected). On being re-emitted, as it is unlikely to interact with the same or another CO2 molecule in the atmosphere (there being only 0.04% CO2 molecules by volume in the atmosphere), that radiation (photon, if you like) will still escape to space. So any radiative ECS appears to be based upon the notion (postulation) that a doubling of CO2 (0.028% to 0.056%) is likely to cause warming due to the slightly delay of (approx) 33% of the backradiation from maximum 0.056% bv being delayed very slightly.
So where does Lindzen get his ECS of 1.2C? This seems rather high…
Thanks for you time but I won’t be able to respond any more tonight.
Regards,
Arfur

December 11, 2016 5:31 pm

AB, time shifted additional info you can verify via google. The scattering ‘delay’ (your term) is currently measured by satellite above TOA as an about 0.6w/m^2 radiative imbalance subject to measurement, seasonal, and hemispheric uncertainty. It is both real and net significant. The IR ‘fog’ is very substantive. I do not have the chops to do the radiative frequency line by line quantum calcs, but Modtran and Hitran do. Take your pick as they basically both calculate the same conclusion.

December 11, 2016 6:30 pm

The scattering ‘delay’ (your term) is currently measured by satellite above TOA as an about 0.6w/m^2 radiative imbalance subject to measurement, seasonal, and hemispheric uncertainty.

Do you think they can take global measurements for a year, and narrow the uncertainty to detect a 0.6w/m^2?
I would be surprised if a single measurement had anywhere near that low an uncertainty to detect 6/10 of a watt imbalance.
And was the modtran a static snapshot of the dynamic night time cooling dynamics?

December 11, 2016 7:00 pm

Micro, read Stephens et. al. 2012 for the most recent estimate of surface to TOA radiation fluxes. Note especially the uncertainties.

December 11, 2016 11:09 pm

so, when is a question not a question – when there is ?

December 12, 2016 7:41 am

ristvan December 11, 2016 at 2:50 pm
AB, you have grasped the essence of the ‘misconceived physics’ problem with this post. Atmospheric CO2 doesn’t and from first principles cannot heat anything.

Actually it does, there are two mechanisms: first in the lower troposphere the energy in the excited rovibronic state is predominantly transferred via collisions to neighboring molecules, those molecules have been heated and the excited CO2 is cooled. Second, if a photon is emitted (before collisional deactivation) then when it collides with say the earth’s surface, it transfers its energy to the absorbing surface, thereby heating it.
The cooling retardation is because CO2 is a linear molecule that can absorb and re-emit (in any direction, ‘scattering’) IR wavelegths that correspond to Earth’s surface temperature. (Digression: It is not as potent a GHG as H2O becaue H2O is a ‘Mickey mouse eared’ polar molecule with more quantum vibrational IR photon absorption modes.
The absorption of IR by CO2 in the 15 micron band occurs when the CO2 molecule is bent, when it is straight it has no dipole and so can’t absorb (because it is vibrating in the bending mode it spends the vast majority of its time ‘bent’)

Arfur Bryant
December 12, 2016 10:54 am

Rud:
[“The scattering ‘delay’ (your term) is currently measured by satellite above TOA as an about 0.6w/m^2 radiative imbalance subject to measurement, seasonal, and hemispheric uncertainty. It is both real and net significant.”]
I browsed the Stephens et al 2012 paper. It states the imbalance is 0.6+/-0.4W/m2 but the uncertainty is 4W/m2. How can this be significant when measuring TOA radiation levels approximating 240 W/m2?
Phil:
[“Second, if a photon is emitted (before collisional deactivation) then when it collides with say the earth’s surface, it transfers its energy to the absorbing surface, thereby heating it.”]
No, there is no energy gained by the surface molecule as it is at an already higher energy state than the incoming photon and therefore the photon is unable to bridge the energy gap required to elevate the surface molecule to a ‘warmer’ energy level. Backradiation cannot heat the surface directly, unless the surface is colder than the atmosphere (in which case the atmospheric molecule would not have been ‘warmed’ anyway…). Rud is correct here.

Trick
December 12, 2016 11:36 am

Arfur – “(Stephens 2012) states the imbalance is 0.6+/-0.4W/m2 but the uncertainty is 4W/m2.”
You are mixing instruments here, the 0.6 from surface thermometers (precise & accurate) the 4 from radiometers (only precise) in orbit. The 2012 paper states the EB imbalance of 0.6+/-0.4W/m2 is from “best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations” going on to state from Argo data. The uncertainty of 4W/m2 is from un-calibrated CERES data obtained by precise but not extremely accurate instruments. So CERES team calibrates their raw data to match Argo for EB results. See for example Loeb 2016.
“No, there is no energy gained by the surface molecule as it is at an already higher energy state than the incoming photon”
If there were no energy gained in this case then 1LOT would be broken. So your statement is incorrect Arfur. Measurements over the spectrum and a hemisphere of directions show of 100 random photons incident on Earth natural L&O surface about 95 will indeed be absorbed at the surface and about 5 reflected.
“Backradiation cannot heat the surface directly”
Correct, as the 95 incident photons (“backradiation” or “all sky emission to surface”) absorbed add their energy to the surface, the surface cooling is slowed. This process should not be confused with a heating process though that often happens. Solar SW can heat Earth surface & atm., atm. LW can only slow the surface cooling. So that night time surface liquid water in view of increased atm. LW is found warmer by thermometer experiment than water not in view of the increased LW, for example when a cloud goes by. Both waters in this experiment continuously cooling on Newton’s straight line on semi log paper.

Arfur Bryant
December 12, 2016 2:38 pm

Trick,
Many thanks for your clarification. On the point of the 0.6+/- 0.4 W/m2, do you consider this significant, as Rud does?
As to the 1LOT, why is it broken? There is no increase in internal (thermal) energy of the surface. If a cold object and a warm object are placed next to each other, the fact that they both radiate is not in question. But the heat flow is only one way: from hot to cold. If you now place a second cold object of the same temperature as the first next to the warm object, according to your comment there is now double the incoming energy (W/m2) being absorbed for energy gain by the warm object, so do you think the warm object will reduce its rate of cooling further? In which case, how many cold objects do you have to place next to a warm object before it actually gets hotter than it was?
Yes, the rate of cooling depends upon the temperature difference between the two objects and so, as the CO2 molecule warms (I know a single molecule can not be described as warm), the heat flow from the surface to it will reduce but as there are so few CO2 molecules in the atmosphere how much effect can this have on global temperature (whatever that is)? Consider also that the CO2 molecule emits as readily as it absorbs.
If 95% of back radiation is absorbed by the surface for energy gain, as you state, then even a small increase in CO2 will have a relatively large warming effect. This demonstrably has not happened. I don’t get wamrer by standing in from of a mirror… or four mirrors.
By the way, I very much respect your opinion, having seen you comment on other sites. So I am genuinely interested.

Trick
December 12, 2016 3:30 pm

Arfur: “As to the 1LOT, why is it broken?”
Arfur incorrectly wrote: “there is no energy gained by the surface molecule” which breaks 1LOT. While measurements show 95 of the 100 random photons I mentioned are annihilated (absorbed) at the surface, their energy cannot be annihilated as the energy in the 95 is not reflected nor transmitted, the energy MUST then be gained by the surface molecules( s) by measurement. The 1LOT rules out annihilation of energy.
Thus Arfur is incorrect to write “There is no increase in internal (thermal) energy of the surface.”. Correctly written: There is an increase in internal (thermal) energy of the surface thus its temperature will not decline as fast.
“But the heat flow is only one way: from hot to cold.”
Arfur misuses 1800s terminology. In modern times science knows no object possesses heat. The kinetic energy of two objects in contact and/or each in view can be exchanged both ways. 2LOT mandates increase in universe entropy determines the net direction.
“If you now place a second cold object of the same temperature as the first next to the warm object..”
Again, to determine net KE flow between your three objects refer to: 2LOT mandates increase in universe entropy determines the net direction.
“so do you think the warm object will reduce its rate of cooling further?”
2LOT mandates increase in universe entropy determines the net direction. You aren’t real specific here but 2LOT mandates a yes answer from what I can understand of your setup, Arfur added kinetic energy to the system when you added the third colder object.
“In which case, how many cold objects do you have to place next to a warm object before it actually gets hotter than it was?”
2LOT mandates increase in universe entropy determines the net direction. No amount of colder objects will suffice, universe entropy must increase.
“as there are so few CO2 molecules in the atmosphere how much effect can this have on global temperature (whatever that is)? “
Think you mean global Tmedian. Your question is not clear, maybe you need to read up on ECS of which estimates abound. Pick your favorite.
“If 95% of back radiation is absorbed by the surface for energy gain, as you state,”
I didn’t write that, I wrote around 95 of 100 random photons incident on the Earth natural L&O surface will be absorbed, those 5 reflected are accounted for in the energy budgets.
Think you mean: “I don’t get warmer by standing in front of a mirror… or four mirrors.”
Correct, as your test shows you don’t get warmer, because 2LOT mandates increase in universe entropy determines the net direction of KE flow. In this case your mirror simply blocks the radiation from the wall behind it that would have been absorbed (and reflected) by you. Now the mirror has replaced the wall’s radiation.

December 12, 2016 4:47 pm

Arfur Bryant December 12, 2016 at 10:54 am
Phil:
[“Second, if a photon is emitted (before collisional deactivation) then when it collides with say the earth’s surface, it transfers its energy to the absorbing surface, thereby heating it.”]
No, there is no energy gained by the surface molecule as it is at an already higher energy state than the incoming photon and therefore the photon is unable to bridge the energy gap required to elevate the surface molecule to a ‘warmer’ energy level. Backradiation cannot heat the surface directly, unless the surface is colder than the atmosphere (in which case the atmospheric molecule would not have been ‘warmed’ anyway…). Rud is correct here.

No you’re wrong, the photon carries no information about its temperature of origin! The photon will excite the energy level of the recipient molecule to a higher energy level if the energy given up by the photon is an exact match for the energy difference between those two levels.

Arfur Bryant
December 13, 2016 12:36 pm

Trick,
Our posts are just going to get longer if we constantly repeat each others statements, so I will revert to keeping it simple and real:
The rate of cooling depends only upon the temperature difference between the hot and cold objects. Any increase in atmospheric temperature due to the addition of 280 CO2 molecules per million will not measurably change the temperature difference between the surface and space.
The 2LOT says absolutely nothing about ‘net radiation’. In simple terms, the Clausius statement reads that heat will only flow from hot to cold. Spin it whatever way you want. Net radiation is irrelevant. We are discussing global warming, not global net radiation. Radiation is not heat. The heat flow is only dependant on the temperature difference.
You stated quite clearly that the radiation from the colder object (atmospheric CO2 in this discussion) adds to the thermal energy of the absorbing surface. This does not happen, because then there would be heat flowing from cold to hot. Speak to Clausius.
You agree with me that no amount of cold objects can make a warm object even hotter, so why do you persist in saying that radiation from a cooler source adds thermal energy to the receiving surface?
The logical extension of your argument is that an old lady sitting in her living room freezing to death can make herself warmer by adding a few wooden chairs next to her, because then she will increase the incoming radiation which will reduce the ‘net KE flow’. In real life, she will not get warmer, and neither will the planet gain thermal energy in any measurable sense from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Oh, and as for ECS, I choose 0.01C +/- 0.009…
Keep it real.

Arfur Bryant
December 13, 2016 12:51 pm

Phil,
[“No you’re wrong, the photon carries no information about its temperature of origin! The photon will excite the energy level of the recipient molecule to a higher energy level if the energy given up by the photon is an exact match for the energy difference between those two levels.”]
I never said it did carry temperature information. However, it does carry an energy state which is dependant upon its frequency. If two identical objects at a different temperature emit photons, the higher energy of the photon from the hotter object is an indication of the emitter’s temperature.
And the only time a higher (thermal) energy level will be reached by the receiving surface is if the incoming photon possesses the required energy to elevate the ‘excitement’ level (your term). On the macro scale, this is portrayed by an increase in temperature of the surface. As heat only flows one from hot to cold, the higher thermal anergy level can not be reached by the absorption of a low energy photon.
It is easy to get bogged down in the micro (quantum) level but empirical evidence regarding global temperature is gained at the macro level.
There is no real evidence to suggest the existence of surface warming by backradiation.

Trick
December 13, 2016 1:33 pm

Arfur 12:36pm – Things you get obviously wrong easily found by consulting a basic text on the subject that you should have done to begin with. You will never get these right unless you change, and you won’t change. Prove ME wrong by changing, give a single cite to experiment/original Clausius words that show my correction is needed.
Arfur:
1) Misquotes Clausius.
2) Doesn’t know global Tmedian has measurably and meaningfully changed since global thermometer fields were installed. Now we have space based radiometers.
3) Doesn’t understand 2LOT is an entropy law not a heat law thus relevant for the Earth/atm. system energy budgets which must increase universe entropy.
4) Doesn’t understand there is no heat in an object, not in the atm., ocean or dirt surface though there is a lot of constituent KE in each of those.
5) Doesn’t understand why there is no net cold to hot in anything I wrote as I used 1LOT object KE transfer and 2LOT for direction. Quote Clausius words, find that Clausius wrote consistent with there is no heat in an object only constituent KE.
6) Doesn’t understand I persist in writing radiation absorbed into an object becomes energy INTO that object consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT confirmed by experiment..
7) Doesn’t understand that adding wooden chairs (or mirrors) to a room is not the same as adding CO2 to Earth atm. Prof. Tyndall added CO2 to his experiment not wooden chairs (or mirrors).
Arfur has a lot of basic study ahead to correct his writing OR show a single experimental cite where my writing needs to be corrected. BTW Arfur’s choice for ECS contradicts his writing AND is nowhere near meaningful.

Trick
December 13, 2016 1:59 pm

Arfur 12:51pm: “If two identical objects at a different temperature emit photons, the higher energy of the photon from the hotter object is an indication of the emitter’s temperature.”
The identical objects at different temperatures emit photons of every wavelength (thus all energies) from experiment and theory Arfur. You did write colder, warmer. You cannot tell from which object any single photon originated, as Phil. told you, the photons carry no temperature information, only energy, momentum (linear and angular), polarization.
“the higher thermal energy level can not be reached by the absorption of a low energy photon.”
All experiments since Prof. Tyndall’s (and some earlier work) have shown the opposite Arfur. Or cite a single experiment showing what you write is correct.
“There is no real evidence to suggest the existence of surface warming by backradiation.”
Then you haven’t bothered to find it and you get confused misquoting Clausius, using terms like “heat” “warming”; suggest Arfur start with the 1861 experimental report by Prof. Tyndall on his many “hundreds” of experiments conducted in 1859, 1860 that “astonished” even him. Easily found on the internet.

December 13, 2016 4:35 pm

Arfur Bryant December 13, 2016 at 12:51 pm
Phil,
[“No you’re wrong, the photon carries no information about its temperature of origin! The photon will excite the energy level of the recipient molecule to a higher energy level if the energy given up by the photon is an exact match for the energy difference between those two levels.”]
I never said it did carry temperature information. However, it does carry an energy state which is dependant upon its frequency. If two identical objects at a different temperature emit photons, the higher energy of the photon from the hotter object is an indication of the emitter’s temperature.

No, an object at 350K and one at 250K can both emit a 15μm photon, both photons will be absorbed by a blackbody at 300K equally well it has nothing to do with the temperature of the source. The observer has no way to tell the temperature of the source by the energy of an individual photon.
And the only time a higher (thermal) energy level will be reached by the receiving surface is if the incoming photon possesses the required energy to elevate the ‘excitement’ level (your term). On the macro scale, this is portrayed by an increase in temperature of the surface. As heat only flows one from hot to cold, the higher thermal anergy level can not be reached by the absorption of a low energy photon.
Yes it can and does,15μm photons incident on an absorber it will raise the energy of the absorber by ~8kJ/mole regardless of the temperature of the absorber.
It is easy to get bogged down in the micro (quantum) level but empirical evidence regarding global temperature is gained at the macro level.
There is no real evidence to suggest the existence of surface warming by back radiation.

There is plenty, a very direct one is the use of radiation shields in the use of thermocouples in flames. If you put a thermocouple in a flame you measure a lower temperature than the actual flame temperature due to loss to the surroundings by radiation. If you put a quartz radiation shield around the thermocouple the temperature measured goes up closer to the flame temperature because the radiation exchange with the shield involves ‘back radiation’ from the shield which is hotter than that from the previous surroundings. This is very old technology, so old it was the subject of NACA reports, i.e. before NASA.
Scadron, M.D. and Warshawsky, I. (1952) “Experimental determination of time constants andNusselt numbers for bare wire thermocouples on high velocity air streams and analytic approximation of conduction and radiation errors”. NACA Technical Note 2599.

Arfur Bryant
December 14, 2016 4:57 pm

Trick:
[“Arfur:
1) Misquotes Clausius.
2) Doesn’t know global Tmedian has measurably and meaningfully changed since global thermometer fields were installed. Now we have space based radiometers.
3) Doesn’t understand 2LOT is an entropy law not a heat law thus relevant for the Earth/atm. system energy budgets which must increase universe entropy.
4) Doesn’t understand there is no heat in an object, not in the atm., ocean or dirt surface though there is a lot of constituent KE in each of those.
5) Doesn’t understand why there is no net cold to hot in anything I wrote as I used 1LOT object KE transfer and 2LOT for direction. Quote Clausius words, find that Clausius wrote consistent with there is no heat in an object only constituent KE.
6) Doesn’t understand I persist in writing radiation absorbed into an object becomes energy INTO that object consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT confirmed by experiment..
7) Doesn’t understand that adding wooden chairs (or mirrors) to a room is not the same as adding CO2 to Earth atm. Prof. Tyndall added CO2 to his experiment not wooden chairs (or mirrors).”]

Ok Trick, have it your way, we’ll do the tennis match quoting debate…
Arfur:
1) Misquotes Clausius. ** No I didn’t. I said, “In simple terms, the Clausius statement reads that heat will only flow from hot to cold. Spin it whatever way you want.” Tell me why this is a misquotation.**
2) Doesn’t know global Tmedian has measurably and meaningfully changed since global thermometer fields were installed. Now we have space based radiometers. ** I have never mentioned TMedian so stop misquoting me. Of course Median is going to change if you use modern measuring instruments against ice core data or tree rings…**
3) Doesn’t understand 2LOT is an entropy law not a heat law thus relevant for the Earth/atm. system energy budgets which must increase universe entropy. ** Strange, the term Entropy was coined by Clausius after a few iterations of his 1850 essay entitled ‘On the Motive Power of Heat…’ Who am I to disagree with him?**
4) Doesn’t understand there is no heat in an object, not in the atm., ocean or dirt surface though there is a lot of constituent KE in each of those. ** Again, I never said there was; I talked about heat FLOW. Please stop twisting my words to support your straw man arguments.**
5) Doesn’t understand why there is no net cold to hot in anything I wrote as I used 1LOT object KE transfer and 2LOT for direction. Quote Clausius words, find that Clausius wrote consistent with there is no heat in an object only constituent KE. **Yes, strange he first used the term ‘mechanical equivalence of heat’ before he called it Entropy, isn’t it?**
6) Doesn’t understand I persist in writing radiation absorbed into an object becomes energy INTO that object consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT confirmed by experiment.. **So, does the energy INTO the object cause the object to get warmer or not? Simple question…**
7) Doesn’t understand that adding wooden chairs (or mirrors) to a room is not the same as adding CO2 to Earth atm. Prof. Tyndall added CO2 to his experiment not wooden chairs (or mirrors). **But Tyndall, who you seem to think had all the answers, experimented on the absorption of radiation by gasses such as CO2. He did not experiment on whether the backradiation from these gasses then re-heated the object from which they first received the radiation!**
Like I said Trick, keep it real. And please stop referring to me in the third person. I doubt if anyone else is watching by now…

Arfur Bryant
December 14, 2016 5:13 pm

Phil,
[“No, an object at 350K and one at 250K can both emit a 15μm photon, both photons will be absorbed by a blackbody at 300K equally well it has nothing to do with the temperature of the source. The observer has no way to tell the temperature of the source by the energy of an individual photon.”]
Your statement is correct but misleading. Even though they CAN emit the same wavelength photo, the fact is that the 350K object can emit a photon which possesses more energy (and is at a shorter wavelength) than any photon emitted by the 250K object. It is this photon which can raise the internal (thermal) energy level of the receiving object.
[“Yes it can and does,15μm photons incident on an absorber it will raise the energy of the absorber by ~8kJ/mole regardless of the temperature of the absorber.”]
Well, congratulations! I wish you all the best patenting a room heater that can heat a room when the heating element is colder than the room…
[“There is plenty, a very direct one is the use of radiation shields in the use of thermocouples in flames. If you put a thermocouple in a flame you measure a lower temperature than the actual flame temperature due to loss to the surroundings by radiation. If you put a quartz radiation shield around the thermocouple the temperature measured goes up closer to the flame temperature because the radiation exchange with the shield involves ‘back radiation’ from the shield which is hotter than that from the previous surroundings. This is very old technology, so old it was the subject of NACA reports, i.e. before NASA.”]
And how does this relate to measurably warming the surface of the Earth by radiation from 0.04% of the cooler atmosphere which has itself been warmed by the Earth? Or are you trying to suggest that atmospheric CO2 is an effective insulator?
Dogma is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

December 15, 2016 2:23 pm

Arfur Bryant December 14, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Phil,
[“No, an object at 350K and one at 250K can both emit a 15μm photon, both photons will be absorbed by a blackbody at 300K equally well it has nothing to do with the temperature of the source. The observer has no way to tell the temperature of the source by the energy of an individual photon.”]
Your statement is correct but misleading. Even though they CAN emit the same wavelength photo, the fact is that the 350K object can emit a photon which possesses more energy (and is at a shorter wavelength) than any photon emitted by the 250K object. It is this photon which can raise the internal (thermal) energy level of the receiving object.

Wrong, they both emit photons over the same wavelength (and hence energy) range, the difference is that the hotter one emits more photons at each wavelength with the distribution shifted to shorter wavelengths.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmod/bbrc4b.gif
[“Yes it can and does,15μm photons incident on an absorber it will raise the energy of the absorber by ~8kJ/mole regardless of the temperature of the absorber.”]
Well, congratulations! I wish you all the best patenting a room heater that can heat a room when the heating element is colder than the room…

This was in answer to: And the only time a higher (thermal) energy level will be reached by the receiving surface is if the incoming photon possesses the required energy to elevate the ‘excitement’ level (your term). On the macro scale, this is portrayed by an increase in temperature of the surface. As heat only flows one from hot to cold, the higher thermal anergy level can not be reached by the absorption of a low energy photon.
You continue to incorrectly associate the wavelength of the photon with temperature and falsely assume that such a ‘low energy photon’ can not be absorbed by a warm surface. In fact a photon of any wavelength can be absorbed as long as the appropriate energy level separation exists in the absorber.
Take for example an O3 molecule in the atmosphere, it can emit IR in the 9-10 micron range, by your definition that would be a ‘low energy photon’, however if I focus enough 10 micron photons on a steel plate I will melt it!
There is no real evidence to suggest the existence of surface warming by back radiation.
I replied:
[“There is plenty, a very direct one is the use of radiation shields in the use of thermocouples in flames. If you put a thermocouple in a flame you measure a lower temperature than the actual flame temperature due to loss to the surroundings by radiation. If you put a quartz radiation shield around the thermocouple the temperature measured goes up closer to the flame temperature because the radiation exchange with the shield involves ‘back radiation’ from the shield which is hotter than that from the previous surroundings. This is very old technology, so old it was the subject of NACA reports, i.e. before NASA.”]
And how does this relate to measurably warming the surface of the Earth by radiation from 0.04% of the cooler atmosphere which has itself been warmed by the Earth? Or are you trying to suggest that atmospheric CO2 is an effective insulator?

Easy, you have a thermocouple heated by a hot gas flow it loses heat by radiating to its surroundings, the heat balance is given by:
h(Tgas-Ttc)= εσ(Ttc^4-Tamb^4)
An example using typical parameters where the measured temperature is 1100K and Tamb is 300K
gives a Tgas of 1185K an error of about 7%.
Put a shield around the thermocouple which then is itself heated up to say 1000K, now Tamb for the thermocouple is 1000K (the Tamb^4 term is ‘back radiation’ from a cooler object) and the measured temperature (Ttc) is much closer to the gas temperature (Tgas). So the temperature of the thermocouple has increased by being surrounded by a shield that is cooler than itself.
Dogma is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
I’ll leave the dogma to you I’ll stick with the science.

December 15, 2016 3:11 pm

So the temperature of the thermocouple has increased by being surrounded by a shield that is cooler than itself.

It’s just closer to the actual temperature of the flame. The flame isn’t any warmer.

Trick
December 15, 2016 4:53 pm

More fun with Arfur.
“1) Tell me why this is a misquotation” Clausius on his entropy law 2LOT, 9th memoir p. 365 direct quote: “2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.” Clausius did not write it as Arfur misquotes.
2)”Of course Median is going to change” Good, Arfur changes, improves, now agrees there is energy gained by the surface molecule.
3) See 1).
4) “I talked about heat flow” Wrongly since something that does not exist in an object cannot flow out of that object. KE exists in object; KE can flow out as object cools.
5) No strangeness, Clausius worked from his experiments and those of others to develop the 2LOT theory.
6) “Does the energy INTO the object cause the object to get warmer or not? Simple question…” Higher temperature by thermometer measurement than without the kinetic energy as Prof. Tyndall showed by thermopile and thermometer.
7) Third person? Actually Tyndall did experiment on whether the backradiation from these gasses then re-heated the object from which they first received the radiation as there were thermometers shown in his radiation source & monitored steady. 2LOT held.

Arfur Bryant
December 15, 2016 5:04 pm

Phil,
Firstly, I should have made my point more clearly, so thank you for making me realise that. Yes, any heat source can emit a photon of similar wavelengths. However, what I should have stated is that the average photon energy emitted from the warmer object is greater than the average photo energy from the cooler object. In addition, the SUM of energies from the warmer object is greater than that of the cooler object. I hope you can agree with that. Therefore, on average (which is what temperature is) the kinetic energy is greater associated with the warmer object. This means that, on average, a cooler object cannot heat (by radiate or any other transmission mechanism) a cooler object.
You continuously argue the microscopic whilst ignoring the macroscopic. Whereas there may well be photons of high energy emitted from any object, it is the average of the photons which are evidenced in the macroscopic world. This is the world of ‘global warming’. A single photon being absorbed by a surface is irrelevant to the overall temperature of the object. It is the cumulative sum (or average) that will denote whether a temperature rise will occur. I should have stressed this in my earlier comments.
Secondly, [“I’ll leave the dogma to you I’ll stick with the science.”]
The problem is you are not taking the holistic view. Science, at its most basic, has to make sense. That is why it was invented – to make sense of the real world. By just looking at the trees and not seeing the forest, you limit your world view and hide behind “oh, but I’m just doing science”. Quantum physics looks at the microscopic but the real world includes many other factors. So-called scientists who push an AGW agenda are doing so on an assumption, not evidence. ECS (in any significant sense) is an assumption, not fact.
As I said to you – and the thermocouple experiment proves your view, even though you did not answer me earlier – you are now trying to make the case that CO2 is an insulator. If you insulate against heat loss you will reduce heat loss but you will not make the source hotter. But the experiment bares no resemblance to the real world of back radiation from 0.04% of the atmosphere. The real – macro – world simply does not agree with you. Remove 99.96% of the radiation shield and repeat the experiment.
PS, Season’s Greetings! 🙂

Arfur Bryant
December 17, 2016 3:21 am

Trick,
You are becoming tiresome. You cannot give a different quote from Clausius and then state that I have mis-quoted him! In his 1854 essay entitled ‘On a modified form of the second Fundamental Theorem in the Mechanical Theory of Heat’ (English translation 1856 page 86), Clausius states:
[“This principle, upon which the whole of the following development rests, is as follows: Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”]
If you are unable to accept this as a quote from Clausius then we have nothing further to discuss.
Further, you state, in response to me using the term ‘Heat Flow’:
[“Wrongly since something that does not exist in an object cannot flow out of that object. KE exists in object; KE can flow out as object cools.”]
Again, you are being obtuse to the point of ridiculousness. In the Entropy formula: delta S = delta Q divided by T, ask yourself what Q stands for. I agree that ‘heat’ cannot exist in an object but heat may be defined as the flow of energy (or energy in transfer) from a hot object to a colder object. Your statement “KE can flow out as object cools” is what would normally be termed as ‘heating’ the colder object.
Frankly, I don’t care if you want to side-track the point in meaningless jargon. The fact is – and I repeat – Heat cannot flow from Cold to Hot.
I will not respond further, so I wish you Season’s Greetings and a happy life.
Regards,
Arfur

Trick
December 17, 2016 7:19 am

Arfur – You can still learn from Clausius.
The 1854 quote you clip is not Clausius’ 2LOT. Many are misguided by your 1854 clip when they mistake that clip as the law, not you alone. That quote is derived from Clausius 2LOT. My point is your misquoting Clausius’ 2LOT causes you confusion when you invoke your 1854 clip as the law. You need to quote exactly the 2LOT and proceed your logic from there and you will find your confusions. You will find KE can flow from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object and increase universe entropy consistent with 2LOT as Clausius wrote it contrary to your incorrect statement: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body.” Hint: Your study will find a need to invoke M-B distribution.
Q stands for kinetic energy flow in/out of an object (never heat) as Clausius clearly explained in his 1st memoir p. 18. Q adds a lot of confusion to your writing and that of others when you don’t define Q exactly as Clausius did. There is a lot of confusion that crept in behind on Q (even in many text books) and still exists today, I always urge reading the original authors which takes some work that many (most?) will not do & the confusion continues.

December 18, 2016 4:11 am

Arfur Bryant December 15, 2016 at 5:04 pm
Phil,
Firstly, I should have made my point more clearly, so thank you for making me realise that. Yes, any heat source can emit a photon of similar wavelengths. However, what I should have stated is that the average photon energy emitted from the warmer object is greater than the average photo energy from the cooler object. In addition, the SUM of energies from the warmer object is greater than that of the cooler object. I hope you can agree with that. Therefore, on average (which is what temperature is) the kinetic energy is greater associated with the warmer object.

So far so good.
This means that, on average, a cooler object cannot heat (by radiate or any other transmission mechanism) a cooler object.
I guess you meant warmer here? It’s not true, the warmer body will increase its temperature as the cooler body with which it is in equilibrium increases its temperature.
You continuously argue the microscopic whilst ignoring the macroscopic. Whereas there may well be photons of high energy emitted from any object, it is the average of the photons which are evidenced in the macroscopic world. This is the world of ‘global warming’. A single photon being absorbed by a surface is irrelevant to the overall temperature of the object. It is the cumulative sum (or average) that will denote whether a temperature rise will occur. I should have stressed this in my earlier comments.
But the photons are acting at the individual level, we constantly see convoluted arguments here that a photon emitted from a cooler body can not by some mysterious means be absorbed by the warmer body which is absolute bunk. You’ve got to get the microscopic right to get the whole right.
Secondly, [“I’ll leave the dogma to you I’ll stick with the science.”]
The problem is you are not taking the holistic view. Science, at its most basic, has to make sense. That is why it was invented – to make sense of the real world. By just looking at the trees and not seeing the forest, you limit your world view and hide behind “oh, but I’m just doing science”. Quantum physics looks at the microscopic but the real world includes many other factors. So-called scientists who push an AGW agenda are doing so on an assumption, not evidence. ECS (in any significant sense) is an assumption, not fact.

Quantum mechanics doesn’t make sense to some, including Einstein at one point but it is correct and necessary to understand the process.
As I said to you – and the thermocouple experiment proves your view, even though you did not answer me earlier – you are now trying to make the case that CO2 is an insulator. If you insulate against heat loss you will reduce heat loss but you will not make the source hotter. But the experiment bares no resemblance to the real world of back radiation from 0.04% of the atmosphere. The real – macro – world simply does not agree with you. Remove 99.96% of the radiation shield and repeat the experiment.
Why would I remove 99.96% of the CO2? 99.96% of the atmosphere is transparent to IR and has no part in the radiative interaction. If I double the CO2 it’s the same as increasing the emissivity of the radiation shield which would increase the temperature of the thermocouple.
<em.PS, Season’s Greetings! 🙂
Same to you.

Arfur Bryant
December 19, 2016 2:13 am

Phil,
You keep talking about your radiation shield but you don’t provide any evidence that ‘backradiation’ actually works.
I read your NACA TN 2599 and it only mentions a shield once (and it says nothing about Quartz). Here is the text:
[“”The thermocouple is initially shielded from the hot gases by a tube through which cooler air is blown. The tube is suddenly removed, exposing the unit to the hot gases. The response is shown in Fig 5.”]
Figure 5 shows that the temperature of the thermocouple rises once the tube has been removed! Help me out here please. Can you please give an exact reference to support your claim re backradiation?
You also state:
[“Easy, you have a thermocouple heated by a hot gas flow it loses heat by radiating to its surroundings, the heat balance is given by:
h(Tgas-Ttc)= εσ(Ttc^4-Tamb^4)
An example using typical parameters where the measured temperature is 1100K and Tamb is 300K
gives a Tgas of 1185K an error of about 7%.
Put a shield around the thermocouple which then is itself heated up to say 1000K, now Tamb for the thermocouple is 1000K (the Tamb^4 term is ‘back radiation’ from a cooler object) and the measured temperature (Ttc) is much closer to the gas temperature (Tgas). So the temperature of the thermocouple has increased by being surrounded by a shield that is cooler than itself.”]

No, you have insulated the thermocouple (which I have mentioned several times now) and then provided a source of energy into the thermocouple! Of course it will heat up! So, I repeat, are you claiming atmospheric CO2 is an insulator?

Reply to  Arfur Bryant
December 18, 2016 4:17 am

micro6500 December 15, 2016 at 3:11 pm
So the temperature of the thermocouple has increased by being surrounded by a shield that is cooler than itself.
It’s just closer to the actual temperature of the flame. The flame isn’t any warmer.

In this analogy the flame is the sun (the ultimate source of heat), the thermocouple is the earth (heated by the sun and cools by radiation with its surroundings), and the radiation shield is the atmosphere. I was asked to give an example of an object being heated via ‘back radiation’, I did so, one that’s used by engineers on a daily basis.

December 11, 2016 2:29 pm

In TS.6 IPCC AR5 admits they don’t know.
References:
Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10
This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,416 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.
An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h is attached. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the cross sectional area) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC heat balance problem.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
“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 by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.”
ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. That’s not just thin, that’s ludicrous thin.
The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.
The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.
ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic’s power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.
But let’s press on.
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.
The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.
Except they aren’t.
The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or layered from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable shortfall from 333.
(99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)
But wait!
The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A longer way away from 333.
But wait!
Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333.
But wait!
All of the above really doesn’t even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 W/m^2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes.
BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (i.e. water board the data till it gives up the right answer) data sets/models show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Trenberth was not happy. Obviously, those seven data sets/models have it completely wrong because there can’t possibly be any flaw in the GHE theory.
The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesn’t apply to the atmosphere, it doesn’t even apply to warming a real greenhouse. (“How Global Warming was Discovered” Spencer Weart) It’s the physical barrier of walls, glass, plastic that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium glassy transparent radiative thermal diode.
The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.
The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.
Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy as she has posted a challenge for such an explanation.

urederra
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 11, 2016 6:16 pm

The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT,

How does the blanket work on Venus?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
Does the equation fit with Venus temperature vs height data? I am curious.

December 11, 2016 7:53 pm

The analogy is false, so requires no response. The GHE does not work like a thermal ‘blanket’ which impedes convection. It impedes thermal,radiative cooling, an altogether different physical proposition.
Separately, themwhole Venus gravitational potential argument is wrong from first principles. Too boring to rehash gain here, For you, consider the definition of ‘work’ energy and the whole BS skydragon idea automatically’fails. Please grok simple basic physics ideas.

December 11, 2016 8:45 pm

0.04% of the atmosphere do exactly SQUAT!!

StephanF
December 11, 2016 9:51 pm

Wasn’t the Venus temperature explained in a past post here on WUWT? I recollect, that it had to do with the much higher atmospheric density (compared to earth), the much higher pressure and the barometric height formula. As I understand it, at some height in the Venus atmosphere there is a radiation balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation; it is where the atmosphere becomes optically thick (looking from outer space). The atmospheric layer at that height has some equilibrium temperature but from there down to the Venus surface the atmosphere will heat up substantially, one could calculate this with the atmospheric height formula under the assumption of an adiabatic atmosphere, for example. But this is not my field of expertise…

December 11, 2016 9:54 pm

NS, wrong. Boy, you do not understand the GHE. Really do not. Making the easily discredited concentration argument misconception just proves my point about NOT providing warmunists stupid counter ammunition, as you just did. Again. Either learn the basics, or get off the front lines.
Please. For our sake. You are the logical equivalent of an enemy Daesh suicide bomb. Not helpful. And a different reply to your exact comment posted on a previous thread. You think our memory is shot, also?

December 12, 2016 7:00 am

Nicholas Schroeder,
0.04% concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is even enough that every IR ray – being radiated from the surface – will hit one CO2 (or another GHG) molecule after 20 to 100 Meters, one wise man told me.
And then the game starts: The molecule is “heated up”, and giving away the heat by contact to another atmospheric molecule or radiating in a random direction, which is half up or half down (in distinct angles). That IR ray is hitting another molecule, heating it up as well, and so on.
If an O2 or a N2 molecule is heated up by contact it will eventually contact a CO2 or a H2O molecule which radiates again in a random direction. As the atmosphere gets thinner towards top of atmosphere, there is more and more space between the molecules, so the IR rays can pass a longer distance without disturbance, finally radiating into the space.
If the concentration of GHG molecules is higher, then the ping-pong game lasts a bit longer, means a stronger delay.
This is the story, as I as a layman unterstands it.

Trick