A Consensus Of Convenience

We publish this here, not to confirm that it is correct, but to stimulate the debate needed to determine whether or not it is correct or if it’s simply an exercise in curve fitting. ~ctm

George White, August 2017

Climate science is the most controversial science of the modern era. A reason why the controversy has been so persistent is that those who accept the IPCC as the arbiter of climate science fail to recognize that a controversy even exists. Their rationalization is that the IPCC’s conclusions are presented as the result of a scientific consensus, therefore, the threshold for overturning them is so high, it can’t be met, especially by anyone who’s peer reviewed work isn’t published in a main stream climate science journal. Their universal reaction when presented with contraindicative evidence is that there’s no way it can be true, therefore, it deserves no consideration and whoever brought it up can be ignored while the catch22 makes it almost impossible to get contraindicative evidence into any main stream journal.

This prejudice is not limited to those with a limited understanding of the science, but is widespread among those who think they understand and even quite prevalent among notable scientists in the field. Anyone who has ever engaged in communications with an individual who has accepted the consensus conclusions has likely observed this bias, often accompanied with demeaning language presented with extreme self righteous indignation that you would dare question the ‘settled science’ of the consensus.

The Fix

Correcting broken science that’s been settled by a consensus is made more difficult by its support from recursive logic where the errors justify themselves by defining what the consensus believes. The best way forward is to establish a new consensus. This means not just falsifying beliefs that support the status quo, but more importantly, replacing those beliefs with something more definitively settled.

Since politics has taken sides, climate science has become driven by the rules of politics rather than the rules of science. Taking a page from how a political consensus arises, the two sides must first understand and acknowledge what they have in common before they can address where they differ.

Alarmists and deniers alike believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that GHG gases contribute to making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and that the climate changes. The denier label used by alarmists applies to anyone who doesn’t accept everything the consensus believes with the implication being that truths supported by real science are also being denied. Surely, if one believes that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, that man isn’t putting CO2 into the atmosphere, that GHG’s don’t contribute to surface warmth, that the climate isn’t changing or that the laws of physics don’t apply, they would be in denial, but few skeptics are that uninformed.

Most skeptics would agree that if there was significant anthropogenic warming, we should take steps to prepare for any consequences. This means applying rational risk management, where all influences of increased CO2 and a warming climate must be considered. Increased atmospheric CO2 means more raw materials for photosynthesis, which at the base of the food chain is the sustaining foundation for nearly all life on Earth. Greenhouse operators routinely increase CO2 concentrations to be much higher than ambient because it’s good for the plants and does no harm to people. Warmer temperatures also have benefits. If you ask anyone who’s not a winter sports enthusiast what their favorite season is, it will probably not be winter. If you have sufficient food and water, you can survive indefinitely in the warmest outdoor temperatures found on the planet. This isn’t true in the coldest places where at a minimum you also need clothes, fire, fuel and shelter.

While the differences between sides seems irreconcilable, there’s only one factor they disagree about and this is the basis for all other differences. While this disagreement is still insurmountable, narrowing the scope makes it easier to address. The controversy is about the size of the incremental effect atmospheric CO2 has on the surface temperature which is a function of the size of the incremental effect solar energy has. This parameter is referred to as the climate sensitivity factor. What makes it so controversial is that the consensus accepts a sensitivity presumed by the IPCC, while the possible range theorized, calculated and measured by skeptics has little to no overlap with the range accepted by the consensus. The differences are so large that only one side can be right and the other must be irreconcilably wrong, which makes compromise impossible, perpetuating the controversy.

The IPCC’s sensitivity has never been validated by first principles physics or direct measurements. It’s most widely touted support comes from models, but it seems that as they add degrees of freedom to curve fit the past, the predictions of the future get alarmingly worse. Its support from measurements comes from extrapolating trends arising from manipulated data where the adjustments are poorly documented and the fudge factors always push results in one direction. This introduces even less certain unknowns, which are how much of the trend is a component of natural variability, how much is due to adjustments and how much is due to CO2. This seems counterproductive since the climate sensitivity should be relatively easy to predict using the settled laws of physics and even easier to measure with satellite observations, so what’s the point in the obfuscation by introducing unnecessary levels of indirection, additional unknowns and imaginary complexity?

Quantifying the Relationships

To quantify the sensitivity, we must start from a baseline that everyone can agree upon. This would be the analysis for a body like the Moon which has no atmosphere and that can be trivially modeled as an ideal black body. While not rocket science, an analysis similar to this was done prior to exploring the Moon in order to establish the required operational limits for lunar hardware. The Moon is a good place to start since it receives the same amount of solar energy as Earth and its inorganic composition is the same. Unless the Moon’s degenerate climate system can be accurately modeled, there’s no chance that a more complex system like the Earth can ever be understood.

To derive the sensitivity of the Moon, construct a behavioral model by formalizing the requirements of Conservation Of Energy as equation 1).

1) Pi(t) = Po(t) + ∂E(t)/∂t

Consider the virtual surface of matter in equilibrium with the Sun, which for the Moon is the same as its solid surface. Pi(t) is the instantaneous solar power absorbed by this surface, Po(t) is the instantaneous power emitted by it and E(t) is the solar energy stored by it. If Po(t) is instantaneously greater than Pi(t), ∂E(t)/∂t is negative and E(t) decreases until Po(t) becomes equal to Pi(t). If Po(t) is less than Pi(t), ∂E(t)/∂t is positive and E(t) increases until again Po(t) is equal to Pi(t). This equation quantifies more than just an ideal black body. COE dictates that it must be satisfied by the macroscopic behavior of any thermodynamic system that lacks an internal source of power, since changes in E(t) affect Po(t) enough to offset ∂E(t)/∂t. What differs between modeled systems is the nature of the matter in equilibrium with its energy source, the complexity of E(t) and the specific relationship between E(t) and Po(t). An astute observer will recognize that if an amount of time, τ, is defined such that all of E is emitted at the rate Po, the result becomes Pi = E/τ + ∂E/∂t which is the same form as the differential equation describing the charging and discharging of a capacitor which is another COE derived model of a physical system whose solutions are very well known where τ is the RC time constant.

For an ideal black body like the Moon, E(t) is the net solar energy stored by the top layer of its surface. From this, we can establish the precise relationship between E(t) and Po(t) by first establishing the relationship between the temperature, T(t) and E(t) as shown by equation 2).

2) T(t) = κE(t)

The temperature of matter and the energy stored by it are linearly dependent on each other through a proportionality constant, κ, which is a function of the heat capacity and equivalent mass of the matter in direct equilibrium with the Sun. Next, equation 3) quantifies the relationship between T(t) and Po(t).

3) Po(t) = εσT(t)4

This is just the Stefan-Boltzmann Law where σ is the Stefan Boltzmann constant and equal to about 5.67E-8 W/m2 per T4, and for the Moon, the emissivity of the surface, ε, is approximately equal to 1.

Pi(t) can be expressed as a function of Solar energy, Psun(t), and the albedo, α, as shown in equation 4).

4) Pi(t) = Psun(t)(1 – α)

Going forward, all of the variables will be considered implicit functions of time. The model now has 4 equations and 7 variables, Psun, Pi, Po, T, α, κ and ε. Psun is known for all points in time and space across the Moon’s surface. The albedo α and heat capacity κ are mostly constant across the surface and ε is almost exactly 1. To the extent that Psun, α, κ and ε are known, we can reduce the problem to 4 equations and 4 unknowns, Pi, T, Po and E, whose time varying values can be calculated for any point on the surface by solving a simple differential equation applied to an equal area gridded representation whose accuracy is limited only by the accuracy of α, κ and ε per cell. Any model that conforms to equations 1) through 4) will be referred to as a Physical Model.

Quantifying the Sensitivity

Starting from a Physical Model, the Moon’s sensitivity can be easily calculated. The ∂E/∂t term is what the IPCC calls ‘forcing’ which is the instantaneous difference between Pi and Po at TOA and/or TOT. For the Moon, TOT and TOA are coincident with the solid surface defining the virtual surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun. The IPCC defines forcing like this so that an increase in Pi owing to a decrease in albedo or increase in solar output can be made equivalent to a decrease in Po from a decrease in power passing through the transparent spectrum of the atmospheric that would arise from increased GHG concentrations. This definition is ambiguous since Pi is independent of E, while Po is highly dependent on E, thus a change in Pi is not equivalent to a the same change in Po since both change E, while only Po changes in response to changes in E which initiates further changes E and Po. The only proper characterization of forcing is a change in Pi and this is what will be used here.

While ∂E/∂t is the instantaneous difference between Pi and Po and conforms to the IPCC definition of forcing, the IPCC representation of the sensitivity assumes that ∂T/∂t is linearly proportional to ∂E/∂t, or at least approximately so. This is incorrect because of the T4 relationship between T and Po. The approximately linear assumption is valid over a small temperature range around average, but is definitely not valid over the range of all possible temperatures.

To calculate the Long Term Equilibrium sensitivity, we must consider that in the steady state, the temporal average of Pi is equal to the temporal average of Po, thus the integral over time of dE/dt will be zero. Given that in LTE, Pi is equal to Po, and the Moon certainly is in an LTE steady state, we can write the LTE balance equation as,

5) Pi = Po = εσT4

To calculate the LTE sensitivity, simply differentiate and invert the above equation which gives us,

6) ∂T/∂Pi = ∂T/∂Po = 1/(4εσT3)

This derivation does make an assumption, which is that ∂T/∂Pi = ∂T/∂Po since we’re really calculating ∂T/∂Po. For the Moon this is true, but for a planet with an semi-transparent atmosphere between the energy source and the surface in equilibrium with it, they aren’t for the same reason that the IPCC’s metric of forcing is ambiguous. None the less, what makes them different can be quantified and the quantification can be tested. But for the Moon, which will serve as the baseline, it doesn’t matter.

Define the average temperature of the Moon as the equivalent temperature of a black body where each square meter of surface is emitting the same amount of power such that when summed across all square meters, it adds up to the actual emissions. Normalizing to an average rate per m2 is a meaningful metric since all Joules are equivalent and the average of incoming and outgoing rates of Joules is meaningful for quantifying the effects one has on the other, moreover; a rate of energy per m2 can be trivially interchanged with an equivalent temperature. This same kind of average is widely applied to the Earth’s surface when calculating its average temperature from satellite data where the resulting surface emissions are converted to an equivalent temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

If the average temperature of the Moon was 255K, equation 6) tells us that ∂T/∂Pi is about 0.3C per W/m2. If it was the 288K like the Earth, the sensitivity would be about 0.18C per W/m2. Notice that owing to the 1/T3 dependence of the sensitivity on temperature, as the temperature increases, the sensitivity decreases at an exponential rate. The average albedo of the Moon is about 0.12 leading to an average Pi and Po of about 300 W/m2 corresponding to an equivalent average temperature of about 270K and an average sensitivity of about 0.22 C per W/m2.

As far as the Moon is concerned, this analysis is based on nothing but first principles physics and the undeniable, deterministic average sensitivity that results is about 0.22C per W/m2. This is based on indisputable science, moreover; the predictions of Lunar temperatures using models like this have been well validated by measurements.

The 270K average temperature of the Moon would be the Earth’s average temperature if there were no GHG’s since this also means no liquid water, ice or clouds resulting in an Earth albedo of 0.12 just like the Moon. This contradicts the often repeated claim that GHG’s increase the temperature of Earth from 255K to 288K, or about 33C, where 255K is the equivalent temperature of the 240 W/m2 average power arriving at the planet after reflection. This is only half the story and it’s equally important to understand that water also cools the planet by about 15K owing to the albedo of clouds and ice which can’t be separated from the warming effect of water vapor making the net warming of the Earth from all effects about 18C and not 33C. Water vapor accounts for about 2/3 of the 33 degrees of warming leaving about 11C arising from all other GHG’s and clouds. The other GHG’s have no corresponding cooling effect, thus the net warming due to water is about 7C (33*2/3 – 15) while the net warming from all other sources combined is about 11C, where only a fraction of this arises from from CO2 alone.

Making It More Complex

Differences arise as the system gets more complex. At a level of complexity representative of the Earth’s climate system, the consensus asserts that the sensitivity increases all the way up to 0.8C per W/m2, which is nearly 4 times the sensitivity of a comparable system without GHG’s. Skeptics maintain that the sensitivity isn’t changing by anywhere near that much and remains close to where it started from without GHG’s and if anything, net negative feedback might make it even smaller.

Lets consider the complexity in an incremental manner, starting with the length of the day. For longer period rotations, the same point on the surface is exposed to the heat of the Sun and the cold of deep space for much longer periods of time. As the rotational speed increases, the difference between the minimum and maximum temperature decreases, but given the same amount of total incident power, the average emissions and equivalent average temperature will remain exactly the same. At real slow rotation rates, the dark side can emit all of the energy it ever absorbed from the Sun and the surface emissions will approach those corresponding to it’s internal temperature which does affect the result.

The sensitivity we care about is relevant to how the LTE averages change. The average emissions and corresponding average temperature are locked to an invariant amount of incident solar energy while the rotation rate has only a small effect on the average sensitivity related to the T-3 relationship between temperature and the sensitivity. Longer days and nights mean that local sensitivities will span a wider range owing to a wider temperature range. Since higher temperatures require a larger portion of the total energy budget, as the rotation rate slows, the average sensitivity decreases. To normalize this to Earth, consider a Moon with a 24 hour day where this effect is relatively small.

The next complication is to add an atmosphere. Start with an Earth like atmosphere of N2, O2, and Ar except without water or other GHG’s. On the Moon, gravity is less, so it will take more atmosphere to achieve Earth like atmospheric pressures. To normalize this, consider a Moon the size of the Earth and with Earth like gravity.

The net effect of an atmosphere devoid of GHG’s and clouds will also reduce the difference between high and low extremes, but not by much since dry air can’t hold and transfer much heat, nor will there be much of a difference between ∂T/∂Pi and ∂T/∂Po. Since O2, N2 and Ar are mostly transparent to both incoming visible light and outgoing LWIR radiation, this atmosphere has little impact on the temperature, the energy balance or the sensitivity of the surface temperature to forcing.

At this point, we have a Physical Model representative of an Earth like planet with an Earth like atmosphere, except that it contains no GHG’s, clouds, liquid or solid water, the average temperature is 270K and the average sensitivity is 0.22 W/m2. It’s safe to say that up until this point in the analysis, the Physical Model is based on nothing but well settled physics. There’s still an ocean and a small percentage of the atmosphere to account for, comprised mostly of water and trace gases like CO2, CH4 and O3.

The Fun Starts Here

The consensus contends that the Earth’s climate system is far too complex to be represented with something as deterministic as a Physical Model, even as this model works perfectly well for an Earth like planet missing only water a few trace gases. They arm wave complexities like GHG’s, clouds, coupling between the land, oceans and atmosphere, model predictions, latent heat, thermals, non linearities, chaos, feedback and interactions between these factors as contributing to making the climate too complex to model in such a trivial way, moreover; what about Venus? Each of these issues will be examined by itself to see what effects it might have on the surface temperature, planet emissions and the sensitivity as quantified by the Physical Model, including how this model explains Venus.

Greenhouse Gases

When GHG’s other than water vapor are added to the Physical Model, the effect on the surface temperature can be readily quantified. If some fraction of the energy emitted by the surface is captured by GHG molecules, some fraction of what was absorbed by those molecules is ultimately returned to the surface making it warmer while the remaining fraction is ultimately emitted into space manifesting the energy balance. This is relatively easy to add to the model equations as a decrease in the effective emissivity of a surface at some temperature relative to the emissions of a planet. If Ps is the surface emissions corresponding to T, Fa is the fraction of Ps that’s captured by GHG’s and Fr is the fraction of the captured power returned to the surface, we can express this in equations 7) and 8).

7) Ps = εxσT4

8) Po = (1 – Fa)Ps + FaPs(1 – Fr)

 

The first term in equation 8) is the power passing though the atmosphere that’s not intercepted by GHG’s and the second term is the fraction of what was captured and ultimately emitted into space. Solving equation 8) for Po/Ps, we get equation 9),

9) Po/Ps = 1 – FaFr

Now, we can combine with equation 9) with equation 7) to rewrite equation 3) as equation 3a).

3a) Po = (1 – FaFr)εxσT4

Here, εx is the emissivity of the surface itself, which like the surface of the Moon without GHG’s is also approximately 1, where (1 – FaFr) is the effective emissivity contributed by the semi-transparent atmosphere. This can be double checked by calculating Psi, which is the power incident to the surface and by recognizing that Psi – Ps is equal to ∂E/∂t and Pi – Po.

 

10) Psi = Pi + PsFaFr

11) Psi – Ps = Pi – Po

Solving 11) for Psi and substituting into 10), we get equation 12), solving for Po results in 13) which after substituting 7) for Ps is yet another way to arrive at equation 3a).

12) Ps – Po = PsFaFr

13) Po = (1 – FaFr)Ps

The result is that adding GHG’s modifies the effective emissivity of the planet from 1 for an ideal black body surface to a smaller value as the atmosphere absorbs some fraction of surface emissions making the planets emissions, relative to its surface temperature, appear gray from space. The effective emissivity of this gray body emitter, ε’, is given exactly by equation 3a) as ε’ = (1 – FaFr)εx.

Clouds

Clouds are the most enigmatic of the complications, but none the less can easily fit within the Physical Model. The way to model clouds is to characterize them by the fraction of surface covered by them and then apply the Physical Model with values of α, κ and ε specific to average clear and average cloudy skies and then weighting the results based on the specific proportions of each.

Consider the Pi term, where if ρ is the fraction of the surface covered by clouds, αc is the average albedo of cloudy skies and αs is the average albedo of clear skies, α can be calculated as equation 14).

14) α = ραc + (1 – ρ)αs

Now, consider the Po term, which can be similarly calculated as equation 15) where Ps and Pc are the emissions of the surface and clouds at their average temperatures, εs is the equivalent emissivity characterizing the clear atmosphere and εc is the equivalent emissivity characterizing clouds.

15) Po = ρεsεcPc + ρ(1 – εcsPs + (1 – ρ)εsPs

The first term is the power emitted by clouds, the second term is the surface power passing through clouds and the last term is the power emitted by the surface and passing through the clear sky. GHG’s can be accounted for by identifying the value of εs corresponding to the average absorption characteristics between the surface and space and between clouds and space. By considering Pc as some fraction of Ps and calling this Fx, equation 15) can be rearranged to calculate Po/Ps which is the same as the ε’ derived from equation 3a). The result is equation 16).

16) ε’ = Po/Ps = ρεs εcFx + ρεs (1 – εc) + (1 – ρ)εs

 

The variables εc, Fx and ρ can all be extracted from the ISCCP cloud data, as can αc and αs., moreover; the data supports a very linear relationship between Pc and Ps. The average value of ρ is 0.66, the average value of αc is 0.37 and αs is 0.16 resulting in a value for α of about 0.30 which is exactly equal to the accepted value. The average value of εc is about 0.72 and Fx is measured to be about 0.68. Considering εs to be 1, the effective ε’ is calculated to be about 0.85.

From line by line simulations of a standard atmosphere, the fraction of surface and cloud emissions absorbed by GHG’s, Fa, is about 0.58, the value of Fr as constrained by geometry is 0.5 and is measured to be about 0.51. From equation 13), the equivalent εs becomes 0.71. The new ε’ becomes 0.85 * 0.70 = 0.60 which is well within the margin of error for the expected value of Po/Ps which is 240/395 = 0.61 and even closer to the measured value from the ISCCP data of 238/396 = 0.60. When the same analysis is performed one hemisphere at a time, or even on individual slices of latitude, the predicted ratios of Po/Ps match the measurements once the net transfer of energy from the equator to the poles and between hemispheres is properly accounted for.

At this point, we have a Physical Model that accounts for GHG’s and clouds which accurately predicts the ratio between the BB surface emissions at its average temperature and predicts the average emissions of the planet spanning the entire range of temperatures found on the surface.

The applicability of the Physical Model to the Earth’s climate system is a hypothesis derived from first principles, which still must be tested. The first test predicting the ratio of the planets emissions to surface emissions got the right answer, but this is a simple test and while questioning the method is to deny physical laws, surely some will question the coefficients that led to this result. While the coefficients aren’t constant, they do vary around a mean and its the mean value that’s relevant to the LTE sensitivity. A more powerful testable prediction is that of the planets emissions as a function of surface temperature. The LTE relationship predicted by equation 3) is that if Po are the emissions of the planet and T is the surface temperature, the relationship between them is that of a gray body whose temperature is T and whose emissivity is ε’ and which is calculated to be about 0.61. The results of this test will be presented a little later along with justification for the coefficients used for the first test.

Complex Coupling

In the context of equation 1), complex couplings are modeled as individual storage pools of E that exchange energy among themselves. We’re only concerned about the LTE sensitivity, so by definition, the net exchange of energy among all pools contributing to the temperature must be zero. Otherwise, parts of the system will either heat up or cool down without bound. LTE is defined when the average ∂E/∂t is zero, thus the rate of change for the sum of its components must also be zero.

Not all pools of E necessarily contribute to the surface temperature. For example, some amount of E is consumed by photosynthesis and more is consumed to perform the work of weather. If we quantify E as two pools, one storing the energy that contributes to the surface temperature Es, and the energy stored in all other pools as Eo, we can rewrite equations 1) and 2) as,

1) Pi = Po + ∂Es/∂t + ∂Eo/∂t

1a) ∂E/∂t = ∂Es/∂t + ∂Eo/∂t

2a) T = κ(Es – Eo)

If Eo is a small percentage of Es, an equivalent κ can be calculated such that κE = κ(Es – Eo) and the Physical Model is still representative of the system as a whole and the value of κ will not deviate much from its theoretical value. Measurements from the ISCCP data suggest an average of about 1.8 +/- 0.5 W/m2 of the 240 W/m2 of the average incident solar energy is not contributing to heating the planet nor must it be emitted for the planet to be in a thermodynamic steady state.

Thus far, GHG’s, clouds and the coupling between the surface, oceans and atmosphere can all be accommodated with the Physical Model, by simply adjusting α, κ and ε. There can be no question that the Physical Model is capable of modeling the Earth’s climate and that per equation 6), the upper bound on the sensitivity is less than the 0.4C per W/m2 lower bound suggested by the IPCC. The rest of this discussion will address why the issues with this model are invalid, demonstrate tests whose results support predictions of the Physical Model and show other tests that falsify a high sensitivity.

Models

The results of climate models are frequently cited as supporting an ‘emergent’ high sensitivity, however; these models tend to include errors and assumptions that favor a high sensitivity. Many even dial in a presumed sensitivity indirectly. The underlying issue is that the GCM’s used for climate modeling have a very large number of coefficients whose values are unknown, so they are set based on ‘educated’ guesses and it’s this that leads to bias as objectivity is replaced with subjectivity.

In order to match the past, simulated annealing like algorithms are applied to vary these coefficients around their expected mean until the past is best matched, which if there are any errors in the presumed mean values or there are any fundamental algorithmic flaws, the effects of these errors accumulate making both predictions of the future and the further past worse. This modeling failure is clearly demonstrated by the physics defying predictions so commonly made by these models.

Consider a sine wave with a gradually increasing period. If the model used to represent it is a fixed period sine wave and the period of the model is matched to the average period of a few observed cycles, the model will deviate from what’s being modeled both before and after the range over which the model was calibrated. If the measurements span less than a full period, both a long period sine wave and a linear trend can fit the data, but when looking for a linear trend, the long period sine wave becomes invisible. Consider seasonal variability, which is nearly perfectly sinusoidal. If you measure the average linear trend from June to July and extrapolate, the model will definitely fail in the past and the future and the further out in time you go, the worse it will get. Notice that only sinusoidal and exponential functions of E work as solutions for equation 1), since only sinusoids and exponentials have a derivative whose form is the same as itself, given that Po is a function of E. Note that the theoretical and actual variability in Pi can be expressed as the sum of sinusoids and exponentials and that this leads to the linear property of superposition when behavior is modeled in the energy in, energy out domain, rather than in the energy in, temperature out domain preferred by the IPCC.

The way to make GCM’s more accurate is to insure that the macroscopic behavior of the system being modeled conforms to the constraints of the Physical Model. Clearly this is not being done, otherwise the modeled sensitivity would be closer to 0.22 C per W/m2 and no where near the 0.8C per W/m2 presumed by the consensus and supported by the erroneous models.

Non Radiant Energy

Adding non radiant energy transports to the mix adds yet another level of obfuscation. This arises from Trenberth’s energy balance which includes latent heat and thermals transporting energy into the atmosphere along with the 390 W/m2 of radiant energy arising from an ideal black body surface at 288K. Trenberth returns the non radiant energy to the surface as part of the ‘back radiation’ term, but its inclusion gets in the way of understanding how the energy balance relates to the sensitivity, especially since most of the return of this energy is not in the form of radiation, but in the form of air and water returning that energy back to the surface.

The reason is that neither latent heat, thermals or any other energy transported by matter into the atmosphere has any effect on the surface temperature, input flux or emissions of the planet, beyond the effect they are already having on these variables and whatever effects they have is bundled into the equivalent values of α, κ and ε. The controversy is about the sensitivity, which is the relationship between changes in Pi and changes in T. The Physical Model ascribed with equivalent values of α, κ and ε dictates exactly what the sensitivity must be. Since Pi, Po and T are all measurable values, validating that the net results of these non radiative transports are already accounted for by the relative relationships of measurable variables and that these relationships conform to the Physical Model is very testable and whose results are very repeatable.

Chaos and Non Linearities

Chaos and non linearities are a common complication used to dismiss the requirement that the macroscopic climate system behavior must obey the macroscopic laws of physics. Chaos is primarily an attribute of the path the climate system takes from one equilibrium state to another and is also called weather, which of course, is not the climate. Relative to the LTE response of the system and its corresponding LTE sensitivity, chaos averages out since the new equilibrium state itself is invariant and driven by the incident energy and its conservation. Even quasi-stable states like those associated with ENSO cycles and other natural variability averages out relative to the LTE state.

Chaos may result in over shooting the desired equilibrium, in which case it will eventually migrate back to where it wants to be, but what’s more likely, is that the system never reaches its new steady state equilibrium because some factor will change what that new steady state will be. Consider seasonal variability, where the days start getting shorter or longer before the surface reaches the maximum or minimum temperature it could achieve if the day length was consistently long or short.

Non linearities are another of these red herrings and the most significant non linearity in the system as modeled by the IPCC is the relationship between emissions and temperature. By keeping the analysis in the energy domain and converting to equivalent temperatures at the end, the non linearities all but disappear.

Feedback

Large positive feedback is used to justify how 1 W/m2 of forcing can be amplified into the 4.3 W/m2 of surface emissions required in order to sustain a surface temperature 0.8C higher than the current average of 288K. This is ridiculous considering that the 240 W/m2 of accumulated forcing (Pi) currently results in 390 W/m2 of radiant emissions from the surface (Ps) and that each W/m2 of input results in only 1.6 W/m2 of surface emissions. This means that the last W/m2 of forcing from the Sun resulted in about 1.6 W/m2 of surface emissions, the idea that the next one would result in 4.3 W/m2 is so absurd it defies all possible logic. This represents such an obviously fatal flaw in consensus climate science that either the claimed sensitivity was never subject to peer review or the veracity of climate science peer review is nil, either of which deprecates the entire body of climate science publishing.

The feedback related errors were first made by Hansen, reinforced by Schlesinger and have been cast in stone since AR1 and more recently, they’ve been echoed by Roe. Bode developed an analysis technique for linear, feedback amplifiers and this analysis was improperly applied to quantify climate system feedback. Bode’s model has two non negotiable preconditions that were not met by the application of his analysis to the climate. These are specified in the first couple of paragraphs in the book referenced by both Hansen and Schlesinger as the theoretical foundation for climate feedback. First is the assumption of strict linearity. This means that if the input changes by 1 and the output changes by 2, then, if the input changes by 2, the output must change by 4. By using a delta Pi as the input to the model and a delta T as the output, this linearity constraint was violated since power and temperature are not linearly related, but power is related to T4. Second is the requirement for an implicit source of Joules to power the gain. This can’t be the Sun, as solar energy is already accounted for as the forcing input to the model and you can’t count it twice.

To grasp the implications of nonlinearity, consider an audio amplifier with a gain of 100. If 1 V goes in and 100 V comes out before the amplifier starts to clip, increasing the input to 2V will not change the output value and the gain, which was 100 for inputs from 0V to 1V is reduced to 50 at 2V of input. Bode’s analysis requires the gain, which climate science calls the sensitivity, to be constant and independent of the input forcing. Once an amplifier goes non linear and starts to clip, Bode’s analysis no longer applies.

Bode defines forcing as the stimulus and defines sensitivity as the change in the dimensionless gain consequential to the change in some other parameter and is also a dimensionless ratio. What climate science calls forcing is an over generalization of the concept and what they call sensitivity is actually the incremental gain, moreover; they’ve voided the ability to use Bode’s analysis by choosing a non linear metric of gain. For the linear systems modeled by Bode, the incremental gain is always equal to the absolute gain as this is the basic requirement that defines linearity. The consensus makes the false claim that the incremental gain can be many times larger than the absolute gain, which is a non sequitur relative to the analysis used. Furthermore, given the T-3 dependence of the sensitivity on the temperature, the sensitivity quantified as a temperature change per W/m2 of forcing must decrease as T increases, while the consensus quantification of the sensitivity requires the exact opposite.

At the measured value of 1.6 W/m2 of surface emissions per W/m2 of accumulated solar forcing, the extra 0.6 W/m2 above and beyond the initial W/m2 of forcing is all that can be attributed to what climate science refers to as feedback. The hypothesis of a high sensitivity requires 3.3 W/m2 of feedback to arise from only 1 W/m2 of forcing. This is 330% of the forcing and any system whose positive feedback exceeds 100% of the input will be unconditionally unstable and the climate system is certainly stable and always recovers after catastrophic natural events that can do far more damage to the Earth and its ecosystems then man could ever do in millions of years of trying. Even the lower limit claimed by the IPCC of 0.4C per W/m2 requires more than 100% positive feedback, falsifying the entire range they assert.

An irony is that consensus climate science relies on an oversimplified feedback model that makes explicit assumptions that don’t apply to the climate system in order to support the hypothesis of a high sensitivity arising from large positive feedback, yet their biggest complaint about the applicability of the Physical Model is that the climate is too complicated to be represented with such a simple and undeniably deterministic model.

Venus

Venus is something else that climate alarmists like to bring up. However; if you consider Venus in the context of the Physical Model, the proper surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun is not the solid surface of the planet, but a virtual surface high up in its clouds. Unlike Earth, where the lapse rate is negative from the surface in equilibrium with the Sun and up into the atmosphere, the Venusian lapse rate is positive from its surface in equilibrium with the Sun down to the solid surface below. Even if the Venusian atmosphere was 90 ATM of N2, the surface would still be about as hot as it is now.

Venus is a case of runaway clouds and not runaway GHG’s as often claimed. The thermodynamics of Earth’s clouds are tightly coupled to that of its surface through evaporation and precipitation, thus cloud temperatures are a direct function of the surface temperature below and not the Sun. While the water in clouds does absorb some solar energy, owing to the tight coupling between clouds and the oceans, the LTE effect is the same as if the oceans had absorbed that energy directly. This isn’t the case for Venus, where the thermodynamics of its clouds are independent from that of its surface enabling clouds to arrive at a steady state with incoming energy by themselves.

Even for Earth, the surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun is not the solid surface, as it is for the Moon, but is a virtual surface comprised of the top of the oceans and the bits of land that poke through. Most of the solid surface is beneath the oceans and its nearly 0C temperature is a function of the temperature/density profile of the ocean above. The dense CO2 atmosphere of Venus, whose mass is comparable to the mass of Earth’s oceans, acts more like Earth’s oceans than it does Earth’s atmosphere thus Venusian cloud tops above a CO2 ocean is a good analogy for the surface of Earth and will be at about the same average temperature and atmospheric pressure.

Testing Predictions

The Physical Model makes predictions about how Pi, Po and the surface temperature will behave relative to each other. The first test was a prediction of the ratio between surface emissions and planet emissions based on measurable physical parameters and this calculation was nearly exact. The values of αc, αs, ρ, and εc in equations 14) and 16) were extracted as the average values reported or derived from the ISCCP cloud data set provided by GISS while εs arose from line by line simulations.

Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 illustrate the origins of αc, αs, ρ, and εc, where the dotted line in each plot represents the measured LTE average value for that parameter. Those values were rounded to 2 significant digits for the purpose of checking the predictions of equations 14) and 16). Clicking

on a figure should bring up a full resolution version.

clip_image002clip_image004

clip_image006clip_image008

The absolute accuracy of ISCCP surface temperatures suffers from a 2001 change to a new generation of polar orbiters combined with discontinuous polar orbiter coverage which the algorithms depended on for consistent cross satellite calibration. This can be seen more dramatically in Figure 5, which is a plot of the global monthly average surface temperature derived from the gridded temperatures reported in the ISSCP. While this makes the data useless for establishing trends, it doesn’t materially affect the use of this data for establishing the average coefficients related to the sensitivity.

clip_image010clip_image012

Figure 5 demonstrates something even more interesting, which is that the two hemispheres don’t exactly cancel and the peak to peak variability in the global monthly average is about 5C. The Northern hemisphere has significantly more seasonal p-p temperature variability than the Southern hemisphere owing to a larger fraction of land resulting in a global sum whose minimum and maximum are 180 degrees out of phase of what you would expect from the seasonal position of perihelion. To the extent that the consensus assumes the effects of perihelion average out across the planet, the 5C p-p seasonal variability in the planets average temperature represents the minimum amount of natural variability to expect given the same amount of incident energy. In about 10K years when perihelion is aligned with the Northern hemisphere summer, the p-p differences between hemispheres will become much larger which is a likely trigger for the next ice age. The asymmetric response of the hemispheres is something that consensus climate science has not wrapped its collective heads around, largely because the anomaly analysis they depend on smooths out seasonal variability obfuscating the importance of understanding how and why this variability arises, how quickly the planet responds to seasonal forcing and how the asymmetry contributes to the ebb and flow of ice ages.

While Pi is trivially calculated as reflectance applied to solar energy, both of which are relatively accurately known, Po is trickier to arrive at. Satellites only measure LWIR emissions in 1 or 2 narrow bands in the transparent regions of the emission spectrum and in an even narrower band whose magnitude indicates how much water vapor absorption is taking place. These narrow band emissions are converted to a surface temperature by applying a radiative model to a varying temperature until the emissions leaving the radiative model in the bands measured by the satellite are matched and then the results are aligned to surface measurements. Equation 15) was used to calculate Po which was based on reported surface temperatures, cloud temperatures and cloud emissivity applied to a reverse engineered radiative model to determine how much power leaves the top of the atmosphere across all bands. This is done for both cloudy and clear skies across each equal area grid cell and the total emissions are a sum weighted by the fraction of clouds modified by the clouds emissivity. To cross check this calculation, ∂E(t)/∂t can be calculated as the difference between Pi and the derived Po. If the long term average of this is close to zero, then COE is not violated by the calculated Po. Figure 6 shows this and indeed, the average ∂E(t)/∂t is approximately zero within the accuracy of the data. The 1.8 W/m2 difference could be a small data error, but seems to be the solar power that’s not actually heating the surface but powering photosynthesis and driving the weather and that need not be emitted for balance to arise. Note that ∂E/∂t per hemisphere is about 200 W/m^2 p-p and that the ratio between the global ∂E/∂t and the global ∂T/∂t infers a transient sensitivity of only about 0.12 C per W/m^2.

Figure 7 shows another way to validate the predictions as a scatter plot of the relative relationship between monthly averages of Pi and Po for constant latitude. Each little dot is the average for 1 month of data and the larger dots are the per slice averages across 3 decades of measurements. The magenta line represents Pi == Po. Where the two curves intersect defines the steady state which at 239 W/m2 is well within the margin of error of the accepted value. Note that the tilt in the measured relationships represents the net transfer of energy from tropical latitudes on the right to polar latitudes on the left.

clip_image014clip_image016

The next test is of the prediction that the relationship between the average temperature of the surface and the planets emissions should correspond to a gray body emitter whose equivalent emissivity is about 0.61, which was the predicted and measured ratio between the planets emissions and that of the surface.

Figure 8 shows the relationship between the surface temperature and both Pi and Po, again for constant latitude slices of the planet. Constant latitude slices provide visibility to the sensitivity as the most significant difference between adjacent slices is Pi, where a change in Pi is forcing per the IPCC definition. The change in the surface temperature of adjacent slices divided by the change in Pi quantifies the sensitivity of that slice per the IPCC definition. The slope of the measured relationship around the steady state is the short line shown in green. The larger green line is a curve of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law predicting the complete relationship between the temperature and emissions based on the measured and calculated equivalent emissivity of 0.61. The monthly average relationship between Po and the surface temperature is measured to be almost exactly what was predicted by the Physical Model. The magenta line is the prediction of the relationship between Pi and the surface temperature based on the requirement that the surface is approximately an ideal black body emitter and again, the prediction is matched by the data almost exactly.

For reference, Figure 9 shows how little the effective emissivity, ε varies on a monthly basis with a max deviation from nominal of only about +/- 3%. Figure 10 shows how the fraction of the power absorbed by the atmosphere and returned to the surface also varies in a relatively small range around 0.51. In fact, the monthly averages for all of the coefficients used to calculate the sensitivity with equation 16) vary over relatively narrow ranges.

clip_image018clip_image020

The hypothesized high sensitivity also makes predictions. The stated nominal sensitivity is 0.8C per W/m2 of forcing and if the surface temperature increases by 0.8C from 288K to 288.8K, 390.1 W/m2 of surface emissions increases to 394.4 W/m2 for a 4.3 W/m2 increase that must arise from only 1 W/m2 of forcing. Since the data shows that 1 W/m2 of forcing from the Sun increases the surface emissions by only 1 W/m2, the extra 3.3 W/m2 required by the consensus has no identifiable origin thus falsifies the possibility of a sensitivity as high as claimed. The only possible origin is the presumed internal power supply that Hansen and Schlesinger incorrectly introduced to the quantification of climate feedback.

Joules are Joules and are interchangeable with each other. If the next W/m2 of forcing will increase the surface emissions by 4.3 W/m2, each of the accumulated 239 W/m2 of solar forcing must be increasing the surface emissions by the same amount. If the claimed sensitivity was true, the surface would be emitting 1028 W/m2 which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 367K which is about 94C and close to the boiling point of water. Clearly it’s not once again falsifying a high sensitivity.

Conclusion

Each of the many complexities cited to diffuse a simple analysis based on the immutable laws of physics has been shown to be equivalent to variability in the α, κ and ε coefficients quantifying the Physical Model. Another complaint is that the many complexities interact with each other. To the extent they do and each by itself is equivalent to changes in α, κ and ε, any interactions can be similarly represented as equivalent changes to α, κ and ε. It’s equally important to remember that unlike GCM’s, this model has no degrees of freedom to tweak its behavior, other than the values of α, κ and ε, all of which can be measured, and that no possible combination of coefficients within factors of 2 of the measured values will result in a sensitivity anywhere close to what’s claimed by the consensus. The only possible way for any Physical Model to support the high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC is to violate Conservation Of Energy and/or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which is clearly impossible.

Predictions made by the Physical Model have been confirmed with repeatable measurements while the predictions arising from a high sensitivity consistently fail. In any other field of science, this is unambiguous proof that the model whose predictions are consistently confirmed is far closer to reality than a model whose predictions consistently fail, yet the ‘consensus’ only accepts the failing model. This is because the IPCC, which has become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science, needs the broken model to supply its moral grounds for a massive redistribution of wealth under the guise of climate reparations. It’s an insult to all of science that the scientific method has been superseded by a demonstrably false narrative used to support an otherwise unsupportable agenda and this must not be allowed to continue.

Here’s a challenge to those who still accept the flawed science supporting the IPCC’s transparently repressive agenda. First, make a good faith effort to understand how the Physical Model is relevant, rather than just dismiss it out of hand. If you need more convincing after that, try to derive the sensitivity claimed by the IPCC using nothing but the laws of physics. Alternatively, try to falsify any prediction made by the Physical Model, again, relying only on the settled laws of physics. Another thing to try is to come up with a better explanation for the data, especially the measured relationships between Pi, Po and the surface temperature, all of which are repeatably deterministic and conform to the Physical Model. If you have access to a GCM, see if its outputs conform to the Physical Model and once you understand why they don’t, you will no doubt have uncovered serious errors in the GCM.

If the high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC can be falsified, it must be rejected. If the broadly testable Physical Model produces the measured results and can’t be falsified, it must be accepted. Falsifying a high sensitivity is definitive and unless and until something like the Physical Model is accepted by a new consensus, climate science will remain controversial since no amount of alarmist rhetoric can change the laws of physics or supplant the scientific method.

References

1) IPCC reports, definition of forcing, AR5, figure 8.1

AR5 Glossary, ‘climate sensitivity parameter’

2) Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl, 2009: Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 311–323. Trenberth

3) 2) Bode H, Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design

assumption of external power supply and active gain, 31 section 3.2

gain equation, 32 equation 3-3

real definition of sensitivity, 52-57 (sensitivity of gain to component drift)

3a) effects of consuming input power, 56, section 4.10

impedance assumptions, 66-71, section 5.2 – 5.6

a passive circuit is always stable, 108

definition of input (forcing) 31

4) Jouzel, J., et al. 2007: EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr Deuterium Data and Temperature Estimates.

5) ISCCP Cloud Data Products: Rossow, W.B., and Schiffer, R.A., 1999: Advances in Understanding Clouds from ISCCP. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 2261-2288.

6) Hansen, J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen, and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, 130-163.

7) M. E. Schlesinger (ed.), Physically-Based Modeling and Simulations of Climate and Climatic Change – Part II, 653-735

8) Michael E. Schlesinger. Physically-based Modelling and Simulation of Climate and Climatic Change (NATO Advanced Study Institute on Physical-Based Modelling ed.). Springer. p. 627. ISBN 90-277-2789-9

 

9) Gerard Roe. Feedbacks Timescales and Seeing Red, Annual Review of Earth Planet Science 2009, 37:93-115

10) Stefan, J. (1879), “Über die Beziehung zwischen der Wärmestrahlung und der Temperatur” [On the relationship between heat radiation and temperature] (PDF), 79: 391–428

11) Boltzmann, L. (1884), “Ableitung des Stefan’schen Gesetzes, betreffend die Abhängigkeit der Wärmestrahlung von der Temperatur aus der electromagnetischen Lichttheorie” 258 (6): 291–294

Advertisements

668 thoughts on “A Consensus Of Convenience

  1. If anyone thinks this is just a case of curve fitting, I would be interested in knowing what leads you to believe this and and/or what other laws of physics can describe the measured behavior?

    • It may be interesting but this presentation is EXCEEDINGLY long.

      So far I’ve got through a couple of pages and I have not seen any science. How about giving us a version without all the political railing and just get to the point of the science.

      I don’t disagree with what is said but we know all that and I’m not going to spend the two hours wading through your political moans to get to the point where I see some science.

      • Greg,
        You must not have gotten very far. Just about everything from ‘Quantifying The Relationship’ on about the science and the only mention of politics was where I took a page from politics to identify common ground.

      • You may be reading the wrong presentation. The vast majority of this piece is science beginning with the section on Quantifying the Relationships, page 2. It’s not difficult to skip to.

      • OK, I’ve read further now but it is horribly verbose. I just read the para on projections which laboriously describes various sine waves etc. Sometimes a picture paints a thousand words.

      • Yes after a couple paragraphs I just scrolled to the comments. It was just too much for me…Maybe later tonight I can read more of it… The comments are usually interesting to me…

      • Yes I normally read an article in diagonal at first but this IS long; I will make the time to read it but I must say one thing from the intro: Since politics has taken sides,

        Politics hasn’t gotten involved or taken sides, this whole abuse of science was driven by a political ideology from the start.

    • Well for starters the moon is NOT a black body. It’s not even a very good approximation of a black body.

      G

      • George,
        What do you consider a good approximation? Besides, all you need to do is plug in the actual emissivity and it the equations will describe the system. The point here is that the basic T^4 dependence between forcing and temperature and the corresponding 1/T^3 relationship between temperature and forcing are immutable properties of first principles physics. The only degree of freedom the emissivity. There are no provisions in the physics to alter the basic T^4 relationship of any Planck like emitting surface regardless of its emissivity.

      • not much that is a pure black body, is there?
        Surely the% that acts as a black body is worth considering??
        i.e. it is acting like a smaller black body.

      • angech,
        And the fraction that is not an ideal BB can be quantified with an emissivity making it appear gray. In effect, a gray body is a non idea black body and the only thing that separates them is a non unit emissivity.

      • Well there can only be “approximations” to a black body since NO real black body does or can exist.
        But the calculated thermal radiations spectrum calculated for a theoretical Planck black body is very useful as a source for experiments with various radiation sensors and other devices.

        So quite good approximations can and are built for operation at single standard point Temperatures. One such device that you can buy off the shelf is a “copper freeze” pseudo black body which operates at the freezing point of molten copper. Some physical things have been specified in terms of a Platinum Freeze black body, but such things are too expensive fr anybody but the most taxpayer funded laboratory organizations.
        Such laboratory instruments can produce Planck spectrum radiation with total emittances that match the Stefan Boltzmann value for that Temperature to something like a 1% discrepancy, and also match the Planck formula for the spectral radiant emittance over a wide wavelength range, perhaps to 2-3% wavelength (frequency) point values.

        Deep sea water is strongly absorptive for EM radiation that is longer than about 0.7 microns wavelength almost out to the radio frequencies at which submarine radio communication can function, so those deep ocean can emit that “pink” radiation spectrum to some extent, but do not emit strongly at wavelengths near the peak of the solar radiation spectrum.

        Some stars can be quite good approximations to the BB spectrum, and at least our own sun is one such example; but even that has UV discrepancies from the Planck formula.

        Earth’s surfaces do emit “thermal” radiation spectrum that are functions of the Absolute Temperature, and somewhat material independent; but nothing absorbs or emits 100% of ALL EM radiation from zero wavelength up to zero frequency; or even 100% of just a single such frequency.

        Thermal radiation spectrum are bound by the Planck spectrum as a limiting envelope. Discrete non thermal radiations that are material dependent, are NOT bound by the Planck limit, and generally are not greatly Temperature dependent, anyway.

        G

      • Thermal radiating surfaces do have a “spectral radiant emissivity.” It is anything but constant over frequency, so no real body is grey (or gray); they all are “colored”.
        G

      • WTF? That’s like saying, ” What are GW’s mathematical credentials? Has he submitted the equation,
        2+2=4 to the mathematical community for evaluation?”

      • Alan,

        While my credentials shouldn’t matter, in a nutshell they are, Cornell EE with emphasis on solid state physics and electromagnetics. I’ve worked for HP, Weitek, Google and for about 15 years as a consultant to fabless semiconductor companies. In addition, my education never stopped and I’ve spent nearly 2 decades studying the climate system. I’ve been retired for a couple of years now, but did well enough to retire in my 50’s in order to ski 100+ days per year while I still could, so I’m also an expert skier and can ski almost any pitch that holds snow, some people might even consider me an extreme skier. When I’m not skiing, I’m studying the climate, writing code for my own purposes and dabbling in theoretical physics.

      • co2isnotevil

        Anybody that ski’s is alright by me, oh and why do you have to have credentials to have an idea or knowledge anyway?

    • This is long, but the length seems to be warranted by the substance. It is clear that a lot of study and thinking went into this – kudos to the author.

      That said, it would be useful to add a proper abstract that presents the key ideas and gives an overview of how the argument will be developed. As it is, one has to dive in without a clear sense of direction and thus on easily gets lost.

      Another suggestion would be to add captions with proper explanations to the figures. Many people like going over figures and captions first to figure out whether a paper is of interest to them. For this, it is useful to have captions that are intelligible without reference to the body of the text.

      In case the author sees this: thanks for consideration.

  2. WHILE I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION:
    Can you explain how the human contribution to CO2 influx into the atmosphere, which is 3% of the total influx, the rest being from natural sources, can in any scenario lead to a climate catastrophe.

    • Try a scenario based upon magic, superstition, or witchcraft! They’re the only ones that work well – standard physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc., etc., won’t cut it.

      • personally….I think it was real convenient that they were able to make the CO2 graph….fit the temp graph ;)

        (emphasis on ‘make’)

      • Exactly. You see, “man-made” CO2 is very different from “natural” CO2. Just like “green” electrons are different from “fossil” electrons.

        Actually, I think they are simply looking for a new jobs program for the peasantry, sorting out the different molecules and electrons. Something like sending the Chinese peasants out with teaspoons to dig a new canal…

    • JH, yeah we can. See my comment disproving Murry Salby a few months ago. Without even going into his math flaws. You present a very weak argument. Please learn better ones. As an example for you, see the long response comment now far below.

    • It is quite simple, I am surprised you need assistance with it! Clearly, human-caused CO2 is way badder than natural CO2. Because it is manmade it must be much worse because man. And thus it is badder than natural CO2. Is that clear for you?

      /sarc

    • WHILE I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION:

      So you admit being off-topic.

      Can you explain how [..] can in any scenario lead to a climate catastrophe.

      I’m not sure why would you like me do that. I don’t quite buy CAGW.

      the human contribution to CO2 influx into the atmosphere, which is 3% of the total influx, the rest being from natural sources,

      You got this wrong. The human contribution at decadal scale, is more than 100%. That is, without human emissions, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were decreasing. At monthly scale, natural fluxes totally overwhelm human emissions.

      Of course, I believe you would not believe this, so we can safely agree to disagree. Though, if you believe in positive natural CO2 emissions over multi-year scale, you are just wrong.

    • Joel, try leaving the water running into your bathtub at 3% above the maximum flow rate of the drain, i think that might have a catastrophic outcome.

      • SO you’re saying that there is only one drain… and that other rate of removal mechanisms don’t come into play? That the times in the past when the earth had stable, massively productive ecosystems with 6,000+ ppm CO2 levels did not exist? That those epochs still exist?

        Simple analogies make money for Bill Nye and Al Gore… but you need to bring a better game to this forum to not embarrass yourself.

  3. Scientifically literate persons can agree with “the” consensus (or any other consensus) without behaving unreasonably when their view is challenged.

    The problem is when people agree with the consensus BECAUSE IT’S THE CONSENSUS.

    That’s something a scientifically-literate person would be embarrassed to do.

    Science cares about one thing, and one thing only—evidence—and consensus is a form of opinion, not evidence.

    That’s Rule One of Science Club, and anyone who doesn’t like it is welcome to find a rewarding job in the Humanities sector. They can’t be a scientist, because they failed the first condition of entry.

    • “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
      – Michael Crichton

    • Brad Keyes:

      You state “Science cares about one thing and one thing only – evidence – and consensus is a form of opinion, not evidence. That’s Rule One of Science Club””

      No, there must ALSO be a consensus that the EVIDENCE is correct (e.g., continental drift, which took many years for a consensus to be formed)..

      Another example: I have found conclusive evidence that climate change is simply due to the reduction in the amount of dimming Sulfur Dioxide aerosol emissions in the atmosphere.

      This “model” – that a reduction in the amount of SO2 aerosol emissions in the atmosphere will always cause temperatures to rise – has been empirically tested AND VALIDATED multiple times, without attracting any consensus.

      For the subject “Climate Change”, there can be only one completely validated model, so any discussions of other models are really moot.

      George White posted an excellent article, but he erred in not offering an alternate model for climate change.

      • Burl,

        the reason most scientists can’t even define the word ‘consensus’ is that a consensus doesn’t mean, or prove, or constitute evidence for, jack $#!1 in science, and it never has.

        All non-pathological sciences have contempt for the phenomenon of majority agreement, which is why (until Oreskes reared her distractingly-sexy head) nobody in science ever bothered to quantify any consensus about anything.

        You’re being circular. The formation of a consensus is a necessary precondition for one thing, and one thing only: the formation of a consensus.

        In order for everybody to agree with you, a majority must agree with you. Uh, yes. Sure. So what?

        In order to be right, you only need to get the agreement of NATURE.

      • Writing Observer, It’s obvious you are not familiar with the concept of Southern Gentlemanship

      • “…until Oreskes reared her distractingly-sexy head…” well yeah encountering her visage would undoubtedly distract me from all thoughts of sex, so you got it right in that respect.

  4. “Alarmists and deniers alike believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that GHG gases contribute to making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and that the climate changes.”

    No, we do not agree on these things.

    As the label “greenhouse gases” was created to support a meme, it is bogus. These gases are more accurately called “radiative gases”, as they can convert IR to heat and heat to IR. In sunlight, these gases are saturated and converting IR to heat and heat to IR, having no net effect. It is during the night, with no solar input, that these gases cool the atmosphere.

    There is not evidence of any kind that these gases contribute to surface warming. This is an unfounded assumption perpetuated as established science, which it is not.

    Yes, we are putting exponentially more CO2 into the air over time. However, CO2 goes up linearly, which means that we have no detectible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Even if CO2 warmed the climate, it is not our doing if we are not affecting the CO2 concentration.

    The climate changes, yes.

    A score of 1 out of 4. Really sad.

    • Higley also – Since O2, N2 and Ar are mostly transparent to both incoming visible light and outgoing LWIR radiation, this atmosphere has little impact on the temperature, the energy balance or the sensitivity of the surface temperature to forcing.
      At this point, we have a Physical Model representative of an Earth like planet with an Earth like atmosphere, except that it contains no GHG’s,

      The Guest needs to explain why these 2 statements cannot both be true.
      All material above 0 Kelvin emit radiant energy –
      O2 and N2 are not greenhouse gas molecules — they can’t release the photon’s energy

      Please see – http://vixra.org/pdf/1504.0165v2.pdf and see the experiments and reasoning behind why this is not correct.

      Reinterpreting and Augmenting John Tyndall’s 1859 Greenhouse Gas Experiment with Thermoelectric Theory and Raman Spectroscopy. Blair D. Macdonald
      This paper reveals, by elementary physics, the (deceptive) role thermopiles play in this paradox. It was found: for a special group substances – all sharing (at least one) electric dipole moment – i.e. CO2, and the other greenhouse gases – thermopiles – via the thermoelectric (Seebeck) effect – generate electricity from the radiated IR. Devices using the thermopile as a detector (e.g. IR spectrographs) discriminate, and have misinterpreted IR absorption for anomalies of electricity production – between the sample gases and a control heat source. N2 and O2 were found to have (as all substances) predicted vibrational modes (derived by the Schrodinger quantum equation) at 1556cm-1 and 2330cm-1 respectively – well within the IR range of the EM spectrum and are clearly observed – as expected – with Raman Spectroscopy – IR spectroscopy’s complement instrument. The non–‐greenhouse gases N2 and O2 are relegated to greenhouse gases, and Earth’s atmospheric thermoelectric spectrum was produced (formally IR spectrum), and was augmented with the Raman observations. It was concluded the said greenhouses gases are not special, but typical; and all substances have thermal absorption properties, as measured by their respective heat capacities.

      8 Heat Capacity
      Vibrational behaviour of molecules, as described above, determines the Specific Heat Capacity of a substance. Heat capacity is the true measure of heat absorption. All substances, including atmospheric gases, absorb and radiate infrared (IR) heat. When heat energy is applied to a substance, the ability for the substance to absorb the heat energy and raise the temperature of the substance is known as the specific heat capacity[34]. The converse of emitting energy (cooling down) when released from the heat energy source is true. If – based purely on how the non-­‐GHG’s are currently defined – N2 and O2 are non‐GHGs because they do not absorb heat, then this must imply they both have no specific heat capacity; this is, of course, not true. N2 and O2 not only have vibrational behaviour – as I have shown (above) in this paper, expressed in their respective absorption bands in the infrared; but also have respective specific heat capacities – as shown (alone with other gases) in the following table.

      So with a Specific Heat Capacity of N2…1.04 & O2…0.919 (kJ/(kgK) plus a x35,000 volume, does CO2 really matter?

      • DD,

        “The Guest needsh 2 statements cannot both be true.
        All material above 0 Kelvin emit radiant energy –
        O2 and N2 are not greenhouse gas molecules — they can’t release the photon’s energy”

        BB radiation is a property of liquids and solids but not gases. Gases are narrow band absorbers and emitters of photons, while liquids and solids are broad band absorbers and emitters of photons. When we look out into space, we do not detect gas clouds by the BB emissions of its gases. We can only infer the existence of gases by absorption lines seen as other energy passes through them or by the emission lines of very hot gases.

        As the electron shells of gas molecules start to interact in a liquid or solid, the degrees of freedom in the shared electron cloud increases, allowing photons of different energies to be absorbed, as well as reducing the restrictions on what energy photons can be emitted. This spans more and more possible energies as the number of molecules in the liquid or solid increases. Collisional broadening of the spectral lines of a gas exhibits a similar effect, where small amounts of energy can be extracted from or added to the energy of a collision, spreading the allowed energies of absorption and emission on either side of resonance. This effect is largely irrelevant in Earth’s atmosphere since it generally requires much higher temperatures and densities. It’s quite likely that the supercritical fluid form of CO2 comprising the bottom 100 meters or so of the Venusian atmosphere has the broadband absorption/emission properties of a liquid (Planck) and not the narrow band absorption and emission characteristics of a gas.

        The O2 and N2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has no relevant absorption or emission lines in either the visible or LWIR spectrum. It neither emits photons or absorbs them and the only effect it has with any other molecule is translational owing to collisions with the surface, clouds and other gas molecules. Since they are not involved with any flux of photons, they have no influence on the radiative balance or the sensitivity, which involves only photons, as only photons can enter (Pi) or exit (Po) the planet. All N2/O2 and Ar can do is to rearrange surface energy which has little to no influence on what the steady state balance must be.

        Note that an energized GHG molecule is travelling at the same speed as any other gas molecule, thus the energy of an absorbed photon is not available to be shared by collisions, although collisions can increase the probability that an energized GHG molecule will emit a photon and this has the same net effect. While collisional broadening provides a mechanism to convert state energy into translational energy, it does so in roughly equal and opposite amounts above and below resonance, so little to no NET photon energy is actually ‘thermalized’ as translational energy and most of the energy stays as a flux of photons passing from GHG molecule to GHG molecule until either returning to the surface or exiting out into space. This is evidenced by the roughly 3 db attenuation of otherwise saturated absorption lines, when observed from space, and a continuous flux of absorption band photons at all altitudes, despite a relatively short mean distance a typical absorption band photon will travel before being absorbed. If GHG’s are absorbing 100% of the photons emitted by the surface in specific absorption bands, the only possible explanation for the limited 3 db power reduction at TOA (a factor of only about 1/2) are GHG re-emissions that got past other GHG’s molecules allowing them to leave the planet. The roughly 50/50 distribution up and down is related to the random direction that a GHG molecule will emit a photon.

      • O2 and N2 are not greenhouse gas molecules — they can’t release the photon’s energy

        I think every molecule can. Since all molecules have electron transitions.

        I beleive oxygen has electron transitions giving absorption bands at: 761.9, 864.5, 1270, 1580 nm (plus other less energetic modes). Whitlow & Findlay, Can. J. Chem. 45 2087 (1967).

        Nitrogen too:

      • mark,

        Yes, O2 and N2 do have absorption/emission lines, but at the line energies, they have no real influence on the result.

        The bulk of the energy emitter by the surface is between about 2u and 20u (2000 nm to 20000nm) and well above the O2 lines while the incoming photons from the Sun have wavelengths well below the wavelengths absorbed by O2 and N2.

        So while they will have a finite effect, any effect they do have is buried in the noise.

      • CoEvil – ” they have no influence on the radiative balance or the sensitivity, which involves only photons, as only photons can enter (Pi) or exit (Po) the planet. All N2/O2 and Ar can do is to rearrange surface energy which has little to no influence on what the steady state balance must be.”

        Hourly Tifariti, Morocco (Western Sahara)
        Wed 8/9 High – 36°/ Low – 20°

        Specific heat (= specific heat capacity) is the amount of heat required to change temperature of one mass unit of a substance by one degree.
        Air Properties – @Temperature (oC) Density – ρ – (kg/m3) Specific Heat – cp – (kJ/(kg K)) = @ 20 Deg 1.005 (kJ/(kg K))
        @ 40 Density = 1.127 Specific Heat 1.005

        Take the first 15 metres & for every m^2 => 15 m^3 * 1.127 * 1.005 (36-20) = 270 KJ or over 12 hours = 6.25 W/m^2

        Are those CO2 molecules really tired after rubbing up against the other 2,500 molecules 6 x 10^24 times every night? Or do the other molecules do some of the radiating themselves.

        Below a frequency of around 100 GHz, which includes most of the spectrum used for radio communications, the energy of individual photons is almost negligible at less than 10−4 eV or 10−24 Joules.

      • DD,

        Specific heat has little to do with the energy balance, only how long it takes to get there and once there, the size of the variability in response to the size of any forcing periodicity. LTE means that sufficient time has passed for the system to come to equilibrium, so how long it takes doesn’t matter. If we look at the p-p Pi for the S hemisphere, it’s about 190 W/m^2 while the monthly average seasonal surface temperature (again, average emissions converted to a temperature) varies by about 5C p-p. On the other hand, the N hemisphere seasonal range of Pi is 183 W/m^2 p-p while its temperature range is about 12C p-p.

        The difference in the p-p variability in Pi is due to the alignment of perihelion relative to the hemispheres and while close to being the same, the p-p temperature variability in the S is much less than that of the N and this is due entirely to the fact that the S is dominated by water while the N is dominated by land. Look at a globe and the distribution of water and land is close to be complementary between hemispheres.

        The difference is related to the time constant which is longer for the S hemisphere than it is for the N hemisphere, which relative to my model means is embodied by the k coefficient. While it means that the response is smaller in the S for about the same change in Pi, the average value of the periodic response has had sufficient time to be representative of the LTE response of the system.

        Other gas molecules do not radiate, only the trace GHG gases radiate photons that can eventually exit to space. The water in clouds does radiate, but it is also absorbing energy at the same time.

        The energy of an individual photon doesn’t really matter. It’s the number of photons times the energy per photon that matters. Consider that the various fusion reactions of H, He etc. a single reaction only releases on the order of 10E-12 Joules which isn’t a whole lot of energy either.

      • “””””….. BB radiation is a property of liquids and solids but not gases. Gases are narrow band absorbers and emitters of photons, while liquids and solids are broad band absorbers and emitters of photons. …..”””””

        Black Body Radiation is a hypothetical radiation from a hypothetical and non-existing source; a TOTAL ABSORBER.

        So there is nothing real that emits black body radiation.

        But every material that has a Temperature higher than zero kelvin, can and does emit THERMAL radiation, which is entirely a consequence of that Temperature.

        Start by recognizing first that TEMPERATURE is a macro property of assemblages of real particles, that are constantly in collisions with each other. NO Collisions: NO Temperature !!

        Temperature recognizes the mean Energy per degree of freedom of a large assemblage of real particles (atoms, ions, molecules, whatever).

        Next one has to recognize that real particles; atoms, molecules, possess kinetic energies that overwhelmingly reside in the nucleus of those atoms.

        A proton is 1836 times as massive as an electron; a neutron is 1837 times as massive as an electron. The lightest elements typically contain equal numbers of protons and neutrons (cept hydrogen).
        So the nuclear mass ration is about 3673 for the lighter atoms and even higher for the heavier elements.

        So virtually all of the kinetic energy of atoms in motion is concentrated in the nucleus.

        Now one has to recognize that the nucleus and the electron cloud, contain equal and opposite electric charge, so they experience the same magnitude Coulomb force in an electric field.

        So when two massive atoms collide, the electrons and the protons experience similar coulomb forces, but all the KE is in the nucleus, so it decelerates much slower in a collision.

        If the colliding electron clouds slow down, but the more massive nuclei, keep on charging, the electric charge distribution must become asymmetrical forming an electric dipole moment that is NOT zero.

        Maxwell’s equations tell us that accelerated electric charge MUST radiate energy. The extent of that radiation depends on the trajectories of the collisions, which is totally random.

        The duration of atomic and molecular collisions at ordinary Temperatures, is an eternity in the general scheme of things, so while those particles are kissing each other, they are singing like a choir.

        STOP telling people that gases DO NOT radiate THERMAL RADIATION; they DO !!!

        Seen any black gases lately ?? Gases are NOT TOTAL ABSORBERS; ergo they are NOT radiating BLACK BODY radiation, but they most certainly are radiating THERMAL RADIATION due solely to their Temperature.

        Take a drive down Highway 280 to Sand Hill Road, and look at the two mile long building that houses the Stanford Linear Accelerator.

        That electron accelerator exists precisely because accelerating electric charges radiate constantly.

        So if you have electrons rotating around a circle, they are constantly accelerating (acceleration is a change of velocity, which is a vector and has a direction as well as a speed. So changing direction is acceleration.

        So electrons speeding up in a straight line radiate less than ones speeding up around a circle.

        This is just 4-H Club Physics; I don’t know why everybody doesn’t already know that.

        G

      • George,

        Relative to the energies involved in the atmosphere, this effect is small to non existent. The energy of a typical CO2 molecule in motion in the atmosphere is on the order of the energy of a 10u photon. So, for a collision to emit any relevant EM, it would need to convert nearly ALL of the translational kinetic energy into a photon and the molecules temperature (not that individual molecules have a temperature) would drop to about 0K. Clearly this can’t happen, moreover; the relatively low energies converted to EM would result in photons that are no where near energetic enough to be representative of BB emissions whose mean wavelength would need to be about 10u for an atmosphere at the same ‘temperature’ as the surface.

        Yes, more complicated things happen at higher energies, but these levels of energies are not found anywhere in the atmosphere and bringing up these kinds of higher order effects only makes a complex issue more confusing.

        The connection between molecules in motion and BB emissions is that the energy distribution of the photons of BB radiation emitted by a liquid or solid at some temperature is about the same as the energy distribution of the translation energy of molecules in motion at the same temperature. In a way, this is a macroscopic manifestation of the duality of matter as being representable as either a particle or a wave.

  5. I think I sort of understand the argument. I tend to think my math skills are fairly bad, and the article could use translation to English, not math and engineering jargon.
    Still, it is a coherent, if difficult, argument as to why the IPCC models require very unlikely positive feedback, and are thus about as worthwhile an enterprise as using genetic engineering to produce flying pigs

    • The picture that illustrates this is figure 8, where the IPCC linearizes the sensitivity as passing from average conditions (surface temperature on Y, surface emissions on X) through the origin as represented by the blue line. The magenta line illustrates the approx 0.2C per W/m^2 sensitivity of a nearly ideal BB at the surface temperature and the green curve represents the approx 0.3C per W/m^2 which is the sensitivity of a gray body whose temperature is that of the surface and whose emissions are what we observe from space.

      The Moon is unarguably nearly an ideal BB. The Earth’s surface is also very close to an ideal BB. The atmosphere between the Earth’s surface and space makes the planet appear gray from space, that is, the planet emits less energy than it temperature would suggest and this attenuation factor is called the emissivity. This is all quantified by the Stefan- Botzmann Law and the planet certainly seems to be obeying that laws and one of the consequences of this laws is a low sensitivity.

      • Yes, the actual concepts in the article are not terribly complex, but stated in jargon, which acts as shorthand, which can get hard to read. Dr Richard Lindzen tends to do a rather good effort in unpacking equations, even if it means over a thousand words to state one equation in English.

      • The Moon is unarguably nearly an ideal BB. The Earth’s surface is also very close to an ideal BB.

        Given that the Earth is a water world on which the oceans cover approximately 70% of its surface area, and given that all but no solar irradiance is absorbed at the surface of the ocean (the bulk of solar irradiance is absorbed at a depth of between say 2 and 10 metres below the surface), whereas all energy (not absorbed in the atmosphere) is radiated from the surface, on what basis can the Earth be considered as close to an ideal blackbody?

      • Richard,
        I said the SURFACE is close to an ideal body and you explained exactly why. It emits what it absorbs and absorbs nearly everything from the Sun. The planet as a whole when viewed from space is decidedly gray relative to the surface temperature. That is the effective emissivity is less than 1 while the emissivity of the surface itself (i.e. what it would be without an atmosphere) is closer to 1.

      • TH, and Dr. Lindzen repeatedly uses rather than trashes Bode, which should give all some sense of the reliability of this guest post.

    • TH, the requisite high climate model feedback is easy to disprove in several ways. Have done so here and at Climate Etc countering Moncton’s pseudo refutation, which is both logically and factually flawed. Same here on different grounds. See long comment far below time wise.

  6. Finally a news network that will be fair and give reals facts.

    Bannon to start his own TV Network.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/begins-bannon-plotting-fox-news-

    Former Chief White House Strategist and current executive chairman of Breitbart News, Steve Bannon, is wasting no time in expanding the leading populist news network. Bannon is reportedly plotting a television channel to rival Fox News. Strikingly, the idea was first proposed by former Fox News CEO, the late Roger Ailes.

    • “Bannon is reportedly plotting a television channel to rival Fox News.”

      Good! That and about three more conservative news tv channels and we will be equal to the big five the Liberals have at their disposal.

      That will give me something to watch since I avoid listening to the Trump bashing on Fox News, and am spending less and less time listening to them lately as a result.

      I hear Fox News ratings are falling. Maybe there are lots of people like me out there that don’t appreciate the Trump bashing on Fox. If we wanted to hear Trump bashing, we could tune to any one of the other channels for that. Perhaps a few less liberals on your “fair and balanced” news shows would help the ratings. I could do without Charles Krauthammer and Juan Williams and Shepard Smith and some of the weekend anchors. When they come on, I turn the channel. I have no time for Liberal propaganda on the Fox News Channel.

  7. Climate science is the most controversial science of the modern era.

    Yet, “The science is settled”, “the debate is over” is what those who profit from caGW keep claiming, profit in money or ideological political influence.
    In science, the only real personal profit should be in getting closer to learning what is true in the natural realm.
    PS Man is a part of the natural realm.

    • It is controversial since it is not a science. It gave up long ago, applying scientific principles.

  8. This is because the IPCC, which has become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science, needs the broken model to supply its moral grounds for a massive redistribution of wealth under the guise of climate reparations.

    They do not even hide this fact, they have been brazenly open about it for years:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

    The Paris Accord has been shown in various studies to accomplish temperature mitigation on a scale so small that it could barely be measured. The UN, the IPCC and the alarmist community went ape sh*t when the US announced that they would exit the accord, not because the means to avert impending disaster was thwarted, but because the massive transfer of wealth they intended to manage (read “skim”) was denied to them.

    • Pakistan was furious when they realized no (USA) money would be flowing into the feeding trough. Threatened to continue using (gasp!) coal.

      (yawn)

      • At the risk of sounding like I am trying to one up you, I disagree. They “threatened” to do exactly what they had intended to do (and were well along the road) in the first place. Only now they have a scapegoat to justify their actions. Its not THEIR fault they “have” to use coal, they’re being forced

      • Good point David, everyone will need a scapegoat eventually, it will be all someone else’s fault, no one goes to jail.

  9. Apparently all of climate change consensus science is up for challenge, except the greenhouse effect. Questioning the greenhouse effect is taboo, and those who do so are worse than climate change alarmists and climate change d-nigh-ers combined.

    • CO2 is a radiative gas. Whether it is a GHG, or a GHG at concentrations of circa 300 to 400 ppm, is yet to be determined. That is one of the fundamental issues on which the jury is out on.

      • Nope. It is a GHG. What net impact it has on the complex Earth climate system is at question, not whether there is one. Perhaps that is what you meant. If so, apologies.

      • If you look at the classical text books (whether Chemistry or Physics) and look up the properties of CO2, being a GHG is not one of the described properties of that gas.

        Whether a gas is a GHG (ie., whether it effects the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere) can only be answered by empirical observational data. To date, notwithstanding the use of our best measurement equipment within the limitations of that equipment and observational practices, it has proved impossible to wean out the signal to CO2 from the noise of variation in temperature. We therefore do not know whether CO2 is or is not a GHG (at any rate once CO2 exceeds around 260 ppm).

        I put it to you that it is more probable than not that the temperature profile of the (contiguous) US is not an outlier, and that it is more probable than not that the Northern Hemisphere has a broadly similar temperature profile as that of the (contiguous) US, such that the Northern Hemisphere temperature today (if it were to be properly measured) is broadly similar to that of the 1930s/1940s notwithstanding the increase in CO2 from around 300 ppm to around 400 ppm which suggests that CO2 may not be a GHG at all (at least not at levels above around 300 ppm).

        Further there appears no correlation between CO2 and temperature on any time scale, and to the extent that there are similarities it appears that CO2 lags temperature change and does not drive temperature change(paleo by around 600 to 1000 years, and recent by around 4 to 7 months), which suggests that CO2 may not be a GHG (at least not at levels exceeding 200 ppm).

        Further, on a numerical basis, the Martian atmosphere has an order of magnitude more molecules of CO2 than that contained in Earth’s atmosphere, and the molecules of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere are much more closely/densely packed, and yet there does not appear to be a measurable (radiative) GHE on Mars, which suggests that CO2 may not be a GHG.

        Let us stick to the known science, and that is that CO2 is a radiative gas with the ability to absorb and emit photons at varying and limited wavelengths. What the effect of that property is when the gas forms parts of the Earth’s atmosphere has yet to be determined.

      • Thanks for the long post richard verney. It coincided with my general understanding and your articulate summary reinforced my own thoughts very well. Until some evidence of CO2 planetary atmosphere heating is presented I will be sticking with the term ‘radiative gas’ also.

  10. Yea, string theory was like this for about 30-35 years. Older physicists mau maued PhD candidates to accept the theology or go fining & job-less. Stanford physicists declared the theory “so beautiful it doesn’t need proving”.

    Then CERN demonstrated there in no SuperSymmetry (a fundamental requirement).

    Poof! Been there, done that. A couple of generations of bright young academic careers have been ended or mis-spent; physics’ 200+-year run of major discoveries every 25 (or so) years has been spent chasing down rat-holes.

    Even the brightest of theoretical physicists can believe in the tooth fairy with every fiber of their being, but that doesn’t make it true.

    • Bust just look at all the shiny toys and taxpayer dollars we could spend on HEP, and no one had to get their hands dirty with a trade like condensed matter.

  11. I’ve been screaming for well-nigh a decade on WUWT that consensus “climate science” is predicated upon a boneheaded supposition of “feedback,” which fails to recognize that the gain of actual feedback systems is supplied by an internal source of power (usually an op-amp) independent of the input. Such a power source simply doesn’t exist anywhere in the climate system! Yet ill-founded notions of “feedback” persist even among AGW skeptics. The present explication of that fundamental gaffe (among others) is most welcome.

    • 1sk1,

      Did you read this one?

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/

      In addition to the assumed power supply, Bode’s analysis also requires linearity and the relationship between forcing and temperature is quantifiably and measurably a T^4 relationship which is barely approximately linear over a small range and certainly no where near linear across the range of temperatures found on the planet.

      These two violations of the preconditions to use Bode’s feedback analysis provides all the wiggle room they need to lend plausibility for their otherwise unsupportable arguments.

    • the idea of a feedback does not rely on an op-amp or it’s external electrical supply.

      Stop screaming and start thinking.

      • Where did I claim that the power source need be electrical? Stop yapping and start reading intelligently.

      • greg,
        Can you explain the PHYSICAL origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 said to arrive as feedback from the next W/m^2 of input (forcing) in order to replace the energy emitted by a surface 0.8C warmer? The only possible way it could be this much is if there’s a hidden power supply supplying Joules for the output above and beyond the input.

        What climate science considers ‘feedback’ is the fraction of surface power absorbed by the atmosphere and which is ultimately returned to the surface. The atmosphere has a finite capacity to store energy and in the steady state, what goes into the atmosphere must leave the atmosphere and it can either leave by returning to the surface or leave by exiting out to space.

        The basic problem is that without the implicit power supply, the output of the gain block can EITHER contribute to the output of the model, or be consumed as feedback, but not both. In a Bode amplifier, neither the input or the feedback is consumed, but measured to determine how much power to deliver to the output from an implicit supply, thus output power is not consumed to generate feedback. In the language of electronics, the input impedance of a Bode amplifier is assumed to be infinite, while the input impedance of the climate feedback amplifier modelled by the consensus is essentially zero.

      • “Can you explain the PHYSICAL origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 said to arrive as feedback..”

        Anthrop. CO2 is what they call an “external forcing” ie it is not part of the natural system. This impedes some of the outgoing IR and warms the atmosphere and hence the surface. This heat obviously is basically solar in origin. The warmer surface increases atm. water vapour which is also a strong GHG. The leads to an additional blocking of outgoing IR.

        This will feed back on itself and either converge to a stable level or boil the oceans. We are still here so I guess it’s the former.

        Since WV has many more active bands I see no necessary problem with this convergence being greater than the original , though IFAIK it is reckonned to roughly double the resulting warming and hence sensitivity. ( I think that result is wrong in reality but not mathematically impossible ).

      • Greg,

        ‘CO2 is what they call an “external forcing”’

        Technically, CI2 is not a forcing at all, but doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental solar forcing, so whatever effect 3.7 W/m^2 more post albedo incident power will have is what the IPCC claims doubling CO2 will have.

        The real question is that if the next W/m^2 of forcing is claimed to result in 3.3 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’, why aren’t all of the 240 W/m^2 of accumulated solar energy resulting in the same amount of ‘feedback’? What’s so special about Joules absorbed by CO2 and returned to the surface that makes them so much more powerful than Joules of energy arriving from the Sun?

      • “The only possible way it could be this much is if there’s a hidden power supply supplying Joules for the output above and beyond the input.” That would be those “Heat Trapping Clouds”, “The missing “Hot Spot” plus “The Fudge Factor” .

      • I could almost claim that “Bode” himself probably never even heard of an “Op Amp”.

        Op Amps were developed to do …. Analog Computation ….

        Addition , subtraction, frequency selection filtering etc.
        For most real electronic circuit analog circuit needs, an op amp is just about the worst possible amplifier you could choose. They are all but worthless for anything except DC operations.

        For example, an off the shelf low power rail to rail CMOS op amp with which I am familiar (one of many) has a DC voltage gain (amplification) of about 560,000. That is chicken feed; some of them have a gain of 10 million or more.
        Despite its very low operating power consumption, this one I am referring to has a voltage source output impedance of close to 50 Ohms, so it can source or sink as much as 10 milliamps, even though the amplifier itself is only consuming about 0.5 micro-amps from its power supplies.
        BUT, that 50 Ohm DC source has an apparent output shunt capacitance to ground of about 0.27 FARADS !! NO, not pico-farads or microfarads; 270 milli-farads.

        So if the output even tries to move, there is a whacking big capacitance stopping it from going anywhere in a hurry.

        So for example if you wanted to have a stereo system, that could reproduce frequencies as high as say 30 KHz so that is still had good phase response at more hearable audio frequencies of say 10-15 KHz, so you get clean transients, and you needed to amplify the 500 uV or so signal froma moving coil phono-pickup or perhaps microphone, to get say 100 Watts of real audio power to put into real loud speakers, rather than cigarette pack speakers in your finger toys, then you aren’t going to get there with any operational amplifier. You would need a unity gain cutoff frequency of 100 GHz to go with that 10 million DC gain
        These days, op amps are just for lazy circuit designers who can’t design a proper amplifier for some general purpose application so they use an op amp. instead.

        As I recall, Bode circuit analysis, actually involved TIME, and the “propagation delay” from “input” to “output”.

        When was the last time you saw a Bode analysis of some purported climate system, where propagation delay was considered in the feedback “circuit”.

        Using Bode theory in relation to climate is simply BS; total BS in fact.

        G

      • George

        Modern linear power amplifiers are technically op amps implemented with discrete components which are designed for much higher output powers and lower output impedances. PWM amps are a different story and are characterized in the Z domain, rather than the S domain.

        You forgot to mention the very high input impedance of an op amp which means that the input+feedback is measured to determine how much power to deliver from the power supply. For an equivalent model of the climate, the input and output impedances are the same and the input+feedback is consumed by the gain block to provide the Joules delivered to the output.

    • “Yet ill-founded notions of “feedback” persist even among AGW skeptics.”
      Actually, you hear a lot more about feedback from skeptics than from scientists. It doesn’t appear in any GCM’s. It is basically an aide for explanation and understanding.

      But the issue of power source is a nonsense. There is a massive solar flux running through the system, and the feedbacks that people talk about are based on modulating that, just as transistors modulate the current of the power supply.

      • It doesn’t appear in any GCM’s.

        Which nonetheless calculate a sensitivity in excess of that calculated for CO2 alone. If not from feedbacks, then from what?

      • “If not from feedbacks, then from what?”
        Feedbacks are a way of seeking to explain it. But the GCM sensitivity comes from solving the equations for flow and energy transport.

      • NIck,
        The solar flux is the forcing input not the implicit power supply. You should also try and take a crack of where the extra 3.3 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ arising from only 1 W/m^2 of forcing comes from? If each W/m^2 of the ‘massive solar flux’ of 240 W/m^2 entering the system also resulted in 3.3 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’, the surface temperature would be near the boiling point of water.

      • According to our solar expert,Leif (and the IPCC), variations in TSI over the 11 year solar cycle vary by about 0.1% which is about 0.25 W/m^2 based upon K&T figures.

        So does that mean with feedback one gets an extra 0.8 W/m^2 making a gross change over the course of the cycle of more than 1 W/m^2, and if so, why can we not detect the solar cycle in the temperature data sets?

        Of course the variations in TSI between weak cycles and strong cycles is far more than 0.1%

      • So does that mean with feedback one gets an extra 0.8 W/m^2

        For gosh sakes, no. That’s energy input into the system, and it is SW. GHE affects LW, not SW, and egress, not ingress. Totally different physics. Further, GHE adds precisely ZERO energy to the system. The effect is achieved by changing the temperature profile from surface to TOA with low altitudes getting warmer and high altitudes getting colder, the “average” temperature as seen from space changes by nothing.

      • @Richard Varney,

        That is very interesting! If we assume an extra 0.25W per square meter, things get really ugly, really fast – for the AGW clan, that is! The surface area of the Earth is about 510 million square km, and half of that, at any given time, is exposed to the sun. Assuming that variation, and a full year, it means the Sun’s input variability to the Earth is about 558,450 TWh.

        According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Energy_supply.2C_consumption_and_electricity), total world energy consumption is around 110,000 TWh.

        Seems to me that man – for all our self-aggrandizement and self-flagellation – can equal about 20% of just the variability in output from the Sun. Yet somehow, a molecule that cannot create the level of feedback required, when combined with a relatively low level change in total power consumption, vastly swamps something that is half an order of magnitude larger in just it’s variability!

      • Nick Stokes August 20, 2017 at 3:36 pm
        “If not from feedbacks, then from what?”
        Feedbacks are a way of seeking to explain it. But the GCM sensitivity comes from solving the equations for flow and energy transport.

        Nick, that’s circular logic and you know it. The equations produce a result that is greater than direct effects of CO2. So that’s what? Magic? Or equations predicated on the existence of feedback?

        Stop being so precious.

      • “Or equations predicated on the existence of feedback?”
        No, the equations are what they are. The issue here is that 1sky1 says that climate scientists have used wrong ideas about feedback. And CO2 says that they don’t accord with para 6.3.2 in Bode. But the scientists don’t define feedback at all in the models. The wonky logic put here is:
        1. The results look like a feedback interpretation would help
        2. You must be assuming feedback
        3. You haven’t got it as it is in Bode (actually not true, but whatever).

        If you don’t like the feedback interpretation you create, don’t use it. But don’t blame the scientists.

      • Nick,

        How is this any different then my model which also does not represent feedback explicitly?

        The answer to this rhetorical question is that my model has only 3 coefficients whose values can be measured for each pixel in the satellite data, yet the typical GCM has thousands of coefficients whose values are at best an educated guess driven by presumed bias.

      • @ davidmhoffer August 20, 2017 at 6:35 pm

        David.

        Thanks your comment.

        I may have misunderstood the point that co2isnotevil was making, but my understanding of the point he is seeking to make is that per doubling of CO2 one gets a direct increase in forcing of ~1.2 W/m^2 plus an additional feedback forcing of ~3.3 W/m^2 giving a total forcing per doubling of CO2 (including feedback) of ~4.5 W/m^2 and this begs the question, that IF there is a positive feedback to a temperature change caused by an increase in the forcing from CO2, why is there not a similar feedback to any warming caused by a change in the forcing of solar irradiation?

        Put differently, do feedbacks only apply to changes in temperatures caused by additional forcings of GHGs but not to temperature changes caused by additional forcings of solar irradiance

        I would suggest that IF there is a positive feedback, and if this consists of additional water vapour consequent upon a warming ocean, then, if anything, one might expect to see a stronger feedback to changes in solar irradiance than changes in CO2, since the ocean is all but opaque to DWLWIR but absorbs solar irradiance. We know that solar warms the oceans, whereas we do not know whether CO2 warms the oceans.

      • Richard,
        Yes, this is my point. What’s so special about Joules captured by GHG’s and returned to the surface that makes them 4x more powerful at warming the surface then Joules arriving from the Sun. The unit of work is Joules and it takes work to change the temperature and to sustain a temperature in the presence of emissions that otherwise remove energy.

      • Nick Stokes August 20, 2017 at 3:36 pm
        “If not from feedbacks, then from what?”
        Feedbacks are a way of seeking to explain it. But the GCM sensitivity comes from solving the equations for flow and energy transport.

        Knock it off with the woo Nick. If it looks like feedback and quacks like feedback then it’s feedback. The mathematics doesn’t care about your hand-waving.

      • Nick Stokes August 20, 2017 at 11:01 pm
        “Or equations predicated on the existence of feedback?”
        No, the equations are what they are. The issue here is that 1sky1 says that climate scientists have used wrong ideas about feedback. And CO2 says that they don’t accord with para 6.3.2 in Bode.

        Nick, you’re taking things other people said and putting them in my mouth. You’ve gone from being precious to disingenuous. I took you to task for something YOU said, you are now taking me to task for something other people said. I do not support anything CO2 or 1sky1 have said, I disagree even with the notion of Bode being valid in any way in the climate discussion.

        Which takes us back to our original disagreement. You see there’s no notion of feedbacks in the models, and I say the models produce an effect greater than CO2’s direct effect, and this can only come from the equations themselves encompassing physics predicated on the existence of feedback mechanisms.

      • Richard Verney
        IF there is a positive feedback to a temperature change caused by an increase in the forcing from CO2, why is there not a similar feedback to any warming caused by a change in the forcing of solar irradiation?

        AND

        CO2isnotevil
        Yes, this is my point. What’s so special about Joules captured by GHG’s and returned to the surface that makes them 4x more powerful at warming the surface then Joules arriving from the Sun.

        1. I don’t agree with the 4x number, but the fact that there is a difference is sound.
        2. Joules coming from the sun (from outer space) to the surface and warm the surface in accordance with SB Law. They are carried by shortwave radiation and traverse the TOA to the surface in a single step.
        3. Joules leaving the surface do not, repeat DO NOT have a direct path from surface to escape at TOA. They are carried by longwave radiation which gets intercepted millions upon millions of times.
        4. Many of those interceptions result in joules being transferred to other molecules such as O2 via collisions. Some of those interceptions result in joules being carried off by new photons radiated in random directions some of which are back toward the surface.
        5. The processes above change several very important things. These include:
        a) warming the atmosphere at elevation which SW downward toward surface does not
        b) this messes with the lapse rate
        c) This messes with the amount of water vapour the air can contain at any given elevation. Water vapour also being a GHG, this changes the total GHE over and above CO2 alone
        d) this messes with Mean Radiating Layer. Upward photons for the most part don’t escape in a direct pth to space, they escape at some point between the surface and the TOA. More GHG’s mean that the MRL must not exist at a higher elevation….which messes with lapse rate again.

        Keeping in mind that I am a hardcore skeptic, sorry, but the physics of the GHE simply do not, repeat do NOT, repeat do NOT directly compare to the physics of warming from the Sun. You cannot compare the two, and you can’t compare to the moon either. If the warming mechanisms were both strictly applications of SB Law, sure. But SB Law describes a very simple system which is useful as a first order calculation of temperature due to input from SW from the Sun. Trying to quantify a completely different set of physics like the GHE which for the most part has zip, nada, nothing to do with direct warming (in fact it is technically retarded cooling!) and arguing that there should be some linear 1:1 ratio between them is just wrong.

      • David,

        “1. I don’t agree with the 4x number, but the fact that there is a difference is sound.”

        The actual min discrepancy is 4.3/1.6 = 2.7, while the max discrepancy is closer to 4.3/1, since the data suggests that incrementally, each W/m^2 of additional solar input only results in about 1 W/m^2 of surface emissions.

        The min discrepancy is calculated as 4.3 W/m^2 being the presumed effect of 1 W/m^2 of CO2 equivalent forcing on surface emissions, while 1.6 is the average surface emissions per W/m^2 of accumulated solar forcing. I can make a case for the incremental sensitivity being less than the average, but the other way around requires violating COE.

        And BTW, all of my arguments are supported by the measured data. If you can find other data that falsifies the T^4 dependence between surface temperature and planet emissions, or can dispute the linear relationship between surface emissions and planet emissions, I’d be interested in reviewing it. BTW, here is the scatter plot of surface emissions vs. planet emissions that demonstrates the linearity, the slope of which is about 1.2 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar input.

        Increasing surface emissions from 390 W/m^2 up to 361.2 W/m^2 represents a temperature increase of about 0.2C corresponding to the slope of the PI to T relationship shown in figure 8.

      • CO2isnotevil
        BTW, all of my arguments are supported by the measured data.

        Ah yes. Make an argument that there should be equivalency based on the physics, and when I show that the physics is ENTIRELY different, you argue that the data supports you. Which changes the physics being entirely different by nothing. It is a complex matter which you have over simplified. When dealing with effects that are very small in comparison to the main driver (in this case the sun) it is easy to come up with many models that produce a believable result for the wrong reasons. Read my comment again, read ristvan’s again, and Nick Stokes made a valid comment about integration from equator to pole versus smudging SB Law across entire surfaces. Rotational speed other people brought up, the non linear response of temp to input (SB Law) makes this an important point. You cannot wave these things away based on a result that produces the answer you want.

      • ” … and when I show that the physics is ENTIRELY different”

        You did not show this in any way shape or form. You just claim it does, but have not expressed any physical laws that support your position or that will override the requirements of COE and the SB Law relative to the macroscopic behavior of the planet. Claims are irrelevant.

        All you have done is cite the perceived consequences of complexity that can’t be quantified or tested. This is not science. Please come up with actual, repeatable, tests as I have done to support my hypothesis.

      • Sorry Nick; but the massive solar flux is simply the INPUT signal to the SYSTEM. It isn’t the power supply.

        Any “feedbacks” if they exist, would select some fraction of the “output”, say a Temperature change, or CO2 change, to modify the input signal .

        Feedback “amplifiers do NOT modulate the power supply, they modify the INPUT, in such a way as to make the OUTPUT, (MTF) totally independent of the SYSTEM, and controlled totally by the feedback circuit elements.

        Weather and climate effects act to change the amount of INPUT solar energy that makes it through to the SYSTEM, such as to store it in the oceans. It’s invariably negative, and simply a variation on Le Chatalier’s Principle.

        G

      • Actually, you hear a lot more about feedback from skeptics than from scientists. It doesn’t appear in any GCM’s. It is basically an aide for explanation and understanding.

        This purported “aide for explanation and understanding” is constantly employed by famous modelers, such as Trenberth and Hansen–the very people who should know better. In fact, the iconic K-T cartoon goes so far as to show a LW “backradiation” loop separately from the terrestrial emissions in a schematic that otherwise shows only NET heat transfers. This creates the false impression that atmospheric backscattering is more important to surface temperatures than insolation.

        But the issue of power source is a nonsense. There is a massive solar flux running through the system, and the feedbacks that people talk about are based on modulating that…

        Ironically, this patent confusion between the solar flux INPUT and the power source required to maintain the power gain of bona fide Bode feedback only underscores my point that ill-founded notions of complex system behavior are endemic “climate science.”

      • David M. Hoffer says:

        I do not support anything CO2 or 1sky1 have said, I disagree even with the notion of Bode being valid in any way in the climate discussion.

        Yet, by arguing against Nick Stokes’ contentions that there are no hidden feedbacks in “the equations,” he supports the very point I’m making. Perhaps he missed my earlier statement:

        Such a power source simply doesn’t exist anywhere in the climate system!

        That statement is tantamount to the stance that the actual climate system operates as a feed-through system for solar energy, which is merely redistributed spatio-temporally and in wavenumber–without any amplification.

      • CO2isnotevil
        but have not expressed any physical laws that support your position

        LOL. Go get yourself a spectroscopy text book and read it. Go get an atmospheric physics text book and read it. Go read the stuff ristvan told you to. Figure out why averaging temps and then calculating w/m2 gives a different answer than converting temps in w/m2 and THEN averaging. I’m not going to teach you these things in a blog comment, I’m telling you what to look at. You want several years of physics explained to you with all the formulas and references, that’s what the text books and courses are for.

      • david,
        Is your response to Stokes or me?

        I have a thorough understanding of radiative physics and have even written a line by line atmospheric simulator whose results correspond to those from Modtran, moreover; I understand perfectly well why you must calculate average temperature as the equivalent temperature of average emissions and not as a linear average of temperatures and I have also explained this many times in these comments.

        The reason I rolled my own was because Modtran was too much trouble to integrate into my climate simulation framework, moreover; I already had some code that performed very high performance numerical integration that I wanted to use. As a result, the performance I achieve is significantly better than Modtran and I have virtually an infinite number of speed/precision/space tradeoffs that I can choose from.

      • 1sky1;
        Such a power source simply doesn’t exist anywhere in the climate system!

        If you pay attention to the actual explanations of the physics, what you will find is that no power source is required. There is NO additional power added to the system ANYWHERE in the GHE theory. The effective black body temperature of earth is EXACTLY the same AFTER CO2 doubles as it is BEFORE. EXACTLY THE SAME. What changes is WHERE the warmth is, surface get warmer, high altitudes get colder, but the over all temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME.

        Think of a dam on a lake. Water is going over the dam at the same rate it flows into the lake from the river. Raise the dam a foot. Water stops flowing until it tops the dam, and then flows at exactly the same rate as it did before. Is the depth of the lake 1 foot higher? Yes it is. Was there an additional source of water added to the system? No. Is the river flowing faster? No. But the lake is still one foot higher.

      • David,
        The power source he is referring to is the one that amplifies 1 W/m^2 of forcing all the way up to 4.3 W/m^2 of surface the IPCC’s claims. In your dam analogy, at about 1.6 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing, the water starts to overflow the spillway.

        More than 1 W/m^2 per W/m^2 is possible, but it is incorrect to consider this feedback, based on what Bode calls feedback. The absolute maximum is only 2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing and this is if all of the surface energy emitted is absorbed by the atmosphere. The reason this is not infinite, as pedantic feedback theory would suggest (i.e. the runaway condition), is because only about half of what the atmosphere absorbs will find its way back to the surface while the remaining half exits out to space.

        If the atmosphere absorbed all surface emissions and starting with 1 W/m^2 of solar input:

        1 W of solar absorbed by the surface, emitted and absorbed by the atmosphere
        1/2 up, 1/2 down
        1/2 absorbed (all directed down from above is ultimately emitted and absorbed by the atmosphere)
        1/4 up, 1/4 down
        1/4 absorbed
        1/8 up, 1/8 down

        1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … = 2.0

      • David,
        Upon a quick review, nothing in any of the articles you referenced was new to me, nor was there anything that immediately popped up as something I disagree with, although I didn’t study the articles in enough detail to identify flaws. I understand all of this from a macroscopic view, a spectral perspective, a statistical distribution of states, quantum mechanics and how to connect all these views together. It would be a mistake for you to underestimate my level of understanding.

      • co2isnotevil August 21, 2017 at 5:01 pm
        David,
        The power source he is referring to is the one that amplifies 1 W/m^2 of forcing all the way up to 4.3 W/m^2 of surface the IPCC’s claims. In your dam analogy, at about 1.6 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing, the water starts to overflow the spillway.

        The dam was an analogy to demonstrate that no additional power/water source is required to raise temp/level. The use of the term “forcing” confuses many. As ristvan pointed out downthread, it should be better thought of as retarded cooling. You can equate the retarded cooling to a given w/m2 for a given temp change, but there is no power source, nor does there need to be one.

        As another over simplified analogy, consider a classic teeter totter sitting level. Measure its height above the ground every foot, average it, and you get a number. Tip one end all the way down to the ground so the other end is up in the air and repeat the measurements and average. You will get the exact same number. Yet one end is clearly higher. Call that end the surface temp. It is higher due to the redistribution of the teeter totter’s material, with the average kept the same. No extra teeter totter material was added to raise the one end higher in the air.

        Climate is a more complex matter because it isn’t linear and rigid like the teeter totter, there’s a lot more than that going on. But the same thing happens, the temps go up at one end and down at the other, no additional power source required.

      • David,
        I agree that CO2 can not be considered ‘forcing’, but it is and while the term ‘forcing’ has been misapplied, non the less, we are stuck with it. Only the Sun actually forces the climate and even most consensus scientists will acknowledges that an anthro forcing of X W/m^2 means that the effect being quantified is EQUIVALENT to X W/m^2 of incremental post albedo forcing from the Sun while keeping anthro forcing constant.

        And yes, the climate is complex, but more precisely, the atmosphere is complex which is why I model it as a black box implementing the simplest model that can emulate the observed behavior at the boundaries of the atmosphere. To the extent that I can predict the boundary behavior, and the SB Law plus COE does a damn good job, the complexity effectively washes out. Whatever ultimate effect all of this complexity has is already being manifested in the response predicted by the top down Physical Model and measured by the data.

        Again, I want to point out that my analysis works not only global averages, but down to an arbitrarily small temporal and spatial resolution.

        Regarding linearity, the climate is definitely non linear in the power in/temperature out domain, but it is demonstrably far more linear in the power in/power out domain and the reason is that all Joules must be treated uniformly.

      • the reason is that all Joules must be treated uniformly.

        But they aren’t. You claim superior understanding, then make statements like this. As a unit of energy, all joules are equal. As an effect on temperature, they are not. Their effect depends on the temperature undr consideration. 1 j/s means a LOT more at -100 than it does at +100.

        You keep on asserting your superior knowledge. You should stop and consider that understanding the math does not mean you’ve applied it to the physics correctly. As for treating things like a black box in order to simplify things, Einstein cautioned, make things as simple as possible, but not simpler. One of the grievous errors made by the IPCC is to assume that large numbers of errors cancel each other out. You got a math result that seems to match observations, and so you conclude that is what has happened.

        I any event, arguing the point with you seems fruitless, you are clearly wedded to your theory. At day’s end, it matters not one whit if your results conform to observations or not. The only way to determine if it is curve fitting or not is to see if it has predictive skill.

      • david,
        “As an effect on temperature, they are not. ”

        You are missing the point. While 100 Joules/sec will affect the temperature differently than 200 Joules/sec, when 100 Joules are applied, each Joule has the same effect. When 200 Joules are applied, each of these Joules has the same effect. The non linearity between power and temperature seems to be the source of your confusion. This is why it’s more appropriate to perform analysis in the energy domain.

        My point is when 240 Joules are applied, each results in 1.6 W/m^2 at the surface. When 241 are applied, the next one will not result in 4.3 at the surface, but only 1.6.

      • You are missing the point. While 100 Joules/sec will affect the temperature differently than 200 Joules/sec,

        That wasn’t my point. Never said that. You just defeated an argument I never made while insisting I am the one who missed the point. LOL.

      • david,

        You said that all Joules are not treated the same since they have a temperature dependent influence and of course they do, which is quantified by the SB equation. If you apply W/m^2 to a body starting from 0 K, then as it warms, the effect of each incremental Watt gets smaller and smaller relative to the increasing temperature. But what I’m talking about is applying power to a system which is already at or close to its equilibrium temperature, for example when considering the sensitivity.

        For any system that’s in equilibrium, all the Joules applied to it will have exactly the same influence at all times if the only thing those Joules are doing is replacing emissions to keep the temperature from changing. If that influence is to change the temperature, rather than just maintain it, the common effect each Joule has relative to the new temperature is slightly different, but not appreciably so over a small incremental change in the temperature, none the less, at each new temperature, all of the incoming Joules will have the same effect, albeit a different effect than it had before the temperature change.

      • David,

        Why don’t you re-express your point in a new thread and in context that’s relevant to the problem at hand which is establishing the climate sensitivity from an equivalent model of the planet. I’ve been juggling many different threads with many different people and concepts can easily get crossed between them.

      • David M. Hoffer says :

        If you pay attention to the actual explanations of the physics, what you will find is that no power source is required. There is NO additional power added to the system ANYWHERE in the GHE theory.

        Whose “actual explanations?” Certainly not those in the misleading K-T cartoon of power fluxes, showing 492 W/m^2 absorbed at the surface, of which only 168 W/m^2 is due insolation. The total is even more than the TSI of 342 W/m^2 at TOA ! That stark disparity has been usually “explained” by aberrant notions of “greenhouse forcing,” which conflate local emissions of stored energy with system-wide heat transfer. In fact, the IPCC annual reports misrepresent the total “transfer function” of the climate system as a product of amplifying, static-gain “feedbacks.” Since power, unlike highly mutable energy, cannot be stored but must be constantly generated, the inflated power fluxes would indeed require an additional power source in the feedback-system model, well beyond that required by Hansen’s claim of positive water-vapor feedback.

        BTW, while Hoffer’s analogy of the GHE with a dam storing flowing water is certainly a step in the right direction in illustrating the crucial difference between stored energy levels and those in flux, it’s flawed by an implicit threshold of overflow that has no correspondent in the atmospheric retardation of LW radiation to space. An even greater shortcoming of the dam analogy as a climate model is the lack of any accounting of non-radiative means of heat transfer, which in reality constitute the principal means of heat transfer from surface to atmosphere,

  12. Line 6 of the article: you need “whose” [meaning “belonging to whom”] not “who’s” [meaning “who is”]. Examples: The person whose opinion is most important is your wife. Who’s coming to the party besides Janice? Remember: No pronoun contains punctuation–none. If there is punctuation, the expression is a contraction, and a complete rendering would involve at least two words, a pronoun and a verb.

    • John

      Does your post mean that’s what you got from the entire 8,800-word technical article, or that you only got to line 6?

      • It’s helpful to grammatically correct an article, or head post, because the author may intend to post it as a PDF or publish it, and would like the opportunity to polish it.

        (In that vein, I noticed several instances of its/it’s misuse in the article. A simple scan will find them, if you have an eye for such things.)

    • In this vein, I noticed a doubled “from”. Do a search for “from from”. I thought the article was well written. The math is over my head, so I can’t comment on the conclusions (intelligently, that is). But this is definitely something worth spending time on to learn the subject.

  13. George is my peer, I have reviewed it and like it, so it is peer reviewed, go to print.

    Seriously, my opinion it is much simpler than this. Forcing’s, imbalances, feed-backs can be argued to the last W/m^2. What caused the last few de-glaciations? Believers argue it was CO2, “There is no convincing evidence that a sufficiently large reservoir of old metabolic carbon existed in some mysterious location in the glacial ocean only to be ventilated during de-glaciation” And why every 100,000 years like clockwork. Until
    this can be explained, the theory has not been proven, it is not the driver of climate but make take a back seat to it.

  14. –Venus

    Venus is something else that climate alarmists like to bring up. However; if you consider Venus in the context of the Physical Model, the proper surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun is not the solid surface of the planet, but a virtual surface high up in its clouds. Unlike Earth, where the lapse rate is negative from the surface in equilibrium with the Sun and up into the atmosphere, the Venusian lapse rate is positive from its surface in equilibrium with the Sun down to the solid surface below. Even if the Venusian atmosphere was 90 ATM of N2, the surface would still be about as hot as it is now.–

    Yes, as long as there were acid clouds and the elevation of these clouds were the same with Nitrogen atmosphere.
    I would say the “discoveries” of Venus is what gave the pseudo science of the greenhouse effect theory it’s legs.
    Or the question asked was why was Venus so hot [and the false assumption that Venus was like Earth]. Anyhow the wrong conclusion was that it’s was related to CO2. Or they ignored the massive clouds of Venus.
    The correct answer is what caused Venus to be hot, is the liquid droplets of the acid clouds of Venus. Or a liquid surface of droplets of clouds. Liquid not gas. And gas make it hot due to lapse rate of gas- ideal gas law.
    The negative lapse rate is also the only thing which can cause the highest air temperature on Earth. Or the record for highest air temperature will be always be at or below sea level on Earth.
    Something everyone knows.
    Or in the various times the Mediterranean Sea was dry, and therefore had low elevation, it was assumed it would have very high air temperature even during glacial periods. Or was supposed to
    air temperature around 80 C- or +20 C hotter than highest recorded air temperature of Death Valley:
    “The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7°C (134°F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA. ”
    http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature
    [which is below sea level and is near high elevation deserts]

    • Anyways, I think it’s simple to explain Earth’s average air temperature. Earth average temperature is controlled by Earth’s largest surface, which is the ocean and the ocean is at sea level [doh].
      Or if had largest areas below sea level, it might be possibility be considered as having something to do with average temperature of Earth.
      Anyways, ocean area is largest area, it obviously related to average global temperature.
      So one needs to know how the ocean surface warms the air [evaporation] and be aware that the ocean average surface temperature is 17 C.
      The rest is details.

      • Or if covered Mars tropics with water and surface temperature was 10 C,
        So 25 degrees latitude north and south is Mars tropics and covers close to 50% of Mars
        surface [23.5 degrees S and N on Earth is 40%]..
        Mars average global temperature would be about 0 C. Or the “tropical ocean” causes Mars average global temperature to rise by about 50 K.
        Now increasing Mars average temperature is not important- but increasing the pressure where people live is important- unless you want to always be in spacesuit.
        10 meter deep on Earth is 1 atm with 1/3 less gravity on Mars, 10 meters of water is 1/3 atm.
        1/3rd atm is enough pressure to breath without pressure suit [or spacesuit].

        Or compared to what others consider of how to Terra-form Mars, what talking about is very cheap.
        It’s cheap to do, and makes infrastructure cheaper to build on Mars.

    • The other Venus assumption is “it was a earth like planet” before the “run away”.

    • BW, Lindzen and Choi 2011 is ‘wrong’. Their second paper was a response to indisputably valid valid criticism of their first, but does not solve the cheryypick lag function criticism. This from a person who spent a day in person with him getting his critique of my climate chapter of Arts of Truth.

    • There’s a gazillion George Smiths; one on nearly every street corner. And collectively we are booked into every motel on the planet; but only for an hour.

      And for the legal disclaimer, NO I am NOT the George E. Smith who is the 2009 Nobel Physics Prize winner, for inventing the CCD (Charge Coupled Device) while he was at Bell Labs.

      There are actually people who do know both of us.

      And don’t ask me form my credentials; I don’t have any !

      G

      PS I didn’t write anything that somebody here has referred to.

    • Yes, if the Moon was in Earth’s geostationary orbit it would have 24 hour day. But the Moon is GEO would cause some problems.
      It maybe been there is the past, but it’s good thing to have it be in the past.

      • While the tidal effect would be insane and a Moon that took up most of the night sky would be interesting, the only effect it would have on the Moon’s temperature is to decrease the high temperatures and increase the low temperatures, but the average will remain the same.

      • — co2isnotevil
        August 20, 2017 at 2:46 pm

        While the tidal effect would be insane and a Moon that took up most of the night sky would be interesting, the only effect it would have on the Moon’s temperature is to decrease the high temperatures and increase the low temperatures, but the average will remain the same.–

        The article is correct about some things, one thing it’s correct about is the lunar surface heats up rapidly. Earth being a water planet heat up up very slowly- thousands of years.
        And because what being warmed is a liquid, Earth climate is complicated- lunar climate is uncomplicated.

      • This is one area where the analogy between the Earth and the Moon breaks down.

        The speed of rotation matters where the body is not a perfect blackbody, and in particular where energy is not absorbed at the surface and where there are lags.

        The Earth is a water world with approx 70% of the surface covered by ocean, and solar irradiance is not absorbed at the surface of the ocean, but rather at depth. There are lags in the system with the ocean containing a vast reservoir of latent heat.

        With such differing characteristics, no meaningful comparison between the Moon and the Earth can be made.

      • Well if the earth’s oceans are a vast reservoir of latent heat “””””….. There are lags in the system with the ocean containing a vast reservoir of latent heat. …..”””””

        Then those oceans can ONLY give up that latent heat by FREEZING.

        They have to give that 80 calories per gram or frozen water, to the atmosphere; the oceans have to absorb vast quantities of latent heat in order to become a small portion of earth’s atmosphere. That can come only from the sun, and at the rate of about 590 calories per gram of water evaporated.

        G

    • Adrian,
      How does the rotation rate affect the average temperature? It affects the extremes, but when you calculate the average temperature as the EQUIVALENT temperature of AVERAGE emissions, as I specified, in the steady state, average emissions are equal to the average incident energy independent of the rotation rate.

      • Simple answer is heat capacity of lunar surface. Lunar surface has very low heat capacity.
        Earth with it’s oceans has a huge heat capacity.
        Earth would less effect having 29.5 day long day as compared to the Moon, but if Earth’s days were 29.5 times longer, don’t you think the nights could be colder?
        Or at sea level in tropics air temperature never gets to 0 C, but if Earth’s day was 29 times longer, could the tropics reach below 0 C every night?

      • gbaikie,

        The heat capacity is the ‘k’ in my equations and primarily affects the amount of time it takes to reach equilibrium, that is, how much E it takes for some increase in T.

        If the Earth day was 708 hours, equatorial nights could indeed drop below 0C, but daytime high temperatures would increase to 70 or 80 C and the averages would remain mostly the same. Even mid latitudes would have day time highs over 50C and night time lows less than 0C. However; the nature of water may prevent this since at about about 300K, ocean temperature increases slow way down relative to increasing solar energy and this energy seems to be converted into Hurricanes.

      • @ co2isnotevil at August 20, 2017 at 3:26 pm

        You miss a very fundamental point and that is that the Earth is nothing like a blackbody since it does not absorb energy at the surface, whereas it radiates energy from the surface.

        This is one of the fundamental errors in the K&T energy budget cartoon.

      • Richard,

        “since it does not absorb energy at the surface, whereas it radiates energy from the surface”

        What do you think is happening to all that solar energy that heats up the oceans, concrete and dirt? Where do you propose all this energy is being absorbed? Clouds absorb some solar energy, but in LTE are tightly connected to the water in the oceans thus for identifying the LTE state, we can consider that solar energy absorbed by clouds has been equivalently absorbed by the oceans.

      • My point relates to the speed of rotation.

        One of the mistakes in climate science is to consider the position as if the Earth is essentially immersed in a warm bath where energy is received uniformly over the entire surface area of the planet 24/7 all year long. That is not our system. Energy is being received in bursts, and where energy is being received is not where energy is being radiated from.

        If something is a perfect blackbody, the speed of rotation does not matter, but where a body is not a perfect black body and where energy is not absorbed at the surface but rather within the body itself, and where there is material which is a poor conductor but one which possesses a large latent heat capacity, the speed of rotation becomes important. This set up, gives the body the potential to warm because energy can accumulate at a rate different to that at which it is radiated.

        If this planet rotated once a minute, gradually the deep ocean would heat up more, ocean circulatory patterns would change which would probably lead to an ice free Arctic (as well as changes to atmospheric patterns which I am ignoring since we are considering an atmosphere free world).

        One cannot compare a fast rotating water world such as the Earth with a slow rotating grey body such as the Moon. It does not follow that absent atmosphere they would be the same temperature.

        There have been significant changes in the temperature of this planet over the past few thousand years, eg., Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and these changes are not due to variations/perturbation in the orbit/eccentricity/inclination of the planet, nor changes in (so called) GHGs, nor (as far as we know) changes in solar irradiance. Whilst these changes were not caused by changes in the speed of rotation of this planet, these changes are possible because the planet is nothing like a blackbody.

        It absorbs energy in one place (in 3 dimensions) and radiates it in another place. The planet is a heat pump and energy is constantly being moved around. Some of the energy absorbed may take thousands of years to surface and be radiated, some of it can be released in relatively short cycles such as ENSO cycles.

      • Richard,
        It’s an energy constraint, nothing more, nothing less. The LTE average emissions will be the same independent of how fast or slow the object rotates. Explain how the average output emissions of the Moon are not equal to its average input emissions and/or how does the rotation rate affect the average incident energy? It certainly affects the distribution, but has no affect on the total number of Joules entering the surface and exiting it which is averaged over at least a whole number of night/day cycles.

      • –gbaikie,

        The heat capacity is the ‘k’ in my equations and primarily affects the amount of time it takes to reach equilibrium, that is, how much E it takes for some increase in T.

        If the Earth day was 708 hours, equatorial nights could indeed drop below 0C, but daytime high temperatures would increase to 70 or 80 C and the averages would remain mostly the same–

        Ocean surface temperature controls average temperature, ocean will not warm more than 35 C, because the sunlight’s intensity is not sufficient to overcome evaporation heat loss.
        And longer day might not change the average ocean temperature, but we have consider the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Or average global temperature is air temperature not the 3 C the entire ocean’s average temperature.
        Or ask anyone what happen if sun disappears, within days the atmosphere collapses, but oceans will maintain their temperatures for long time.
        So with long night, the sky falls down, though it would be supported by the average air temperature which is the same as average ocean temperature. Or one obviously would get more wind, but even a powerful global wind lack enough heat to warm the night. Ocean waters could manage this task. One could imagine the Antarctic Circumpolar Current could increase and help out But our current land configuration isn’t going to support much in terms of east west movement of ocean water.
        Anyways such a things makes it complicated. But if you agree the nights in tropics will cool to 0 C or colder that wipes why we have an average global temperature of 15 C- because the average tropical temperature is about 26 C, and that makes tropics, less than 15 C, which makes average global temperature about 5 C. Without even really getting into night time temperature of rest of the world..

      • gbaiki.
        “which makes average global temperature about 5 C.”
        You are neglecting the offsetting effect of longer days and the much higher temperatures that will result.
        The total solar input arriving at the surface at the equator under clear skies at noon is about 1300 W/m^2 which if applied continuously would result in a surface temperature exceeding the boiling point of water.

      • Oh , forget the global wind in relationship to slower rotation, so rotation of 1000 mph at equator,
        drops 1000 / 29 which is 34 mph. So could have upper troposphere winds 0f + 100 mph with surface of about 30 mph. Or say 1/3 atmosphere roughly going 3 times speed of lower and more massive part of atmosphere. And I guess it travels west.
        And we would have tiny terminator line like Venus [or would we?]
        And we currently have polar vortexes and i guess they become more pronounced and constant.
        Actually I think we just get stronger polar vortexes. And it looks like vortexes are making the global wind. Though I could also say they are “following it”.
        Any ways not a fierce winds as I first thought.

      • — co2isnotevil
        August 20, 2017 at 6:18 pm

        gbaiki.
        “which makes average global temperature about 5 C.”
        You are neglecting the offsetting effect of longer days and the much higher temperatures that will result.–

        We are are not talking about the amount of solar energy the Earth absorbs, we talking about average global air temperature. Or the amount of energy Earth has currently absorbed is roughly the average temperature of the entire ocean of Earth- which has average temperature of about 3 C.

        What makes Earth have an average temperature of 15 C, is the average temperature of the tropical region which is 40% of Earth surface.
        Plus the tropical ocean warms the rest of the planet Earth.
        Or tropical ocean is the heat engine of Planet Earth. So average global temperature of Earth is the tropics and the amount of heating the tropics heats the rest of the world.
        Or if eliminate the near uniformity of tropical night and day average air temperatures, you will lower Earth’s average air temperature. But that alone doesn’t have anything to do with how much solar energy is absorbed by Earth.

        In terms of the the moon, faster rotation [because surface has low heat capacity] does mean the Moon absorbs more solar energy. And if the Moon absorbs more solar energy the lunar regolith below the surface is warmed more. Which coupled with shorter nights that means the night will be warmer and therefore the Moon will have a higher average surface temperature [and higher average temperature below the surface].

        Or I can look at it this way, water has high specific heat, it require about 4 times more solar energy [or anything warming it] than an equal mass of rock. Or if heat water from 1 C to 2 C, the same amount heat warms most stuff from 1 to 4 C. And warmer something is, the more it radiates that heat into space. And ocean highest temperature is 35 C and land is about 70 C.
        But a more important aspect is water is transparent and conducts heat poorly [if there is difference in temperature, water mostly gets heat to the surface via convectional heat transfer.
        But water isn’t surface like rock and absorbs sunlight mostly 1 meter or more beneath it’s surface.
        So ocean tropical water fairly uniformity warm down to 100 meters and that inhibits convectional heat loss [not much difference of temperature of the water per say inch or foot depth].
        And ocean thermocline in addition to sunlight heating through meters of ocean depth also has wave action which makes the water have a more uniform temperature.

      • gbaikie,
        “In terms of the the moon, faster rotation [because surface has low heat capacity] does mean the Moon absorbs more solar energy. ”

        The rotation rate has nothing to do the average EMISSIONS and this is what the average temperature I’m talking about is based on. The heat capacity determines how much E is needed to result in some temperature T, so a larger heat capacity will require more E in order to come to the same equilibrium T which just means it takes more time for equilibrium to be reached and LTE assumes that enough time has passed to achieve equilibrium. But, relative to balance, we are concerned with balancing the rates of energy, not absolute energy and the balance of rates is dictated by COE and nothing more. If the Moon receives X W/m^2 from the Sun it will emit X W/m^2 when it is in thermodynamic balance no matter its composition or rotation rate and the average temperature is based on X W/m^2.

      • “What makes Earth have an average temperature of 15 C, is the average temperature of the tropical region which is 40% of Earth surface.”

        I should mention in terms of geometry and rotation the tropics gets more sunlight- or as commonly said, the tropics gets half or more of all the sunlight from the sun. And it’s 40% of earth surface.
        Which shouldn’t be confused with amount of daylight time- which is roughly equal anywhere.
        Or tropics gets more sunlight which above 45 degree above the horizon [or within 45 degrees of zenith].

      • It’s very wrong to think in terms of averages when you deal with temperatures. Temperature is an intensive value, if you are dealing with non-equilibrium, almost always (except very particular circumstances) you will get wrong physical results with the average. Your average is done with T, the black (or gray) body emission is ~T^4. Even from this remark with a little bit of thinking you can realize how having different extremes (and the entire range between them) will change things.

      • What would happen to daytime temperatures if the day was 48 hours long.

        The daytime maximum temperature might then be 10C higher than it is now. 12 extra hours of sunlight in which the temperatures rise by an average of 0.8C/hour. Nightime temperatures might then be 10C lower as well.

        What would happen to clouds and rain then. Certainly more daytime evaporation and thermals which should mean more clouds. Any ground in the sunlight is going to get much hotter than it is now.

        Once you have worked your way through that, now make the Earth solar day 2,784 hours long (like it is on Venus) and then redo the math. You know what you get, you get day-time Earth surface temperatures just like they are on Venus.

      • Bill,
        The temperature does not increase indefinitely in response to a longer day. It asymptotically approaches the temperature corresponding to the incident energy.

      • How does the rotation rate affect the average temperature? It affects the extremes, but when you calculate the average temperature as the EQUIVALENT temperature of AVERAGE emissions, as I specified …

        Better not call it an average temperature then. The expression “average temperature” suggests a number calculated from raw temperatures, rather than from energy fluxes.

      • Averaging temperature is a meaningless metric. Only averaging emissions and converting the result to an average temperature has any relevance to the physical behavior of the system If you want to ‘average’ two temperatures, T1 and T2, the proper equation is Tavg = (T1^4 + T2^4)^.25

      • — Bill Illis
        August 21, 2017 at 4:44 am

        What would happen to daytime temperatures if the day was 48 hours long–

        Most amount energy from the sun occurs during part of the day referred to as peak solar hours.
        Roughly this is 3 hour before and after 12 noon. Or when the sun is the highest in the sky.
        Or in the polar regions of Earth one has very long daylight hours, but sun stays near the horizon
        and is not very intense.
        So peak hours in 12 hour day is 1/2 of the day- 6 hours. And in these hours one gets the most amount energy from solar panels. Or roughly of the 24 hours one gets 1/4 of the time having peak hours. And so with 48 hour day you would get 12 hours of peak hours.
        Or with the Moon it’s day is 29.5 times longer than earth day, and in terms peak hours 6 times 29,5 is 177 peak hours.
        The lunar surface reaches a temperature of about 120 C. when the sun near zenith [straight up].
        The lunar surface if instead have only 46 hours of peak hours would also reach about 120 C.
        And if lunar surface had only 6 hours of peak hours [like earth] would also reach about 120 C.
        Even if the Moon had only 4 hours of peak hours, the surface would also reach about 120 C.
        Or the lunar surface can rapidly heat up. But what is rapidly warming up in the first couple inches
        of “lunar dust” and roughly speaking it’s like asking how quickly can cardboard warm up- which is about 15 min [or less].
        An ocean or just swimming pool is a completely different topic..

      • Or a wet piece of cardboard would first need to dry out before it can reach it’s highest temperatures- which could take hours.

      • Averaging temperature is a meaningless metric. …

        I’m not saying you should be averaging temperatures. I’m saying you should not use the term “average temperature” for what might perhaps more appropriately be called “emission-equivalent calculated temperature” or some such. You have lots of comments here that result from taking the notion of “average temperature” literally.

      • Michael,
        Yes, I understand that this can be confusing, especially since climate science emphasizes temperature and not emissions, even though the two are exactly equivalent. This is why I keep qualifying it with being an EQUIVALENT temperature corresponding to average EMISSIONS.

      • co2isnotevil

        You are forgetting about time and emissivity.

        Ground versus air temperature and solar radiation over two days at the Kansas solar radiation tower in May.

        Actual molecules absorb energy for a period of time before they re-emit it. It is does not take long for a surplus of energy to accumulate when the solar energy is coming in at 1,000 joules/m2/second (1,200 at the tropics).

        The Net radiation out does NOT equal the radiation coming in during the day-time. It accumulates in the molecules in the rock and soil and even air molecules. While the “accumulation rate” can be extremely small (on the order of 0.008 joules/m2/second), this adds up to a extremely big net accumulation number as those seconds tick off. In Venus’ case, the accumulation time in seconds is over 5 million seconds.

      • Bill,
        “The Net radiation out does NOT equal …”

        Not all the time. At night, emissions are infinitely larger than incoming which is zero. It’s not until later in the AM that incoming starts to exceed outgoing and in the late afternoon when the temperature is at its max, emissions again become larger than incoming.

        You misunderstand my use of the term NET which is a long term average over some number of periods of the largest periodicity in the stimulus. This basically means the average across a whole number of years.

      • ” In Venus’ case, the accumulation time in seconds is over 5 million seconds”

        I don’t know if this suppose to slow or fast.
        But I say if cooled Venus and Earth by 50 K, Venus would warm back up quicker than Earth.
        But I don’t know if Venus was ever cooler than it is now.
        Or in terms of 50 K cooler, I don’t either planet has been this cold.

      • Gbaikie,

        “But I say if cooled Venus and Earth by 50 K …”

        It would depend on what you cooled. If you cooled the Venusian surface, it would take far longer to re-establish the temperature because 1) the available energy is less (high albedo) and 2) higher temperatures requires more W/m^2 to sustain.

        If you cooled the clouds in direct equilibrium with the Sun, they would warm up faster because in the steady state, they were relatively cold to begin with.

        Another of my hypotheses is that Venus started out as a small gas giant that wandered into the inner solar system where the Sun eventually stripped off its lighter gases leaving only the heavier CO2 in its wake. It could have also ejected the super Earth that we usually see associated with other solar systems. Its interior would have probably been even hotter then as it would have had more mass compressing its atmosphere. Something that has always bothered me about Venus is that it has far, far more CO2 then we have on Earth since the mass of the CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere is about the same as the mass of the Earth’s oceans. I think that its even possible that one of the gases stripped from the proto Venus was water vapor, which Earth scavenged and is why we have so much water, while Venus has so little by comparison. Of course, this one is much harder to test …

      • “Another of my hypotheses is that Venus started out as a small gas giant that wandered into the inner solar system where the Sun eventually stripped off its lighter gases leaving only the heavier CO2 in its wake”

        Also the sunlight would convert methane into CO2. Like water, methane is quite abundant in the solar system [and the universe]..
        The question is where did water go?
        With Earth it is thought Earth water came from it’s interior and via smaller impactors- lets say less than 100 km in radius [or 100 km diameter rock will boil Earth’s oceans- and kills everything- and 100 radius rock does more than that].
        Venus would have even higher impact velocities as compared to Earth, but would say Venus thick atmosphere as general rule “protects it” from all impactors. Or 100 diameter rock hitting Venus would be more survival-able as compared to hitting Earth despite it having +10 km/sec velocity added to it.
        Or in terms of puny nuclear weapons, Venus is a fortress. If space aliens attack, you should want to live on Venus. Mars is also good, basically Earth is one of worst planet to be on. But Venus is in some ways better than any of inner planets or moons.
        Or the reason nuclear weapons are dangerous is the atmosphere and the surface. Large impactor make the ocean surface dangerous- 1/2 km high wave going speed of sound type stuff.
        Now anything over 1 km radius, isn’t going to be stopped by the Earth’s atmosphere, and may not be stopped by Venus atmosphere, but when hits the surface it creates air shockwave [and some earthquake force]. Now with nukes one wants the explosion to occur somewhere around 1000 meters above surface, because you using the atmosphere to deliver the energy over wider area and the surface of earth deflects the shockave.
        Such technique would be useless on Venus, because of it’s thick atmosphere.
        Now assumption with Venus is you are 50 Km above the surface. Being at high elevation on Earth- flying plane- is also a relatively safe place to be- but Venus and it’s larger atmosphere it’s safer.
        Back to big rocks, the huge impact energy would be sort of like exploding a large nuke in deep ocean water on Earth. Near the impact site, you are dead, the point is what are effect 500 or 1000 km distance from impactor. And so what happens with 100 diameter rock hitting Venus, well it could increase temperature by 100 C- so, that causes atmosphere to expand, and you end up at higher elevation and a bit warmer- maybe 10 C.
        Shockwave, there would be largely deaden by thick atmosphere and largely confined to the rocky surface.
        Or basically the entire rocky planet could be molten and it’s not much of a problem.

        Anyhow, going back to gas giant, the large impactors could not reach surface and blast off huge chunks of the amosphere

      • gbaikie,

        It’s hypothesized that a Mars size rock impacted the Earth and the Moon arose from the debris as Earth’s axis got slightly tilted.

        Venus has a slow retrograde rotation meaning that at one time, it’s axis is flipped 180 degrees. But, where is it’s Moon? Surely an impact large enough to flip it upside down would have created enough debris for a Moon to form, even with an atmosphere comprised of 90 ATM of CO2.

        But, if it was a gas giant with a lot more atmosphere that bounced off another gas giant in the outer solar, for example, Uranus, which also has unusual rotation and tilt, it would have been a more elastic collision and the cores deep within would probably have never come in contact with each other. Kind of like two balloons bouncing off each other.

        Planetary formation models generally predict the formation of a ‘super Earth’ somewhere in the inner solar system, but ours has none, even though these have become one of the most common kind of exoplanets discovered.

        I suspect that a Venus/Uranus collision occurred very early on and Venus was hurled into the inner solar system, did a gravitational dance with the proto super Earth in about the same orbit as Venus is in now and replaced it by ejecting the super Earth into the far reaches of the solar system. There wouldn’t even need to be actual collisions and gravitational slingshot effects are also a plausible cause, even for the initial Venus/Uranus collision. Such a planet beyond Pluto is now generally thought to exist.

      • ‘Planetary formation models generally predict the formation of a ‘super Earth’ somewhere in the inner solar system, but ours has none, even though these have become one of the most common kind of exoplanets discovered. ”

        It may be common because, they are looking for earth like planet and lack the detection abilities and find more massive earths [more easily detected,
        But not that paying a lot attention to it, it seems they finding a lot gas giants very close to their stars. Again, easier to detect, Bur gas giants aren’t “supposed” form near their stars. And no doubt one gets explanations for how this happens.
        But it seems the take away is, gas giants do form and/or get near their stars.
        What we know or what is theorized is that gas giants can and do form quickly.
        So maybe venus formed quickly as gas giant, and then during “great bombardment” Venus the gas giant got smashed.
        Or we don’t know if the “great bombardment” is common- we just “know” it occurred with Sol system.

      • gbaikie,
        Something else about Venus is that because of its very slow rotation, it has no magnetic field to speak of. which means that it would not be very protected by the solar wind.

      • ” co2isnotevil
        August 24, 2017 at 10:35 pm

        gbaikie,
        Something else about Venus is that because of its very slow rotation, it has no magnetic field to speak of. which means that it would not be very protected by the solar wind.”

        How much of Venus atmosphere is being currently lost?
        Or do you think Venus loses more than Mars.
        “MAVEN measurements indicate that the solar wind strips away gas at a rate of about 100 grams (equivalent to roughly 1/4 pound) every second. “Like the theft of a few coins from a cash register every day, the loss becomes significant over time,” said Bruce Jakosky, MAVEN principal investigator at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “We’ve seen that the atmospheric erosion increases significantly during solar storms, so we think the loss rate was much higher billions of years ago when the sun was young and more active.”
        https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-speed-of-solar-wind-stripping-martian-atmosphere
        Seconds per day: 86400 – 8,640,000 grams – 8640 kg – 8.64 tonnes
        8.64 times 365 is 3153.6 tonnes per year. And:
        “The science team determined that almost 75 percent of the escaping ions come from the tail region, and nearly 25 percent are from the plume region, with just a minor contribution from the extended cloud”
        So 25% of it comes from area above poles. Hmm, I wonder how fast the stuff escaping Mars travels at:
        “This electric field accelerates electrically charged gas atoms, called ions, in Mars’ upper atmosphere and shoots them into space.” How fast are they shot.
        Anyways they trying to figure out how much water is lost. How much water is gained?
        So got 8 tons leaving, 2 tonnes from polar region. And some portion of it, is water.
        They say Mars gets hit more then Earth, And suppose they mean per square meter [square km] of cross section:
        “Researchers guessed that anywhere between 0.4 and 110 tons of the star stuff entered our atmosphere every day–that’s a pretty wide range. But a recent paper took a closer look at the levels of sodium and iron in the atmosphere using Doppler Lidar, an instrument that can measure changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Because the amount of sodium in the atmosphere is proportional to the amount of cosmic dust in the atmosphere, the researchers figured out that the actual amount of dust falling to the earth is along the lines of 60 tons per day.”
        http://www.popsci.com/60-tons-cosmic-dust-fall-earth-every-day
        60 times 365 is 21,900 tons.
        Plus:
        “Estimates for the mass of material that falls on Earth each year range from 37,000-78,000 tons. Most of this mass would come from dust-sized particles….
        …Over the whole surface area of Earth, that translates to 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams per year.”
        http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/75-our-solar-system/comets-meteors-and-asteroids/meteorites/313-how-many-meteorites-hit-earth-each-year-intermediate
        Or it seems likely Mars is gaining water, rather than losing it.

        Now, I was “always under the impression” Venus got less impactors than Earth or Mars, and still think it’s reasonable assumption. And in terms gaining water, it seems even more likely less water gets to Venus from extraterrestrial matter.
        Anyways I trying to number of impact crater there was on Venus. Short story is there seems a lot more than I thought. And terms rate, it matters when you imagine Venus was re-surface.
        They tend to think the planet re-surfaced itself, I tend to think impactors did it.
        Or getting back to Venus being gas giant- maybe it’s just Venus loss a lot of it’s atmosphere from impactor- within last billion or two years.

      • Oh, you know your idea of balloons hitting. So maybe comet with big diameter atmosphere- Comets can have have a huge diameter atmospheres. Or comet nuclei could even miss Venus but the atmospheres collides- say at 60 km/sec, So one could get average gas molecule couple times the Venus escape velocity- escape being about 10 km/sec

      • Don’t think a comet would work, as while the atmospheres are large. they are very diffuse and to get the bouncing balloon effect, you need a really dense atmosphere.

      • — co2isnotevil
        August 25, 2017 at 11:14 am

        Don’t think a comet would work, as while the atmospheres are large. they are very diffuse and to get the bouncing balloon effect, you need a really dense atmosphere.–

        Did you heard of the light foam of Shuttle External Tanks damaging the Columbia Orbiter?
        https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/EXTERNAL-TANK-INSULATION-Columbia-Space-Shuttle-Explosion
        I think that was somewhere around 500 meter/sec

        Incredible Comet Bigger than the Sun:
        “The sun remains by far the most massive object in the solar system, with an extended influence of particles that reaches all the planets. But the comparatively tiny Comet Holmes has released so much gas and dust that its extended atmosphere, or coma, is larger than the diameter of the sun. The comparison is clear in a new image. ”
        https://www.space.com/4643-incredible-comet-bigger-sun.html
        And size it’s nucleus
        “This amazing eruption of the comet is produced by dust ejected from a tiny solid nucleus made of ice and rock, only 3.6 kilometers (roughly 2.2 miles) in diameter.”

        So that has gravity of about 1/1000th of 1 gee and I thinking of something with bigger nucleus,
        say +50 km in diameter, or something with 1/100th of 1 gee [or more]. Or something we haven’t seen- at least, before we invented telescopes.
        So dwarf planet Ceres [a very big space rock- biggest in the Main asteroid belt]. Has gravity of
        “0.029 g”- wiki
        Or less than 1/30th. So even though Ceres is bigger than what I have in mind, the comet could have more volatilizes on it’s surface than Ceres. Or we sent, the spacecraft, Dawn to Ceres and there are no large quantities of water at surface and Ceres outgasses some amount of water at it’s distance from the sun [2.67 AU- or about 1/10th of earth distance solar flux] though it’s still believed [I think] that Ceres mantle has more fresh water than Earth.
        So as example what would happen if Ceres orbit was change so it pass between say Venus and Mercury and crossed Venus distance when Venus was within 100,000 km of it- more twice GEO and 1/3 the Moon’s distance.
        So Ceres’ year is 4.6 years and it’s year would change to about 2 years or less [as wild guess] or the trajectory leg towards the sun from it’s Aphelion to Perihelion is about 1 year. Or about 9 months to reach Venus distance from Aphelion. Or 9 months of getting more heating than getting now. Or rough guess once reaches earth distance it will travel about 2 months before crossing Venus orbital distance. It’s a slow comet or fast moving asteriod. Or if hit earth it would have impact of about 30 km/sec, and with Venus it’s would about +40 km/sec. Or it would pass Venus at about 40 km/sec though any of it’s gas would impact at +40 km or could be about 50 km/sec.
        So in longer time period of getting to Mars distance, it’s going out-gas more though amount out gassed is temporary in terms of years but not very temporary in terms of 9 months. And by reaching earth distance, what was outgasing should increase by factor of ten and what wasn’t out gassing, would warm enough to begin out gassing.
        Or when comets get closer to the sun, it’s sometimes described as vaporizing swimming pools per second or water.
        So big comet should make more gas and hold more gas, and be in process of leaving the comet forever but hasn’t completely left yet.

      • I don’t think you can ever get the cloud of dust surrounding a comet to have anywhere near the densities required for a balloon like collision. It would need to be a comet with the mass of Neptune. It’s not the size of the gas and dust cloud, but how dense it is.

        I don’t know if there’s an upper limit on the size of a comet. It would depend on how primordial they are relative to the supernova’s that created their elements. If they arose from aggregating smaller particles, they could potentially be Earth sized or larger. If they are the size of the chunks directly precipitating out of supernova remnants and they are the smaller particles that aggregated together to create planet sized objects, they will likely be far smaller.

      • “I don’t think you can ever get the cloud of dust surrounding a comet to have anywhere near the densities required for a balloon like collision. ”
        I am not sure what you mean by balloon collision- my assumption was low density like air of balloon. Though a party balloon would have high density. Or air is 1.2 kg per cubic meter at sea level, and it would have about that density. Though also could be thinking of high elevation balloon which would roughly has density of high elevation. Or on Earth 100,000 ft is same pressure as mars sea level [1/100th of an atm]. Or Mars density is .02 kg/cubic, hydrogen high atmosphere balloon would be somewhere around less than .01 kg/cubic meter. Or if had large balloon in space it could much less than .01 kg/cu meter.
        Since a large balloon with party balloon density of 1.2 kg is impossible in space- the structural strength isn’t possible- if it’s very large, generally I assumed it was vaguely in ballpark of .01 kg/cubic. Of course space density varies, but around 5 molecule per cubic cm, or in cubic meter
        5 million molecule. And Moon atmosphere is about 100 molecules per cubic cm.
        So in terms of range, lunar atmosphere would be about the least possible [anything that amount or less seems silly] all way up to .01 kg/cu meter [or seems anything more gets into structural issues- or talking about a hollow sphere of some sort]. But broadly there seems like there could be wide range of density of a balloon in space.
        But if picked 01 kg/cu meter and sphere of 10,000 km [10 million meters] the volume being, using
        google: 4.19×10^21 cubic meter or 4.19×10^19 kg
        Or earth’s atmosphere being, 5.1 x 10^18 kg

        Or basically have something like a earth atmospheric mass hitting a gas giant atmosphere at say 50 km/sec. And seems like it would affect the less dense higher atmosphere [though this higher atmosphere has a higher total mass than “balloon” hitting it].
        Though rather being at a significant distance, the comet could graze the planet’s atmosphere- it could even have nucleus “tunnel” thru the upper atmosphere, and be deflected or bounce off the atmosphere. If nucleus has vector changed in anyway it could experience deceleration force [gee force] and break apart or explode [break apart quickly].
        We have video of asteroid glazing earth, see if can find it.
        I had not seen this one before, sort of boring:

        There is another- again not one I was thinking of;
        http://www.amsmeteors.org/2016/02/earth-grazing-fireball-over-wisconsin-and-michigan-caught-on
        Again others, but not one thinking of- but exciting

        Anyhow, those are small rocks- we get rocks size a cars on a monthly basis, and of course also have spacecraft related debris

      • “I am not sure what you meant by balloon collision”

        Two gas giants colliding where the atmosphere’s bounce off each other and the cores never come into contact. This is what I think the nature of the collision that flipped Venus upside down was. Otherwise, where is its Moon?

  15. With apology to George White, just a quick reminder
    So far so good for the polar explorer Pen Hadow who started his polar voyage four days ago. It looks he might have a bit of a luck following him. Prevailing winds are his friends, the current position marked with green circle
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-4.67,93.55,892/loc=-163.208,72.888
    Concentration of the see ice on his route to the pole appears to be about 45%

  16. I have not had the time to analyse the article but I would say that it would appear to be wrong. The average temperature of the moon is not 270K but rather 197K. Thus the supposed “physical model” would appear to be wrong for the simplest case and so I would not believe the predictions when it comes to the earth.

    The author also states that ” since the climate sensitivity should be relatively easy to predict using the settled laws of physics and even easier to measure with satellite observations” and while it is true that the climate sensitivity is easy to measure the only draw back is that it will take several thousand years since that is how long the oceans take to reach thermal equilibrium. So there is a simple experiment – double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, wait 1000 years and measure the average temperature change. And the good thing for the skeptics is that we appear to be on track for doing precisely that.

    • Average air temperature is directly connected to ocean surface temperature.
      But Earth average temperature is related the ocean’s average temperature [volume of oceans not surface]. Or earth average temperature is connected to Earth average ocean temperature.
      “wait 1000 years and measure the average temperature change.”
      In thousand year the volume of the ocean can increase, it’s unlikely to warm up within 1000 years as much as ocean warmed in the last interglacial period, but it could increase by as much as 1 C,
      which might increase the ocean surface temperature and therefore have a higher average temperature of couple of degrees.
      We will certainly be about to measure such a change in ocean temperatures- probably in less time than 1 century, but such increase in global air temperature won’t be felt as noticeable change, slightly warmer winters, higher latitude have longer growing seasons. Or it’s warmer by small amount but not hotter.

  17. The basic failing here is the notion of T. You don’t say exactly where it is the T of. Eq (3) puts it into a S-B equation, for which it would have to be the T of an emitting surface. But that isn’t the same as in (2), where it seems to be a volume T. And of course, T is variable over the surface, hugely so for the Moon. You can talk of an surface average, but there is no S-B law that says an average flux is the fourth power of any average. And for the Earth, it isn’t even just surface. A lot of emission comes from the high trpopsphere.

    I’m sure someone will mention the use of GMSTA, but that is carefully defined as an average anomaly. People wearily explain why you shouldn’t even try to calculate average surface temperature, let alone use it in any kind of physics.

    So the math leading to (6) makes no sense.

    • 4 equations and 4 unknowns, Pi, T, Po and E, whose time varying values can be calculated for any point on the surface

      So as described T is a function of location and is defined at each point on the surface. Indeed right up to equation 6 everything is defined at a point on the surface, which makes total sense because the Moon lacks significant convection or any other mechanism to transport heat from one location another so each location can be considered independently of the others. This means that sensitivity can be found independently at each point on the surface.

      The problems with averages that you mention are real, however the author seems aware of them, and in any case the issue of averaging only arises subsequent to equation 6 which appears to me to be an equation defined at a point on the surface.

      • “Indeed right up to equation 6 everything is defined at a point on the surface”
        Well, the immediate application following (6) starts:
        “If the average temperature of the Moon was 255K, equation 6) tells us that ∂T/∂Pi is about 0.3C per W/m2.”
        “equation 6) tells us”. The equation is applied using averages, and includes no indication of space dependence. And it goes on:
        “As far as the Moon is concerned, this analysis is based on nothing but first principles physics and the undeniable, deterministic average sensitivity that results is about 0.22C per W/m2. This is based on indisputable science”
        The “indisputable science” in this arithmetic is certainly based on wrongly applying the S-B formula to an average. I see no attempt anywhere to calculate at each surface point and integrate.

    • Nick,
      The math leading to 6) is describing the Moon. The later hypothesis is that there’s a connection in the physics from the behavior of the Moon to that of the Earth and I developed that connection in tiny steps and then tested a couple of prediction of that hypothesis. In the end, nothing about how the Earth behaves could not be accommodated by changes to the attributes of the model and the tests of the data confirmed that the planet does indeed conform to the laws of physics and that the sensitivity to incremental solar energy is exactly as predicted.

      • ristvan,

        “Nope your assertion Moon~Earth is just wrong. ”

        Then how do you explain why the relationship between output emissions (Po) and the surface temperature (T) exhibits the T^4 relationship predicted by the model? If it’s not SB and COE that dictates the relationship between the surface temperature and planet emissions, what laws of physics are relevant and why do those laws emulate the behavior of the SB Law? Moreover; you have acknowledged that the model works correctly for an Earth like planet without water and GHG’s, and you would probably also agree that if the oceans were a liquid that is not also acting as a GHG, the equations will also work. So, how can adding a few trace gases to the atmosphere so completely change the laws of physics?

        It stands to reason that output emissions have a T^4 relationship with temperature since both the surface and clouds emit roughly Planck spectrums and even emissions from atmospheric GHG’s originated from Planck spectrum emitters initially. Once emissions pass pass through atmospheric GHG’s some emission bands are attenuated, but this is a linear reduction in power that can be fully accounted for by an emissivity and is not a modification of the basic T^4 dependency, nor the T^-3 dependence on the sensitivity (when expressed as degrees per W/m^2) which for all intents and purposes is immutable! Even a gray body emitter with an emissivity of 1E-99 exhibits the basic T^4 dependency.

  18. You did not just see a clear, logical, well-argued refutation that utterly destroys the fake science, consensus CO2 climate alarmism.

    cue the: ****((FLASSHY THINGY))****

    What you just saw was swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket that refracted the light from Venus.

  19. Germino,

    The max temperature is about 396K and well over the boiling point of water while the min temperature is about 90K. Don’t know where you are getting your temperature data, but the average is certainly over 197K, even when averaging temperatures.

    Besides, I calculate the average temperature as the EQUIVALENT temperature of average emissions and unless the average emissions are equal to the average incoming energy, it will not be in a steady state.

    You must honor Conservation of Energy. At an average temperature of 198K, the average emissions are only 87 W/m^2 based on the SB LAW. At an albedo of 0.11, the average incident power is about 304 W/m^2. What’s happening to the other 217 W/m^2?

    • Given that we have insufficient data to calculate the average surface temperature of the Earth, it seems highly unlikely that we possess sufficient data to calculate the average surface temperature of the Moon (albeit I consider it far simpler to calculate the average surface temperature of the Moon)..

      You state that the minimum temperature is 90K, but that sounds highly dubious to me given that craters at the polar region (with axial tilt of just 1.5deg) receive little or even no solar irradiance at any time.

      • Richard,
        Yes there are pockets that are colder, but relative to the whole, it doesn’t matter much. At 90K, the emissions are only about 3.7 W/m^2, so relative to the 305 W/m^2 of average incident energy, the difference between 90K and 0K is in the noise.

      • Thanks your reply.

        I do accept that in principle one could obtain a ballpark figure for the temperature of the Moon by carrying out a SB type calculation. How ballpark the result would be would depend upon a number of factors not least whether we possess sufficient data on the albedo of the Moon over all latitudes.

        Indeed, you might have seen: http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature

        However, such an approach is far more complicated with the Earth, because the Earth is anything but a black body, and it is far from clear whether SB applies to gases.

      • Richard,
        The Earth is clearly not an ideal BB, nor is the Moon or anything else for that matter. However; the T^4 dependence of emissions on temperature is immutable for both the Moon and the Earth. Another name for a non ideal black body is a gray body.

    • I ought to have done a quick search before I commented.

      I have very quickly reviewed several sites and none give an average surface temperature for the Moon, and indeed, they even give some variation in temperatures that ought to be the same. But my main focus was the minimum temperature of the Moon.

      It appears that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measured temperatures of minus 238 deg C (35K) in craters at the South pole, and minus 247 deg C (26K) in a crater at the North pole.

      Thus it would appear that the minimum temperature is rather lower than you suggest.

      • Since those locations never see the sun this is unsurprising. Is the temperature in such peculiar locations relevant to the overall calculation? Only a tiny fraction of the surface never sees the sun.

      • Ian

        The Moon has a very cratered surface, and that will inevitably lead to complex shadowing of solar irradiance. The point you make about the relevance of craters at the poles carries weight. This as you suggest, is only a small area.

        As I see it, a far more difficult problem is that the albedo is highly variable and this leads to problems in calculating, from first principle, the average temperature of the moon , viz

        https://img.purch.com/h/1000/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAxOS8wOTEvb3JpZ2luYWwvanVseS1za3l3YXRjaGluZy1wb3J0bGFuZC5qcGc=

        The accuracy of the calculation would depend upon how many latitude bands are assessed individually and one would need to know the albedo at all latitudes, and I guess we simply do not have that data.

        That does not mean that it is impossible to calculate a ball park figure. the problem is what size is the ball park? Do we get the temperature to within 2K, 5K, 10K etc?

        When one is dealing with T to the power of 4, small differences can soon add up to significant values.

      • “When one is with T to the power of 4, small differences can soon add up to significant values.”

        Actually, we are conserving energy flux expressed as rates of Joules (power) where temperature goes as 1/Power^4. A small error in Joules has only a small effect on the temperature. The problem is when you apply temperature centric analisys where a small error in temperature results in a large error in Joules.

    • The image that I referred to above has better contrast than does the image below, and the better contrast emphasises the variable albedo issue.

  20. How can the addition of a greenhouse gas, which is able to emit radiation, DECREASE the emissivity of the planet!? Yet this is the absurd inversion of logic and reason you have to accept to believe in the greenhouse effect.

    The addition of a greenhouse gas above a planetary surface can’t effect the emissivity of the surface. Its emissivity will be exactly as before, since nothing about the surface itself has physically changed. The emissivity of the atmosphere can only increase, because you are talking about adding gases that are better able to emit than what’s currently there!

    So, overall, the emissivity of the planet (surface plus atmosphere), can only increase, not decrease, as you add greenhouse gases.

    • Graham,
      See the response to rajinderweb. In a nutshell, more GHG’s decrease the emissivity as the net attenuation of surface emissions becomes a larger fraction and in the context of this model, the effective emissivity is the ratio between the emissions of the planet and the emissions of the surface.

  21. Very well done.

    I have a specific question about a minor detail. You mention at one point 1.8 +/- 0.5 W/m2 of the 240 W/m2 of the average incident solar energy that seems not to be contributing to warming the planet and conjecture that this energy may be going into photosynthesis or driving the weather. I don’t think that conjecture can be sustained.

    Energy is conserved and heat is the highest entropy form that energy can typically take. While energy can indeed be temporarily stored as the kinetic energy of large masses of air or the chemical energy stored in the wood in a forest, those reservoirs of energy are finite, and eventually all that energy will be converted back into heat. For climate what matters is the equilibrium so unless those reservoirs of energy are changing in size (there is admittedly some evidence for that with respect to global greening), they cannot act as sinks for energy. Can I suggest gradual warming of the deep ocean as an alternative.

    • How positively can it be stated that 1.8 +/- 0.5 wm2 is actually and factually “missing” at all? Are our measurements of what actually, factually arrives at the surface, and what escapes to space so undeniably accurate that we “know” it cannot possibly be accounted for in any other way?

      The idea that the exact same amount of energy arrives at the surface every day, and that the exact same amount of energy leaves the atmosphere every single day is idiotic. And unscientific.

      • Yes. A problem with the measurements is another very likely explanation.

        It is a very hard number to measure. It is the difference in two large numbers each of which is difficult to measure, particularly over the full spectrum. Furthermore as you note there is geographic and time averaging to take into account. It is unsurprising that it is not zero. However these factors should theoretically all be taken into account in computing the error term. Since the actual number is just a hair over three standard deviations above zero, under the rules of the game of science as currently played, it is large enough (just) to require some sort of explanation.

        This imbalance is a well known issue that has nothing to do specifically with the authors work, except that he needs to use the numbers in his calculation.

      • Aphan,
        This is actually a 3 decade average, not a daily average, although for any 12 month period, the average dE/dt is measured to be close to zero. During the summer, dE/dt is large positive and during the winger, dE/dt is large negative.

    • Ian,

      Photosynthesis converts energy into chemical bonds, not heat where some of this energy is sequestered to the bottom of the ocean, to eventually become fossil fuels. There’s also the consideration that weather is basically the consequence of a global heat engine which can not be 100% efficient (Hurricanes are the extreme example).

      I actually think it has more to do with the accuracy of the data. After all, the ISCCP data originated from GISS.

      The 1.8 W/m^2 is also tiny compared to the average 190 W/m^2 p-p variability in the dE/dt term per hemisphere. While it is a larger fraction of what’s left after averaging the two hemispheres, its basically the result of subtracting two large and somewhat uncertain numbers from each other since the two are 180 degrees out of phase.

      • I had not considered oil or clathrate formation so yes that is a distinct possibility. However your other point about the inefficiency of weather as a heat engine doesn’t help. If the engine is inefficient it will fail to use all the available energy with the excess being released … as heat. You can’t destroy energy in an inefficient engine. You can only fail to use it or waste it as heat.

      • Ian,
        Energy is also stored by raising water against the force of gravity, which we can extract as hydroelectric power. Water flowing down rivers contributes to entropy primarily by eroding rocks and not heating the surface. Even wind and wave damage from storms is not energy converted into heat, but into disorder.

      • I’d have to think about that.

        Thought experiment: If you crush rocks in a rock crusher are you using up energy? I’m pretty sure it can all be accounted for. The rocks will get hot due to friction and mechanical stresses and the energy you use to break chemical bonds in the rock will mostly be recovered (as heat) as the surface oxidises and new chemical bonds are formed.

  22. “While the differences between sides seems irreconcilable, there’s only one factor they disagree about and this is the basis for all other differences.”

    In my opinion, there’s your first problem. Getting all sides to AGREE that there is, indeed, only one factor that they are all in disagreement about.

    Problem #2 is getting them to agree that that EXACT one factor is the “ONLY” thing that forms the basis for all the other differences between sides.

    How sure are you that everyone else, regardless of which point of view they currently hold, can or will accept your conclusion?

    It would be a wonderful and amazing world if all people were rational, logical, and fact based in their thinking. But the evidence demonstrates otherwise. And in my opinion, THAT is the root issue that must be reconciled, if it even CAN be.

    • Agreed, You have as much chance of convincing a warmist to change their mind by scientific arguments as you have of convincing someone who is into chemtrails that they are simply not understanding contrails properly.

      They are beyond reason. Most do not have the slightest capability of understanding a scientific argument and are just entrenched in a position founded on identity politics.

      You are asking them to question their ( binary ) political identity , their social allegiances and their world-view.

      There’s an awful lot of negative feedbacks to change going on there.

      • “There’s an awful lot of negative feedbacks to change going on there.”

        There are a lot of positive feedbacks to overcome as well, for example, IPCC reports, the MSM, the political left, etc. In fact, the predominate positive feedback mechanism related to climate science is acting on the science itself making it highly unstable as its being driven into a dark place.

  23. How can the addition of a greenhouse gas, which is able to emit radiation, DECREASE the emissivity of the planet!? Yet this is the absurd inversion of logic and reason you have to accept to believe in the greenhouse effect.

    The addition of a greenhouse gas above a planetary surface can’t effect the emissivity of the surface. Its emissivity will be exactly as before, since nothing about the surface itself has physically changed. The emissivity of the atmosphere can only increase, because you are talking about adding gases that are better able to emit than what’s currently there!

    So, overall, the emissivity of the planet (surface plus atmosphere), can only increase, not decrease, as you add greenhouse gases.

    • ranjiderweb,
      Yes, the emissivity of the surface itself (that is without the effects of an atmosphere) is unaffected by the atmosphere above. However; the emissivity of the planet, which includes the effects of the atmosphere, must be less than 1. As I said before, increasing GHG’s increases the fraction of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere which decreases the emissions of the planet, decreasing the emissivity, RELATIVE to the surface.

      The emissivity is relative to the temperature of the emitter. If you consider the temperature of Earth 255K, then the emissivity is 1. If instead, you consider the temperature of the Earth as the temperature of the ocean surface and bits of land that poke through, the emissivity is less than 1 since at 288K (the average temperature), the surface emits about 390 W/m^2, while the planet is only emitting 240 W/m^2 for a net emissivity of about 0.6.

      • “the emissivity of the planet, which includes the effects of the atmosphere, must be less than 1.”

        Yes, the emissivity of a planetary body, both with and without an atmosphere, must be less than 1, since the planetary body is not a blackbody.

        “If you consider the temperature of Earth 255K, then the emissivity is 1.”

        No. The emissivity is never 1. That would mean the Earth was a blackbody, which it isn’t.

        What you then go on to do is completely reinvent the meaning of emissivity, comparing the temperature of the surface and what it therefore emits with the temperature of the whole planet and what that emits as if the ratio between the two were what is meant by emissivity.

  24. This is 330% of the forcing and any system whose positive feedback exceeds 100% of the input will be unconditionally unstable

    Even 1% of positive feedback will render a system unstable if that is truly the total feedback of the system and not just one of many.

    The problem is that when consensus climatologists talk about positive f/b or even net +ve f/b , they don’t mean net +ve f/b they mean ” net +ve f/b ( except for the biggest feedback in the system, which is negative). ”

    The Planck f/b dominates ALL other feedbacks and any positive feedbacks just make it a little less negative. Thus the system remains stable as we know it has to from the geological record.

    So if climate modellers suggest that the water vapour f/b doubles the effect of CO2 forcing they are suggesting that WV is a +ve f/b which slightly counters the Planck f/b making the true net f/b less negative. This means that new equilibrium temp will be higher than without WV but still bounded by the strong and non linear Planck feedback.

  25. CTM asked me back door last week whether this guest post should be published at WUWT. I recommended no, and gave general rather than specific reasons. CTM did commendably publish with his very good reasons (post publication peer review), forcing me to put my money where my mouth was.

    Background clarification. I spent my college years basically learning how to build applied math models, in any course available inside or outside my economics concentration. For example, in a mathematical biology course, proved the equivalency of a Markov chain probability model (yup, learned from taking advanced probability theory in the math department that same semester) to the standard differential equation form of the classical predator prey equations. You know, rabbits multiply because few foxes. More rabbits leads to more foxes. Soon too many foxes eat most rabbits. Rabbit population crashes, then fox population crashes from starvation. Cycle repeats. In differential equations, mess with rabbit and fox reproduction rates (dP/dT) produces different cycle timings. Same in equivalently formulated Markov chain probability distributions even without applying Bayes theorem. So think am competent to comment on this apparently technical mathematical guest post.

    George Box, a famous statistician, said ‘all models are wrong but some are useful’. The question to be addressed is whether the Physical model presented in this guest post is useful. The short answer is, for the Moon yes but for the Earth no. This comment aspires to prove that conclusion without undo mathematical baggage. Apologies if is longer than some of my previous WUWT guest posts. Have not had the comment time to make a longish thought simple and short.

    In any mathematical model, there are two fundamental sources of error (assuming the math itself is not goofed up, and in this guest post after several hours of study it isn’t): 1. faulty assumptions behind an equation derivation; 2. erroneous equation inputs. This comment will provide examples of both, pointing to specific guest post text. It will also highlight some of the graphical ‘proofs’ that actually cannot be. If wrong, I welcome specific factually detailed corrections by the guest poster or any others. This is not intended to be an exhaustive critique; it suffices as illustrative only.

    Basics
    To understand this guest post, I had some initial difficulty translating from conventional climate sensitivity (ECS, effective or equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2—varying only in longish time frames) in degrees C per doubling of CO2 (AR4=3, CMIP5 median=3.2, observational energy budget models [e.g. Lewis and Curry 2014] ~ 1.65) to the guest post framework of lambda per W/m^2. Here is that decoder ring.
    An alternative way to define ECS is ΔT=λΔF. The canonical IPCC consensus λ=0.8 (for F in W/m2)=3C/ CO2 doubling. The post figure 8 (more below) ‘derives’ a max λ0.39 and a min λ0.19 compared to the moon at λ0.22. Reasonable?
    ΔF is without argument (post figure 7 label) =5.35*ln(C1/C0) W/M2, which for any standard doubling (the IPCC definition of ECS) is 5.25*ln(2)=3.7W/M2.

    The Moon
    I can find no fault in the post that derives the Moon equations from basic physics (through equation 6). I do not doubt that the moon sensitivity is λ~0.22.

    The Earth
    Well, unlike the Moon, the Earth has an atmosphere. Now I also have no doubt that if there were no oceans, and the atmosphere was just N2, O2, and Ar, it would be similar to the Moon. But it isn’t, because Earth has oceans covering 71% of the planet, therefore water vapor, therefore clouds, and even some CO2.

    And this complexity is where the guest posted Physical model goes awry. It argues similarity. I shall point out crucial dis-similarities.

    A first logic only example is the last paragraph before the section heading “Making it more complex”. The paragraph says that the water vapor positive feedback cannot be distinguished from the cloud/ice negative albedo feedback, so the water net effect is 18C rather than the canonical consensus 33C. This is silly. Water in clouds and ice is not in the vapor state; it is a liquid or a solid. And in the guest post, Albedo is separately treated. The paragraph is just nonsense.

    A second logic plus math formulation error is in the Clouds section. It derives equation parameters for clear sky versus cloudy sky using ISCCP. Well and good, but wrong, since clouds are not created equal. All cirrus warms (cause ice is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared). And the rest depend on cloud type, cloud altitude, and entrained condensed water (both optical density and inherent precipitation). No such ‘constant’ can be derived from general ISCCP data because it does not have that level of granularity. Check for yourselves.

    In the complex coupling section, it is asserted that an analysis of ISCCP data says the amount of radiation reaching the surface only calculates 1.8 W/M2 of nonwarming insolation (e.g. biological energy forming processes). I have examined ISCCP carefully today, and can imagine no way this calculation can be made as asserted from the data publically available. Some facts. Careful measurements over years of the Sulawese national rain forest in Indonesia say ~1% of insolation is converted to biomass. That would be 2.4 W/M2 using the guest post’s figures. The loss is mainly leaf shadowing. The average for properly planted temperate crops during the growing season is 4-8% depending on crop. So divide by ~2 for temperate and you are >2% for cultured land. Oceans average >2% because in the euphotic (biologically active photosynthetic upper tens of meters), there is little to no shadowing. Simply too dilute phytoplankton. So the asserted low E0 which provides Physical model complex coupling equivalency to the Moon simply is not true observationally. How much of an error this wrong physical assumption introduces, dunno. Did not bother to follow its math consequences further.

    ‘Physical equation proofs’ in the charts.
    We will highlight just 3.

    Figure 3, cloud fraction ~0.66. Two problems, one mentioned above: all clouds are not created equal. Second, specifically relevant to the Physical model critique. Nowhere in the described Physical model is the could fraction derived. It is an input, not an output. Curve matching at a ridiculously illogical level.

    Figure 7. I can understand what was done. The labeled resultant Po is 1.7 W/M2 versus the 5.35ln(2) input of 3.7W/M2. Well, that works out to an implicit λ=1.7/3.7= 0.46, which is well within the believable observational energy budget range of roughly ½ the IPCC ECS— but contradicts the guest post central thesis.

    Figure 8. I cannot understand, let alone reproduce it as latitudinal slices from ISCCP. Code? The X axis is at best confusingly labeling, unless someone smarter than myself can enlighten. And, the apparently calculated from equation 6 ( my assumption) max and min ECS still include the water vapor phase state error discussed above. Since I could not understand the X axis, did not bother to redo the math. The graphic is impressive on the surface, perhaps meaningless when fully deconstructed. Dunno, don’t care.

    • You’ve obviously spent a lot longer looking at it than I have. I don’t want to comment on most of what you say because I’ll need to think about it. Just a couple of points.

      The paragraph says that the water vapor positive feedback cannot be distinguished from the cloud/ice negative albedo feedback, so the water net effect is 18C rather than the canonical consensus 33C. This is silly. Water in clouds and ice is not in the vapor state; it is a liquid or a solid. And in the guest post, Albedo is separately treated. The paragraph is just nonsense.

      It is not unreasonable to consider both of these effects together since both are a consequence of adding water to a waterless model. The fact that water can be in different states does not seem particularly relevant. I don’t find the use of words like “silly” and “nonsense” persuasive.

      With regard to your critique about clouds that “not all clouds are created equal”; every model must involve simplifying assumptions. What reason do you have to think that the particular simplifying assumption of treating clouds as an average over all species of cloud is invalid as a first approximation. The link between the fraction of each cloud type and climate is poorly understood. What more reasonable assumption could one make in the absence of a deeper understanding of clouds.

      • in the absence of a deeper understanding of clouds than one size fits all , the reasonable assumption is that if you don’t know the basics you will get a useful model.

      • My basic reason for that opinion has two inputs. First, a series of papers suggesting net cloud feedback is neutral or slightly negative, as opposed to positive as Dessler falsely ‘showed’. Delineated in climate chapter of ebook The Arts of Truth, and again partly in essay Cloudy Clouds in ebook Blowing Smoke. Second, when Lindzen’s proven adaptive cirrus iris ( via Tstorms, BAMs 1991) is put into a climate model, sensitivity is almost halved. See Bjorn Stevens 2014. Double commented by Judith Curry and myself in back to back posts at the time at her Climate Etc. Read those both before returning here.

    • ristvan,
      Let me address your points.

      On the basics, the metric of forcing used by the IPCC is misleading owing to its highly non linear nature and the T^-3 dependence of the sensitivity on the temperature. A sensitivity quantified as W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing is linear and works over all temperatures found on any planet. W/m^2 of emissions are a valid way to equivalently express a temperature which also allows expressing the sensitivity (gain) as the dimensionless ratio used by Bode in which case the many errors mapping Bode to the climate become far more obvious. For example, the basic requirement of linearity is that the same sensitivity (gain) must apply uniformly to each of the 240 W/m^2 of total forcing and that the idea that the incremental gain is 3-4 times larger than the average gain is preposterous.

      I stand by my assertion that you can’t separate the effects of water vapor from the effects of liquid and solid water. Focusing on only the water vapor distracts from the larger picture where water has more than just a GHG effect. To some extent, this is a bias introduced by the IPCC’s metric of forcing, which is a change in solar input AFTER reflection by albedo. If not for the influences of water, what causes the emissions of the planet to drop from about 303 W/m^2 (270K) without water or GHG’s to 240 W/m^2 (255K) with them. The point being that the ‘cooling’ is a negative feedback like effect consequential to water that is widely discounted in order to lend plausibility to the idea of massive amplification by water vapor feedback.

      You are correct that clouds are not all equal, but when their properties are averaged, the averages do become representative of the whole. The reason is that all of the attributes in the model are related to energy and the climate system is very linear in the energy domain, superposition applies and averages are relevant. The ISCCP data reports the IR optical depth of clouds (a non linear property) which can be trivially converted into the clouds IR emissivity which as a property that acts linearly on energy, can be geometrically averaged and the results are a meaningful proxy for the whole. This same analysis has been performed at a more detailed level and works even down to individual pixels where the differences you are concerned about are differentiated based on ISCCP adjustments to the optical depth, so the averages already account for these difference. I originally developed this model to predict missing pixels in the DX data and it worked so well, it inspired me to turn it into a climate model. Determining the reflectivity of clouds from the D2 data was trickier owing to the differences between ice and water in clouds, but I also have the DX data which I used to validate the cloud reflectivity I extracted from the D2 data. There are still some small deviations, but the average is correct and relative to the LTE sensitivity, how averages change is all that matters.

      The 1.8 W/m^2 average dE/dt is the sun of two larger 180 degree out of phase signals with an average p-p variability of about 190 W/m^2, so we are talking about 1% here and the data isn’t any better than that. The error in the 1.8 value is at least +/- 1.8 W/m^2. I should point out that I applied simulated annealing like algorithms to the coefficients to see if I could make this difference go away and I couldn’t, although it did get minimized to about 1.7 W/m^2.

      Related to the cloud fraction, it can be computed from the other measured attributes, but it is itself a primary product of the ISCCP data. It’s not curve matched to anything, it’s a measured value, and given the other variables, there’s only one value that works. Calculating what it needs to be by orthogonal methods is far more difficult, although I have made significant progress along those lines.

      You are not understanding figure 7. The magenta line is the line where Pi == Po. The data shows that 3.7 W/m^2 of Pi (forcing) increases Po by only 1.7 W/m^2 which corresponds to a surface emissions increase of 1/0.61 * 1.7 = 2.8 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature increase from 288K to 288.5K indicating that doubling CO2 increases the temperature by 0.5K and is a lower sensitivity than I predict from the equations. However, dPo/dPi, which is the slope of the relationship in figure 7, is distorted by energy transferred from the equator (on the right) to the poles (on the left), but can never exceed the average limits of the magenta line. The point here was to show how dPi/dt is less than dPo/dt and while the equations assumed they were equal, the direction that they are unequal in only decreases the sensitivity.
      BTW, my central thesis is that the climate system must obey the laws of physics and I don’t see how this contradicts it.

      Regarding figure 8. The X axis is power density in W/m^2 and the Y axis is the surface temperature. Both the relationships between Po (in yellow) and the surface temperature, T, and Pi (in red) and the surface temperature are plotted to the same scale as both Po and Pi are measured in W/m^2. BTW, when drawn to the same scale, where they intersect defines the steady state average and is where the theoretical Pi (green line) and theoretical Pi (magenta line) also intersect. The sensitivity per the IPCC definition is dT/dPi, which is about 0.19C per W/m^2, while the sensitivity along the output path of the planet is about 0.3C per W/m^2. I assert that the true sensitivity is somewhere between these two limits.

      • Yes. But I have already explained why I think you are wrong. Some specific examples. Clouds are not homogenous, and the data base you rely on provides no granularity. Your comment assumes inhomogeneity averages out. Now prove it.
        E0 ‘annealing algorithms’. Post them for critique, cause I cannot figure out how that can be done from any ISCCP data. I posted observational counters. So show your biological ‘annealing algorithms’ from ISCCP for scrutiny.
        As for figure 8, it contradicts your figure 7. You have not countered my simple interpretation of your own figure 7 labels. I just read them and converted the label arithmetic. Cannot misunderstand your own specific labeled values. Just is.
        As for your central thesis that climate must obey only the laws of physics, let me point out again that Earth is a biologically active planet where the laws of physics are not exclusively determinative, unlike the Moon (or Venus). The laws of physics do not explain thick limestones or fossil fuel deposits or biologically sourced turpene, isoprene, and dimethyl sulfide aerosol cloud nucleators thst influence cloud fraction and so albedo.
        Finally, your very low ECS conclusions are refuted by all recent observational energy budget analyses of ECS. My comment cited my personal favorite paper amongst several similar conclusions, Lewis and Curry 2014. Please credibly reconcile your Physical model conclusions to those observational results.
        Look, GE, we are actually both on the skeptical rather than warmunist side of this great controversy. But I seek rock solid, simple, incontrovertible arguments to use against warmunists. Equating grey dry atmosphereless Moon to blue water world atmospheric Earth does not pass that PR sniff test. And never will. Even if you were right, which I have shown in several different ways you likely are not.

      • Ristvan,
        Why are you opposed to average cloud properties as being representative of the whole. Equivalent modelling is a very powerful concept where you can arrive at a simpler system that from its external behavior (in this case, Pi, Po and T) is indistinguishable from the more complex system manifesting the behavior being modelled. Since sensitivity as defined by the IPCC is dT/dPi, if we can quantify the relationships between Pi, Po and T, we can quantify the sensitivity and this is all that I’m doing.

        Yes, there are many different kinds of clouds which is why an average is useful. The ISCCP data does differentiate based on clouds type and the basic analysis works for any cloud type, so there’s no reason it wouldn’t work for an equivalent average. As I said, it works for individual pixels, but also works for constant latitude slices of pixels of any width up to complete hemispheres and the planet as a whole. It just works far to well as a predictor of the seasonal response to varying solar input.

        The annealing processes I tried to get rid of the 1.8 W/m^2 were not used for any of the data I presented. But it was a rather simple approach of just varying the coefficients in an effort to minimize the difference.

        How does fig 8 contradict fig 7. In fig 7, X and Y are W/m^2 and it plots the relative relationship between Pi (the energy arriving at the planet) and Po (the emissions leaving the planet, not the surface which is about 1/e times Po). Figure 8 plots both Pi and Po against the surface temperature and its the exact same Pi and Po values plotted against each other in fig 7.

        As I have pointed out, many are confused by all the apparent complexity, but it’s like trying to understand an internal combustion engine from inside the combustion chamber. We exist inside the combustion chamber of the climate (the atmosphere) and this biases how we think about the climate system. If instead of trying to understand what is happening within the atmosphere, we should simply understand what happens at its two boundaries, one with space and another with the surface.

        How would you suggest we modify the model to account for the tiny fraction missing from the Earth without GHG’s or water? Incrementally add 1 ppm at a time and at what point does the result stop conforming to SB and COE?

        BTW, my sensitivity range of 0.2 to 0.3 C W/m^2 is equivalent to .74 – 1.11 C for doubling CO2 with closer to 1.11 being more likely than 0.74 and this is only slightly less then the estimates in the papers you cite, which BTW still is using a variety of likely suspect estimates of forcings and uptake from AR5.

      • GE, a simple rather than detailed reasoned answer. Cause on all evidence I think you are wrong by a factor of ~2, and have already commented how and why. If you converged on observational ECS, well and good. You don’t. You extend your valid physics Moon model to Earth using unvalidatable assertions and assumptions about oceans, water vapor, and biology. Fail.

      • ristvan,

        You haven’t offered a better alternative to explain the demonstrable fact that the relationship between the emissions of the planet and the surface temperature follows the SB LAW with an emissivity of about 0.61 and that the ratio between planet emissions and surface emissions is the same 0.61. This was my hypothesis (actually my hypothesis was that the Earth obeys the laws of physics) and the data only confirms it. Unless you can find data that contradicts this relationship and/or supports different physics, or can come up with a better explanation for the data, the reasons you think I could be wrong must be invalid, although I’ve already explained why I think they are invalid.

        Relative to the scientific method, I’ve held up my part, which is to offer a testable hypothesis and a few tests that could falsify it, but instead support it. Find an experiment that falsifies my hypothesis and only then will you have sufficient grounds to claim my hypothesis is incorrect.

      • ristvan,

        Here’s a question for you. Which of equations 1) through 4) do you believe is not representative of how the Earth climate responds to forcing provided the proper average coefficients are chosen. These are the only equations that define the model I assert describes how the macroscopic properties of the Earth’s climate system react to forcing. The other equations simply decompose the variables in equations 1) through 4) into more primitive constituents that I can measure in order to calculate the effective emissivity by means other than simply dividing planet emissions by surface emissions.

      • Yes, that “without argument” statement raised a red flag with me, also, . Even though I couldn’t calculate the figure for myself, Clive Best also performed the calculation, and HE got 5.6 watts per square meter for a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm.

        http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4265

        So there are at least 3 different calculations with three different results, showing there IS an argument.. They’re all within a dex of about 0.26, though.

    • “The Moon
      I can find no fault in the post that derives the Moon equations from basic physics (through equation 6). I do not doubt that the moon sensitivity is λ~0.22.
      The Earth
      Well, unlike the Moon, the Earth has an atmosphere. Now I also have no doubt that if there were no oceans, and the atmosphere was just N2, O2, and Ar, it would be similar to the Moon. ” ristvan

      “The 270K average temperature of the Moon would be the Earth’s average temperature if there were no GHG’s since this also means no liquid water, ice or clouds resulting in an Earth albedo of 0.12 just like the Moon. “GW

      The mean at the equator of the moon is 220K. From dawn to dusk, its about 340K. You can’t treat the moon like a super conductor (or just a big ball of copper) rather than a BB is the issue. Each square km is the temperature required for emission to equal absorption independent of the rest of the moon.

      The mean of T on Earth should be higher if the mean of T^4 was the same as the moon just because of the lower spread of temperatures. No need for a GHE, just the atmosphere and oceans spread the heat around.

      Then there is the ignored rotation. The dark side of the moon cools to 93K while the Earth might only cool to only 120K (temp for the first 12 hours of night on the moon) in the much shorter night but warm up just as quickly to 340K daytime mean if everything else was equal to the moon. That’s an average of 240K compared to the moons 220K.

    • CTM asked me back door last week whether this guest post should be published at WUWT. I recommended no, and gave general rather than specific reasons.

      What you should have done instead is to try and sort out the points of contention with George – directly or enlisting ctm’s diplomatic services – encouraging him to publish an improved version.

      • CTM definitely made the right decision to publish.

        Whilst I am one of the critics behind one of the fundamental assumptions, namely that one can make a useful comparison between the Moon and the Earth which assumption I consider to be fundamentally misconceived, the post and the comments are very interesting.

        One can learn a great deal by things which are not correct, or are partly correct, even if they only reveal looking at a problem from a different angle.

        it would have been quite wrong for this article not top have been circulated to a wider audience just because ristvan has issues with it.

        It is good to see George White/co2isnotevil come at this issue from another angle, and put their head above the parapet. I applaud them, and I applaud CTM for the decision he made.

      • Richard,

        “George White/co2isnotevil … and put THEIR head above the parapet”

        There’s only one of me, although a couple of clones would be useful …

        As best I can tell, you object to the comparison between the Moon and the Earth based on a ‘gut’ feeling that you have not yet quantified. The Physical Model quantified by equations 1) through 4) applies to the MACROSCOPIC behavior of ANY thermodynamic system receiving and radiating energy and that has no internal sources of energy, not just the Moon. I think many are completely flummoxed by the complexities of the atmosphere by being inside of it. All I’ve done is to step outside the bubble in order to understand what’s really happening at its boundaries in order to encapsulate the apparent complexity as a consequence.

        It would help if you could articulate what other laws of physics apply and that are consistent with the measured behavior between the surface temperature and the emissions of the planet? Alternatively, tell me which of equations 1) through 4) you think doesn’t apply to Earth, and on this point, confirming data will be necessary. The data I used for the tests is real, unadjusted by me and even comes from GISS! All I’ve done is calculate averages using the appropriate method for whatever kind of average I was trying to produce and then present that data is a form which can test conformance to the Physical Model.

        If you can find another data set with comparable coverage (full coverage of the planet with between 10km and 30km resolution, sampled at 3 hour intervals over 3 decades) and that demonstrates the average, LTE relationship between the surface temperature T and the planet emissions Po is not Po=eoT^4 (equation 3), where the EQUIVALENT emissivity is about 0.61, I’d be more than willing to adjust my hypothesis.

        The conformance of the data to the theory matches far too well to be a coincidence, but not well enough to have been contrived, assumed or fit. BTW, the largest deviation from the data is in the transition around freezing, where the EQUIVALENT emissivity decreases slightly above 0C as water vapor becomes more important, once again, as predicted. The transition of cloud coverage at this boundary is more interesting, but better left as another topic explaining how clouds modulate the energy balance, driving the system towards an optimum state.

        It’s bizarre that there can be so much resistance to the results of the scientific method. Both sides of climate science have been poisoned by a constant stream of non conforming science for more than 3 decades. You would think that as simple as this model is, someone would have figured it out already. Arrhenius was pretty close, but then consensus climate science took his work and warped it into complete garbage. He should be rolling in his grave.

  26. Greg,

    “Even 1% of positive feedback will render a system unstable”

    No this is incorrect. It depends on the open loop gain. The gain equation is given by,

    1/Go = 1/g + f

    where Go is the open loop gain, f is the fraction of the output fed back to the input and g is the closed loop gain. Instability arises for combination of Go and f where 1/g is <= 0.

    For an open loop gain of 1, the system is stable for feedback up to, but not including 100% (1.0). If the open loop gain is 2, the system is stable for feedback up to 50% (0.5).

    When we design amplifiers, we generally assume an open loop gain of infinite, where any amount of positive feedback more than a fraction of a millionth of a percent will be unstable.

    • Thanks, it seems that you forgot to say you were working with an open loop gain of unity. The problem here is that you are using the Planck feedback as the gain of the system and only the rest as “feedbacks” This masks the fact that it is the Planck f/b which keeps everything stable and the true net f/b is always negative.

      If you like you have a high gain amp with the Planck f/b already applied leading to a finite “open loop” gain which is an error, it is not longer open loop.

      If you take a tall vase and gently push it with your finger at first there is a neg. f/b because the centre of gravity is inside the perimeter of the base and the weight opposes your finger. At some point the c.o.g. goes beyond the perimeter. There is then a small portion of the weight acting in the same direction as your finger. This increases something like the sine of the angle , very small at first but positive. That very small but finite +/ve f/b will smash the vase.

      That is what a physical feedback looks like. As soon as it goes positive the system is unstable.

      • Greg,
        The open loop gain assumed by Hansen/Schlesinger and in all climate related feedback analysis is 1. The simple evidence for this is their gain equation, g = 1/(1 – f), which is easily derived by setting the open loop gain in the full expression to 1 and solving for g. Schlesinger obfuscated this by inserting the conversion from W/m^2 to temperature (the SB LAW) as part of the open loop gain, which he then undoes when computing the feedback term, so in effect, what he calls the open loop gain is not even in the loop.

        The Planck feedback is manifested by the relationship between the dE/dt term and Po and the surface temperature that resulted in Po. When dE/dt is positive, E increase, T increase, Po increases and dE/dt deceases towards zero. The opposite occurs when dE/dt is negative.

      • OK , so your 100% means it goes unstable when all OTHER feedbacks sum to be positive and exceed the magnitude of the Planck feedback. That is equivalent to what I was saying from a physics POV where all f/b are called f/b. Sum all f/b and if the true net f/b is >0 it is unstable.

        The key point is that SB will always dominate eventually because of the power law. It seems that Hansen et al may have obscured this fact by the way they applied Bode analysis and erroneously exaggerated the high sensitivity end of market.

        I think this is what Monckton was trying to point out.

      • Greg,
        Yes, SB dominates and is expressed in equation 3. The equations I presented actually have nothing to do with feedback per Bode. Instead what you perceive as Planck feedback is manifested by the solutions for E in the differential equation as constrained by Po and COE.

        Feedback per Bode can only be linear, thus Planck feedback, which is definitely non linear and the source of the 1/T^-3 dependence of the sensitivity on temperature, can not even be represented using the Bode feedback model.

      • Greg’s comment begs the question:as to whether Newtonian physics has any role at all in understanding climate processes? And why are the recent CERN CLOUD experiment results and the opinions of many physicists who suggest the right science for understanding climate change is quantum physics completely ignored by most climate scientists and the mass media? When I asked climate scientists this question, their answer was that quantum physics modelling was too expensive. Is there another answer?

  27. “The result is that adding GHG’s modifies the effective emissivity of the planet from 1 for an ideal black body surface to a smaller value as the atmosphere absorbs some fraction of surface emissions making the planets emissions, relative to its surface temperature, appear gray from space.”

    Adding GHGs would increase emissivity, not decrease it. You are talking about adding gases to the atmosphere which by their nature are better emitters of radiation than non-GHGs.

    The surface emissivity would remain unchanged, the addition of GHGs doesn’t change the physical properties of the surface itself. The emissivity of the atmosphere would increase. Overall then, the effective emissivity of the planet would increase.

    • rajinderweb,
      Emissivity is relative to a temperature, which in this case is the temperature of the surface. Without GHG’s and the other effects of water, the emissions leaving the planet would be equal to the emissions leaving the surface which would be equal to the emissions arriving to the planet and the emissivity would be 1. GHG’s intercept specific wavelengths and return some (about half) of what is absorbed back the surface. As a result, the emissions of the planet are less than the emissions of the surface, hence the emissivity is less than 1. More GHG’s decrease the emissivity as the net attenuation of surface emissions becomes a larger fraction of the surface emissions.

      Emissivity is a ratio, not an absolute.

      • Whatever is returned to the surface does not change the emissivity of the surface. That’s a physical property of the surface itself. The emissivity of the atmosphere, if anything, would increase, since you’re adding gases with a greater capacity to emit. Emissivity is indeed a ratio, however it’s the ratio of the energy radiated from a material’s surface to that radiated from a blackbody (a perfect emitter) at the same temperature and wavelength and under the same viewing conditions.

      • rajinderweb,

        “The emissivity of the atmosphere, if anything, would increase, since you’re adding gases with a greater capacity to emit.”

        You are misunderstanding the concept of emissivity. By this logic, adding GHG’s would increase the emissivity of a GHG less planet to above 1 which can only happen if there’s an implicit source of power adding to the emissions of the planet. GHG’s do not increase the emissions of the planet, relative to the emissions of the surface, but decreases the emissions of the planet, relative to the emissions of the surface. The bottom line is that the system is fundamentally constrained by ‘new’ energy which can only come from the Sun. Unfortunately, the implicit assumption of a source of power that is not the Sun is prevalent across both sides of climate science which arises due to the faulty application of Bode’s feedback analysis where the errors have been baked into everything since they were cast in stone in the first IPCC reports.

      • I should add that of course the Earth (or any planetary body) could never have an emissivity of 1, either with or without an atmosphere, since it is not a blackbody, and no such body exists in the Universe.

      • “… since it is not a blackbody, and no such body exists in the Universe.”

        Correct, but as I keep saying, another name for a non ideal black body is a gray body and all of the non ideal effects can be rolled into an effective emissivity less than 1.

      • “You are misunderstanding the concept of emissivity. By this logic, adding GHG’s would increase the emissivity of a GHG less planet to above 1 which can only happen if there’s an implicit source of power adding to the emissions of the planet”

        No, you are misunderstanding the concept of emissivity, which is defined exactly as I wrote, and not defined in the way you seem to want it to be. Your argument here rests on assuming that a GHG-less planet has an emissivity of 1, and therefore adding GHGs could not increase the emissivity. However, only a blackbody would have an emissivity of 1, and that is an idealised (fictional) object that does not exist anywhere in reality. A GHG-less planet would have an emissivity less than 1 already, to start with, before you add GHGs.

        “another name for a non ideal black body is a gray body”

        Yes. A GHG-less planet would be an example of such a gray body. As would a planet with GHGs. Emissivity lower than 1 in both cases.

        You are confusing a reduction in the transmittance of the atmosphere (due to the introduction of GHGs) with a reduction in emissivity of the planet as a whole. The increase in emissivity due to addition of GHGs will offset the reduction in transmittance due to same.

      • rajinderweb,

        There’s no confusion on my part. The ‘classic’ gray body considers T to be the equivalent temperature of the incident energy. In this case, the energy incident to the atmosphere originates at the surface, so it’s the surface temperature that’s relevant to the characterization of the planet as a gray body. You can consider the surface itself to be a non ideal BB with an emissivity slightly less than 1 but whatever that emissivity is, its final effect is lumped into the measured response of the system and the equivalent emissivity that results.

        You need to consider the Earth as a 2 body system. There is a nearly ideal BB surface and gray body atmosphere between this surface and space making the final results the combination of the two which is still effectively quantified as a gray body whose equivalent emissivity is the ratio between the emissions of the planet (240 W/m^2) and the emissions of the surface (390 W/m^2), whose ratio is about 0.6.

      • You know RGB said a long time ago “if there is a high sensitivity to CO2 forcing then why didn’t the earth tip over the edge a long time ago”. The argument that convinced me it was BS when i first started looking into climate issues 10 years ago.

      • Bob,
        The argument that flipped me was the lag in the ice cores when I was able to reproduce the 800 year lag found in the Vostok data. Clearly Co2 is not a driver, but is being driven. The lag in more recent cores is closer to 200-300 years which is more consistent with my hypothesis that in the past, CO2 levels were a proxy for the total amount of biomass on the planet.

      • rajinderweb.

        “Emissivity is not defined as the ratio between two different parts of a system.”

        The equation for the emissions of a gray body disputes this.

        Po = εσT^4

        Ps = σT^4 (T is the surface temperature, Ps is the surface emissions)

        Po = ε * Ps

        Po/Ps = ε

        What part of this trivial derivation do you disagree with? If Ps is further attenuated by a non unit emissivity of the surface, this simply becomes a component of the effective emissivity, ε which is the product of the emissivity of the surface and the emissivity reduction introduced by the atmosphere.

      • The first two parts. The third and fourth parts would indeed follow trivially given the first and second, but I disagree the first two parts are correct. The first (assuming Po = the total emissions of the gray body, from the surface + atmosphere) should be as you’ve written, however the T should stand for the temperature of the entire body and not just the surface temperature, as you have it.

        The second seems to assume a value of emissivity of 1 for the surface since there is no symbol for emissivity. That would be incorrect.

        Then with the corrections made to your first two parts, your third and fourth no longer follow.

      • “however the T should stand for the temperature of the entire body and not just the surface temperature, as you have it.”

        It’s the surface temperature whose relationship to Pi is what we care about relative to calculating the sensitivity and the relationship between surface emissions Ps, and T is the SB Law with an emissivity of approximately 1. The LTE relationship between Ps and Po is hypothesized to be linear and the data supports this hypothesis where the calculated and measured scale factor is the equivalent emissivity relative to surface emissions, whose value is about 0.6, or Po/Ps.

        The temperature of Po is 255K, implying an emissivity of 1.0, which would be the emissivity of the planet of the surface was also at 255K and we still cared about its sensitivity, but its not. If it was, the sensitivity would still be close to 0.3C per W/m^2.

        If the emissivity of the surface was actually 0.95, we can still assume it to be one and it’s actual value will end up as a component of the measured emissivity. Note that if the emissivity of the surface itself is only .95, then at 288K, rather than emitting 390 W/m^2 into the atmosphere, the surface would only be emitting 370 W/m^2, so I assumed an intrinsic emissivity of 1.0 and an average temperature of 288K to be at least somewhat consistent with Trenberth’s energy balance. Alternatively, if the emissions are actually 390 W/m^2 and the emissivity is only 0.95, the equivalent surface temperature would need to be 292K rather than 288K.

      • “Ps = σT^4 (T is the surface temperature, Ps is the surface emissions)”

        This eqn. is not correct; epsilon can not be 1.0 in this formula. Both earth land and water surfaces reflect some finite amount of EMR.

        Correctly Ps = εσT^4 where, given the intended meaning of subscript s as defined in top post, ε is the emissivity of earth land and/or water surface of interest.

        Emissivity + reflectivity + transmissivity = 1.0 by definition for objects with diameters much larger than the light wavelength of interest (i.e with negligible diffraction). Since reflectivity is nonzero for all real objects then for any real object emissivity can not be 1.0 when the real object is large enough wrt to light wavelength of interest.

      • The problem is the assumption that what is calculated through these SB Law calculations should apply to the surface of a planet. The 255K number is calculated through taking into account albedo of approximately 0.7, but since the Earth’s albedo is mostly due to clouds the 255K actually applies to the average temperature of everything below the clouds, and not necessarily the surface itself.

      • “Alternatively, if the emissions are actually 390 W/m^2 and the emissivity is only 0.95, the equivalent surface temperature would need to be 292K rather than 288K.”

        Trenberth’s and many other balances work reasonably well with L&O surface emissivity rounded up to 1.0 for convenience. You neglect (or don’t specify) the measured global atm. emissivity in your simplified energy balance calculation. A basic radiative analog can be found from a beginning text on atm. radiation such as Bohren 2006 p. 33. If you include a measured global atm. emissivity (found from surface looking up) then can compute global Ts closer to ~288K invoking his 390 (than 292K 3:38pm) from 1LOT radiative transfer balance. The analog can not be pushed too far as it is just a beginning simplification.

      • ”The 255K number is calculated through taking into account albedo of approximately 0.7”

        Yes, as that albedo is now from multi-year satellite measurements. Earth global Ts 255K was calculated by decreasing the global atm. emissivity looking up to approach to near zero before the satellite era; the satellites then reasonably confirmed that simplified analysis with actual multi-year measurements.

  28. The major problem as I see it is the semi-religious idea that Global Atmospheric Temperature (at ground level) is, through some magic, a proxy for what the climate is doing. It is not.
    People are fixated on this number like it is some religious icon!
    On it’s own it a worthless number, even if it were known extremely accurately, it is a parameter without context.

    Without linking it to other atmospheric parameters it is meaningless — atmospheric pressure, humidity, changes in atmospheric circulation, and variations in volumes of the atmospheric layers are just as important. And all of these are influenced by terrestrial features such as volcanoes, oceanic cycles, and non-terrestrial features like lunar cycles, and solar cycles and events.
    Disconnecting all this and obsessing about Global Temperature is just plain wrong, just unscientific.

    Global Temperature might as well be a stock market number for what it tells you about climate.

    • It is a physically meaningless metric for which an arbitrary 2 degree was pulled out of the air. That’s is a political target, not a scientific one. I think Phil Jones stated that directly.

      • I was thinking of a TV interview not emails. I don’t doubt that you are right about Schellnhuber, but I’m fairly sure I heard Jones say that too.

      • Greg,
        yes, I agree but also this one parameter (Global Temperature) is lifted and decoupled from it’s context. It is being used as the totem that the AGW religious zealots can crowd around as if ON IT’S OWN it is meaningful — it is not.

        When the atmospheric temperature varies, how much are —
        Global (and regional) Atmospheric pressure varying?
        Global (and regional) Atmospheric Humidity varying?
        How are the atmospheric layers volumes varying?
        How is the Sea Surface Temperatures changing?
        How has volcano outgassing changed?
        And what controls (there is more than one) all these linked parameters?

  29. Sophisticated astrologists make exact calculations based on known laws, but then they discuss the results of their calculations by relating them to mythology.

    The myth I spot here is the one where radiation returning to Earth from the atmosphere can increase warmth. I just don’t see it, either by direct addition of more energy or by “slowed cooling”. Photons don’t work that way, as I have come to understand it.

    • The simpler way to phrase your astute comment is:
      GHE is not a direct warming, it is an absence of radiative cooling that results in net warming.

      • As you well know, the formula for radiated power is:

        P = k(T1^4 – T2^4)

        where:

        P = radiated power
        k = several constants (including area) lumped together
        T1 = temperature of radiating body
        T2 = temperature of the surroundings

        What the formula means is that, if we warm the atmosphere above the planet, less heat will be radiated. The formula also implies that, if the atmosphere is warmer than the ground, then the ground will be warmed by the atmosphere.

        Here’s a particularly nice experiment. A sheet of filter film can be used to simulate the atmosphere which is not opaque to electromagnetic radiation. One of the things I like most about the experiment is that the required equipment is cheap and easily available.

    • Downward IR will warm land. I strongly doubt whether it can penetrate deep enough in saline water to do more than increase surface evaporation. What happens then will be complex and is not really known in a way which can be modelled properly.

      We do not have a proper understanding of many of the key processes of climate or cannot model them with the limited resolution of GCMs, which makes modelling a bit of a joke.

      The whole thing is in its infancy and not fit for the purpose of projection / extrapolation.

    • Robert,
      It’s pretty simple. The atmosphere has a limited capacity to store energy and in the LTE steady state, what goes in must come out. What comes out of the atmosphere can only either be emitted out into space or be returned to the surface. What’s returned to the surface is energy from past surface emissions consequential to past solar input. This return of this old energy is added to new solar input and the sum of these two is why the surface is warmer than it would be based on new solar energy alone. It’s the separation in time between when energy is emitted by the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere and when that energy is eventually returned to the surface or emitted out into space that seems to be confusing many.

  30. There has never been a repeatable experiment that shows CO2 causes global warming. Instead ice core samples show that global warming causes more CO2.
    We are currently in an Ice age since both poles have permanent ice. We have been in this ice age for 2.5 million years but are now in a normal warming period but will most likely go back into the extreme cold in the near future.
    The real reason for change of our ice age is Cosmic Rays which are actually particles that cause our water vapor (the real green house} to condense around the Cosmic Ray particles and become clouds that really cool Earth. Less water vapor and more clouds cause Ice ages. And Earth travels through space where Cosmic Rays (particles and not rays) are more or usually less available.
    Today our climate is colder than it was in 99% of Earth’s history. These warming trends are normal and the current one started about 12,000 years ago when there were about seven million humans on earth. At the time the oceans were four hundred feed lower and that water was in two mile thick ice covering Chicago and most of North America.
    Stop blaming Humans and blame Mother nature if you are unhappy with todays weather.
    Ed Toscano

  31. Right now science is in trouble. Most published research findings are wrong because most research can not be replicated.

    One of the problems is that it’s too easy to misapply math tools to data. Here’s an example involving spreadsheets that was just drawn to my attention.

  32. Regarding “The 270K average temperature of the Moon would be the Earth’s average temperature if there were no GHG’s since this also means no liquid water, ice or clouds resulting in an Earth albedo of 0.12 just like the Moon. This contradicts the often repeated claim that GHG’s increase the temperature of Earth from 255K to 288K, or about 33C, where 255K is the equivalent temperature of the 240 W/m2 average power arriving at the planet after reflection”:

    Earth’s albedo is greater than .12, usually stated as .3 for purposes of energy budget. Reducing the albedo of a hypothertical GHG-free Earth from .3 to .12 would increase its solar absorption from 239-240 to 300-302 W/m^2. The relevant temperature, assuming longwave IR emissivity of 1, would increase from 255 to 270 K.

    Also, the relevant temperature here is not the average temperature but the “root mean 4th” temperature – 4th root of average 4th power of absolute temperature.

    • Donald,

      “Also, the relevant temperature here is not the average temperature but the “root mean 4th” temperature – 4th root of average 4th power of absolute temperature.”

      Yes, this is absolutely correct. Consider the average of 100K and 200K. A body at 100K emits 5.67 W/m^2 while one at 200K emits 90.7 W/m^2. The simple average temperature is 150K, but averaging the 4’th power, we get (((100^4) + (200^4)) / 2)^.25 = 170.7 K. The average emissions of 5.67 W/m^2 and 90.7 W/m^2 is 48.2 W/m^2 which is the emissions of a body at 170.7K, so the average temperature is the same as the equivalent temperature of average emissions.

      One of the biggest areas of confusion with conventional climate science arises from its emphasis on temperature which is very nonlinearly related to forcing and emissions which are otherwise linearly related to each other. This level of obfuscation makes 0.8C per W/m^2 seem plausible, while the equivalent in the energy domain of 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing is obviously impossible as all other W/m^2 of accumulated forcing must result in the same surface temperature contribution, which at 240*4.3 = 1032 W/m^2 and the surface is clearly not emitting this much power, otherwise, the average surface temperature would be close to the boiling point of water.

      • If you look hard enough, you will find studies that did convert each thermometer temperature into local W/m^2 then averaged all those W/m^2 and converted back to avg. temperature. The result was the same as the simple global avg. of temperatures so the conversion work was found not necessary, expense not needed on these large thermometer datasets or at least was close enough for gov. work maybe not commercial work.

      • Trick,

        This is only approximately true over a narrow range of temperatures, but not over the wider range of temperatures found on Earth and most certainly not over the much wider range of temperatures found on the Moon.

        Your example is echoing the same logical fallacy behind the IPCC’s assumption that the sensitivity is independent of temperature, while it clearly has a 1/T^3 dependence on the temperature.

      • I notice you didn’t look hard enough to dig up the relevant studies to debate; had they found differently the expense of the extra work would be undertaken but they found no justifiable reason to do so on these large datasets. Sure, if only a day side and a night side thermometer measurement were made then your example holds. Averaging W/m^2 was found not necessary on large global L&O thermometer measurements, didn’t improve the Tavg. result or show it does on one of them.

      • It’s kind of hard not justifying a T^4 calculation and a T^0.25 calculation considering the speed of modern computers. Besides, the problem is not with small variations in temperature but over the range of temperatures found on the surface and clouds which can’t be accurately averaged without converting to equivalent emissions.

        FYI, I ran a simple test on my laptop and was able to perform 100 million operations each that included (2 X^4 operations, 1 X^0.25 operation and a few additions) in about 5 seconds on my 3 year old laptop and far faster computers are available, moreover; this is a problem that is easily distributed across multiple computers. In an actual application, the performance would be dominated by getting data off the disks and the compute time is effectively free as it overlaps with disk fetches. Even the most complicated simulators can be implemented as a series of map reductions which is technically distributable across an arbitrarily large number of computers. This is basically how Google scales its capacity.

  33. From the article: “Correcting broken science that’s been settled by a consensus is made more difficult by its support from recursive logic where the errors justify themselves by defining what the consensus believes. The best way forward is to establish a new consensus.”

    There is no consensus. The consensus is a falsehood created to fool people.

    I agree, the way to destroy a false consensus like the “97 percent” lie, is to establish a new, honest accounting of opinion, by determining the percentages of scientists on both sides of the issue.

  34. “If you ask anyone who’s not a winter sports enthusiast what their favorite season is, it will probably not be winter. If you have sufficient food and water, you can survive indefinitely in the warmest outdoor temperatures found on the planet. This isn’t true in the coldest places where at a minimum you also need clothes, fire, fuel and shelter.”
    Very happy to see someone else pick up this point.
    I have harped on it for decades, since the idea was first put out there and somehow nearly universally accepted without thought, that warmer temps will somehow lead to catastrophe, when the opposite is far more clearly the case…cold is deadly, warmth means more life and more moisture in the air and a more livable planet.

  35. Consensus? I remember in 1982 when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren argued against a medical community that essentially laughed at them at the suggestion that ulcers were caused by a bacterium – which these two even identified. Pretty much the entire medical community had a “consensus” that they were wrong. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2000/04/prol1-0004.html
    What a bunch of jackass “scientists” for fighting them. Now 35 years later, we’re at it again.
    As I understand the scientific method, if 100 scientists say, “X”, and 1 scientist says, “Nope, Y, and I can show it.” That is a big problem for 100 scientists.

  36. Regarding: “Trenberth returns the non radiant energy to the surface as part of the ‘back radiation’ term, but its inclusion gets in the way of understanding how the energy balance relates to the sensitivity, especially since most of the return of this energy is not in the form of radiation, but in the form of air and water returning that energy back to the surface.”

    Please have a look at the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget “cartoon” – most of the “return” of energy from the atmosphere back to the surface is by “back radiation”. And consider the great deal of mentionings in WUWT that water (other than considering its vapor as a greenhouse gas) transports heat away from the surface by evaporative cooling, meaning latent heat transported to the TOA to be radiated away by clouds. Also, please note that “thermals” and the like in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget “cartoon” are net flows, which means total of upward minus downward.

    • Donald,
      Most of the latent heat is returned to the surface as rain that is warmer than it would be otherwise. That which is not returned as latent heat is returned as weather. Just as evaporation removes heat from what it evaporated from, condensation adds heat to what it is condensing upon.

      While atmospheric water (clouds) certainly radiate energy in roughly equal part up and down, if the cloud is not absorbing the same amount of energy as it’s emitting, its not in LTE and the LTE sensitivity is all we need to care about.

      • I am mistrusting of such convenient hand-waving type assertions. How long does the warmer microdroplet stay aloft without losing it microscopic gain in temperature to the surrounding frigid air which caused the condensation in the first place?

        One of the main problems of modelling is that we really do not understand these processes in detail , yet you make such a statement like it is establish, know, fact.

        “Most of the latent heat is r …”
        cf
        ” The majority of global warming of the last 50 years…. “

  37. If the average temperature of the Moon was 255K, equation 6) tells us that ∂T/∂Pi is about 0.3C per W/m2. If it was the 288K like the Earth, the sensitivity would be about 0.18C per W/m2.
    Neither the earth nor the moon is a black body.
    Both radiate to space 255K so both are at the same radiative temperature. This is an important point to make.
    Components of the earths surface such as the atmosphere are at a higher average temp to the radiative temperature by the sheer chance of atmospheric science.
    We just happen to live in it.
    If we took the sum total of all radiative parts of the earth. Surface atmosphere, clouds and seas we would find that the total outgoing [the energy that gets to space] energy is the same as the total incoming energy.
    What the atmosphere traps the bits below, like the sea miss out on.
    If we lived in the sea we would be worrying about 0.1 C rise in a hundred years. Whoo Hoo.

    • Problem is, absorption is not trapping, it doesn’t cause emission. Emission and absorption relate through T⁴, but they are not cause and effect. Increased absorption means increased transfer rate from the surface. In the instantaneous state, transfer is parallell to the emission according to surface T⁴. So increased absorption/transfer means that more heat flow TO the atmosphere, while the power of the heat source is constant and limited.

      Adding heat absorber to a constant limited heat flow, means less energy per molecule. Now, think about the definition of “temperature”…

  38. Regarding “The hypothesized high sensitivity also makes predictions. The stated nominal sensitivity is 0.8C per W/m2 of forcing and if the surface temperature increases by 0.8C from 288K to 288.8K, 390.1 W/m2 of surface emissions increases to 394.4 W/m2 for a 4.3 W/m2 increase that must arise from only 1 W/m2 of forcing. Since the data shows that 1 W/m2 of forcing from the Sun increases the surface emissions by only 1 W/m2, the extra 3.3 W/m2 required by the consensus has no identifiable origin thus falsifies the possibility of a sensitivity as high as claimed.”:

    There is not a lot of good data for surface emissions for purpose of quantifying how this varies with solar emissions.

    Also, increase of surface emissions (due to increase of surface temperature) increases the amount of back radiation in form of downwelling IR. Although this sounds like a positive feedback, it is usually not counted as a positive feedback but merely an explanation why the surface would change temperature by the same amount as the TOA changes temperature in response to a change in output from the sun, with assumption of albedo, atmospheric composition and weather patterns not changing as a result. One thing to consider is that a thing affected by reconciling surface energy budget with TOA energy budget is the thickness of the troposphere – which gets thicker beyond thermal expansion with more GHGs. Another also – what I have seen supports a current/recent global climate sensitivity around .4-.5 degree C/K per W/m^2 – and that this is not constant, but greater when global temperature is what it was when ice age glaciations were surging or melting away, less when Earth was snowballed or globally tropical-like.

    • Donald,

      “There is not a lot of good data for surface emissions for purpose of quantifying how this varies with solar emissions.”

      I disagree and 3+ decades of weather satellite measurements tell us a lot. Pi is one of the most direct things measured by weather satellites and reported as a reflectivity in the visible spectrum. The emissions of the planet are also directly measured in a few bands and its relatively straight forward, albeit somewhat complex requiring a line by line spectral analysis, to convert this into a surface and/or cloud temperatures. This is where the cloud top temperatures reported on the nightly news weather report come from.

      Consider why I divide the planet into stripes of constant latitude for my analysis. The main distinction between adjacent slices is the Pi per slice, where the difference in Pi between slices is what the IPCC quantifies as forcing.

  39. It is clear that so far there is no functional relationship was established of the climate sensitivity factor. Also, with the growth of population several greenhouse gases [short and long life] increased with the time. This in relation to CO2 was not established so far.

    As long as the quantitative-functional relationship was not established for the climate sensitivity factor, thousands of peer reviewed publications published in international journals that relate impacts on nature by the so-called global warming has little meaning except it creates sensation and thus waste public money in good for nothing projects/activities in both developed and developing countries.

    Instead of harping on this, scientists should come up with the actual cause and effect issues on the so-called global warming impact on nature. I have been seeing some good reports in the comments section. These could be highlighted as article and put for discussion. Otherwise people like Al Gore mint money under the disguise of fictitious global warming and its impact on nature.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Using the Physical Model, the effects of incremental CO2 are 100% computable as an increase to Fa in equation 8 resulting in about a 1.5% decrease in the effective emissivity, thus 390 W/m^2 increases by about 1.5%, or about 6 W/m^2, corresponding to about a 1C increase in the surface temperature.

      To achieve a 3C increase, the 390 W/m^2 of emissions needs to increase to over 406 W/m^2 for an increase of about 5% corresponding to a decrease in the emissivity of about 5%.

  40. Most of this goes over my head. I am happy that since temperature measurement has been by
    satellite, the temperature has not increased anywhere near as much as the “scientists” said it would, based on the substantial increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since then.

    But I believe that our poster has made a mistake related to Venus. He said “Unlike Earth, where the lapse rate is negative from the surface in equilibrium with the Sun and up into the atmosphere, the Venusian lapse rate is positive from its surface in equilibrium with the Sun down to the solid surface below.” When you think about this, you will realise that a negative lapse rate from the solid surface upwards is exactly identical to a positive lapse rate from some specific altitude downwards.

    Which shoots holes (I think) in his explanation of the Venus ‘mystery’.

    Consider a body similar to earth, with the same proportion of radioactive elements in its core. These will be hot, and heat will gradually seep from core to surface, thus the surface will necessarily be hotter than it would have been had there been no radioactive elements. On earth, we have a thin atmosphere and effectively nothing to stop this excess heat escaping. On Venus there is a very thick insulation blanket of an atmosphere. This means that the surface heat from below will increase until the system reaches temperature balance. How does the heat escape? The ‘air’ is warmed at the bottom, become less dense and rises. The result is convection, and the slightly warmed ‘air’ at the top will radiate away the excess heat. But given that the ‘air’ has mass, and the planet has gravity, there will necessarily be a temperature gradient from surface to TOA. (Even if the atmosphere at ‘start’ was non-convective, application of heat at the bottom would start convention.

    And if the ‘air’ has a surface pressure of 90 Atmospheres, while the upward molecules are under reduced pressure and are cooling, the downward molecules are being compressed and so are heating. Ergo, the surface temperature of Venus MUST be hot! (Try compressing carbon dioxide from say, 1 Atmosphere at X miles above the surface, to 90 Atmospheres at the surface. What is the resultant temperature?) And if the surface atmospheric temperature is ‘HOT’ then the temperature of the solid surface must also be ‘HOT’.

    • dudley,
      “When you think about this, you will realise that a negative lapse rate from the solid surface upwards is exactly identical to a positive lapse rate from some specific altitude downwards.”

      Yes, these two are equivalent, but the point of origin is the surface in DIRECT equilibrium with the Sun and this establishes the actual direction. On Earth, the Sun heats the surface which heats the clouds. On Venus, the Sun heats the clouds which heats to the surface. The surface temperature is dictated by the PVT profile of the atmosphere/ocean separating the surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun from the surface whose temperature we are measuring.

      Consider the solid surface of Earth beneath the oceans. This is not in direct equilibrium with the Sun either and its temperature is determined by the density/pressure profile of the ocean between this surface and the top surface of the ocean in equilibrium with the Sun.

    • “heating. Ergo, the surface temperature of Venus MUST be hot! (Try compressing carbon dioxide from say, 1 Atmosphere at X miles above the surface, to 90 Atmospheres at the surface. What is the resultant temperature?) And if the surface atmospheric temperature is ‘HOT’ then the temperature of the solid surface must also be ‘HOT’.”

      So, your bike tyre stays hot forever after you’ve pumped it up?
      Think about it – because that is what you are implying.

      Once the gas is compressed the “work” being “done” is over.
      Hence your bike tyre will cool or any container filled with a compressed gas.
      The LR proceeds thence from the surface where solar radiation is absorbed via convective overturning, mixing the atmosphere to the relation -gp. On Earth this is modified by LH (both ways) and in temperate zones via thermal advection.

  41. Somebody commented, can we estimate that the Earth is even close to the black body.Yes, we can. There is a study of Zhang et al. showing the observed based radiation fluxes of the Earth, reference:

    Zhang,  Y.,  Rossow,  W.B,  Lacis,  A.A.,  Oinas,  V.,  and  Mishcenko, M.I. “Calculation of radiative fluxes from the  surface to top of atmosphere based on ISCCP and other  global data sets: Refinements of the radiative model and  the  input  data.”  Journal  of  Geophysical  Research  109  (2004): 1149‐1165.  

    According to this study the upward radiation flux of the Earth’s surface in all-sky conditions is 395.6 W/m (normally rounded to 396 W/m2) corresponding the surface temperature 15.9 C degrees.

    Dr. Antero Ollila

    • aveollila,
      Yes, I’m familiar with this paper and all of the other papers by Rossow and others related to the ISCCP data. Even Trenberth agrees to this which is the origin of the 390 W/m^2 emitted by the surface at its average temperature of about 288K.

      • aveollila.

        “So, at least we two agree that the Earth is very close to the black body emitter.”

        The SURFACE itself is close to an ideal BB emitter. The atmosphere between this surface and space makes the planet appear gray from space by attenuating the emissions by the surface before they reach space.

      • co2isnotevil August 21, 2017 at 10:05 am
        aveollila.

        “So, at least we two agree that the Earth is very close to the black body emitter.”

        The SURFACE itself is close to an ideal BB emitter. The atmosphere between this surface and space makes the planet appear gray from space by attenuating the emissions by the surface before they reach space.

        A gray body has a lower emissivity independent of frequency, the earth viewed from space is not a gray body.

      • Phil,
        “A gray body has a lower emissivity independent of frequency, the earth viewed from space is not a gray body.”

        This is not the case for an EQUIVALENT gray body model of the Earth. Consider the EQUIVALENT temperature of the Earth of 255K corresponding to 240 W/m^2. The emissions are also not the ideal Planck distribution you assume is required for a gray body.

        Besides, the SB Law itself is frequency independent, none the less, nothing prevents the emissivity from being expressed a function of frequency.

  42. The sensitivity of the Sun radiation changes and the CO2 radiation changes are not the same thing. In the CO2 sensitivity calculation, the Sun radiation does not change. The Sun radiation changes the albedo of the Earth through cosmic ray modulation, which further changes the cloudiness and finally the albedo.

    • aveollia,
      Yes, there are second order differences between how Joules from different sources interact with the system, however; Joules are Joules and all of these effects can be lumped in to an equivalent emissivity since in the final analysis, the T^4 relationship between emissions and temperature is immutable.

      • It’s not immutable , it is muted by changes in emissivity. If you want to talk about “effective” or “equivalent” whatevers you have just introduced another poorly constrained , guestimated parameter.

      • Greg,
        “… it is muted by changes in emissivity.”

        But the emissivity is a linear attenuation of total emissions. Even a gray body with an emissivity of 1E-99 will still exhibit a T^4 dependence. Only the magnitude after the T^4 dependence is accounted for will change. This should be obvious from the SB equation,

        Po(t) = εσT^4

        How does ε change the basic T^4 dependence?

      • My point was that if you calculate what is the surface temperature response of the Sun’s SW radiation change of 1 W/m2 at the TOA, it is not the same as the surface temperature response of the RF change of 1 W/m2 caused by CO2 concentration change. The reason is that CO2 change does not affect the Earth’s albedo but the Sun’s radiation does.

  43. I would postulate a different question to consider:

    K&T in their energy budget cartoon, suggests that the the surface absorbs some 494W/m^2 (consisting of some 161 W/m^2 of absorbed solar irradiance plus some 333 W/m^2 of absorbed DWLWIR back radiation). What would the temperature of this planet be if there were no GHGs in the atmosphere but the planet absorbed at the surface some 494 W/m^2 of solar irradiance?

    In particular given that we that the oceans are all but opaque to DWLWIR but are good absorbers of SW solar irradiance, how warm would the oceans be if instead of absorbing 161 W/m^2 of solar irradiance, they absorbed instead some 494 W/m^2 of solar irradiance.

    When considering this question, one should ignore any additional radiative forcing caused by water vapour, but one should consider its known physical properties relating to specific heat capacity and latent heat capacity and that water can exist in 3 primary phases with consequent latent heat change.

  44. Try TSI/2π*V² for surface emission to get it right. V=4π/3, volume of a sphere.
    Volume and hemispherical irradiation is necessary to get the right state. From that you can also get tropopause temp which is
    1/3* TSI/2π*V² . This is the addition of gravity resistance, g²*V.
    Much easier and accurate than the calculations above.
    Moon: 1/4*TSI/2π*V with inverse square law for source power.
    Including hemispherical irradiation and volume solves the problems.

  45. I would say more if I read more, but I am leaving for the Eclipse near central Wyoming in a few hours. I really don’t care to see the eclipse but what will it do photography wise to the canyon walls. Einstein ran a consensus science where no one would go up against him and they traveled to South America to view and eclipse much like we will have today about 100 years ago. The purpose, to see if light bends with gravity and other forces.. He was right. So his followers stayed in line.

    He also believed the Universe was final. He could step off the planet and walk around the Universe and come back to the same spot. Along comes Edwin Hobble who had numerous hours of telescope time. He proved that the earth was expanding using blue and red colors. Einstein reviewed his research and agreed the Universe was expanding. God was not done yet, He just set it in motion.

    Sigmund Freud was another and being leader of the pack, gave out some 100 to 200 coins with his face on it. He got them back except about 5 by the time he died. Wouldn’t you love to have been in the Pawn Shop when he dropped those babies off.

    After a review of all this, I have not concluded but the evidence points to another Viking Era Global Warming period. WE should stop looking at Sea Levels and study Tree Lines based on all the factors in allowing a tree to grow at different elevations and Latitudes.

    As for deniers and Man Made Global Warming Alarmists, I could use a following, I will give out laundry money while it lasts. and they can help fold my laundry.

    I am about finished with this argument. I want to become an amateur Geologist and study Geography from here out and travel where I haven’t been yet.

  46. Oh! Yes! I got caught up in the forest fire residue out of Montana yesterday morning on my last half of my morning walk. I had to stop four or five times for the amount of CO2 and smoke particles in the air. By afternoon, I had a smoker’s cough. By 3:00 in the morning I was nearly unable to breath. I sat up and took deep breaths for a while.

    I wondered after the episode, If that much CO2 was in the air with number of smoke particles per million, how much was needed to bring me close to heading to the Emergency Room for Oxygen. Two, If that matches the quantity put out by Michael Mann and others, that is proof enough that Man Made Global Warming doesn’t exists and because of gravity stays at 4% or 1% of our atmosphere. In other words, we couldn’t exist under the Hockey Stick numbers. We would be suffocating .

    I worked the fossil and rock store for Wall Drug, Wall, SD a few years back for a few years. I remember one guy who came in who was all bent out of shape. He thought CO2 was at 75% of our atmosphere. I explained to him where it was and we looked it up on my smart phone. He was taken back.

    Mars has 95% and I have neighborhood kids back in Florida who want to escape Earth for its’ CO2 is too high. Can’t fix stupid! Next Challenge Dr. Watts!

  47. George White,
    You should include the albedo of ice and clouds in computing the greenhouse effect on Earth. The logic is despite the cooling effect of albedo, the greenhouse gases still warm the surface by a certain amount. You will underestimate the greenhouse warming if you reduce the albedo. You should estimate the greenhouse effect with ice and clouds because Earth has ice and clouds unlike the Moon.

    I believe the realistic radiative feedback is 6 W/m^2/K, indicating strong negative feedback. (Spencer and Braswell, 2010) (Lindzen and Choi, 2009)
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

    • Albedo is not a cause of heat flow density/temperature, it is an effect. You can’t reduce the heating from the sun before balancing heating and emission. It is very wrong to subtract 30% and then assume a transfer in violation with 2nd lot, to make flawed calculations add up.

    • Dr. Strangelove,

      I do account for the albedo effect in the calculation of Pi and its dependence on the cloud cover and other second order factors. What makes this somewhat confusing is that clouds, which are what converges the system to a steady state, affects both Pi and Po in roughly equal, but not exactly equal, proportions.

  48. Looks like my reply to ristvan got lost in the ether. It was criticism of him and GW.
    The mean equatorial temp of the moon is 220K. The mean of the daytime temp is 340K. Even without the GHE and same albedo, the Earth’s mean T should be a lot more for the same mean T^4 because the heat spreads.
    Treating the moon like a black body is not the problem other than a BB should conduct the heat quickly throughout. Each square metre ( to cm depth?) might be close to BB independent of the rest of the moon.
    Then there is rotation. The dark side of the moon cools to only 120K in the first 12 h before reaching 93 K at the equator. If the Earth were rock like the moon and warmed up quickly during the day to a mean of 340K at the eq, its 24h mean would be 240K, 20K large than the moon at the eq.

    • @Dr. Strangelove

      So, you remove 30% of the heat, then you notice your calculation is flawed, because heat is missing. Instead of realizing that your calculations are the problem, you do the one thing that is not allowed: heat transfer from cold to hot. And still, you don’t even bother to think about the fact that you removed heat before starting the calculation.
      Use correct geometry instead. (TSI/(4π/3)²)/2π, no need for fudge.

      If you think DLR has been measured, you need to learn how a pyrgeometer works.

      • I also agree that the GHG effect does not violate the second law. Photons don’t care about the temperature of its destination is and will still add energy to it when absorbed.

      • I have been debating the deceiver running that crappy blog. I repeatedly asked him about the violations in gh-theory and heat gave no answers. It was easier for him to ban me.

        Dragonslayer? Always the name-calling when debating the warming from dry ice. I have started to do the same. I call you the blanket-people. Because you always use explanations with blankets to describe how dry ice in cold air makes hot surfaces warmer. You don’t Sven know fundamental TD-principles, that a blanket prevents absorption in surrounding air. A blanket does the opposite of what a gh-gas does.

        You should ask *snip* why he used optical calculations to find temperatures. We have models for heat transfer, they work. But they can’t produce “back-radiation”, they show how the cold fluid atmosphere cools the surface. Of course. Have you ever experienced how cold damp air and dry ice makes you warmer? Didn’t think so.
        Then why do you expect that from the atmosphere?

        The second law says that heat nerver transfer from cold to hot without work being done on the system. The ” net”-BS from *snip* nothing else than him trying to deceive.

        *interesting that you complain of name calling and then engage in it yourself*

      • Actually it’s more basic than even that if the cold body wasn’t radiating you infer GOD properties on each object that they have to know who is hotter than who to know if they are allowed to radiate. The only way not to infer GOD properties on everything must radiate and then you just subtract to the two as per your article.

        Try doing a delayed choice experiment between a hot and a cold body and see how the dragon slayers fair as they won’t know whether it’s emitting or not because I am not going to choose or not to expose the two objects until a long time after the emission is required to leave the hot source. They suddenly will find they need thermal emissions to be faster than the speed of light :-)

        That is why I can’t understand DragonSlayers all they have to search is delayed choice experiments on thermal emissions and it’s pretty obvious what they think is wrong.

      • “LdB
        10 minuter
        Actually it’s more basic than even that if the cold body wasn’t radiating you infer GOD properties on each object that they have to know who is hotter than who to know if they are allowed to radiate. The only way not to infer GOD properties on everything must radiate and then you just subtract to the two as per your article. ”

        I do the opposite, I infer NO properties. The whole idea behind my approach is to make zero assumptions. I use a noninteracting cavity with spherical shells that obey Gauss law for gravity. Only known, proven and applied physics.

        There is not a single experimental study or data that supports a claim that a cold fluid at low temperature, can increase the emissive power of the heat source heating it.
        Prevost, a pioneer, came to the conclusion that the emission from a body depends on the internal state only.
        Let me make something clear, there is no honest way for you to argue that the atmosphere is part of the surface internal state. But let me see you try.
        What Prevost said has not been questioned, are you brave enough to try?

        Why did everyone forget to read what basic physics say.

        I just follow what proven physics say about energy and geometry, and ignore theories that use the coldest part of a system as a heat source. Someday the greenhouse theory will be regarded as more stupid than flat-earth delusions.

      • But your idea doesn’t work as I said it fails the most basic tests.

        At the very least your crazy physics stops radio signals working because you deny electromagnetic waves can be emit and received energy to the same source at different frequencies.

        So you make zero assumptions but half of physics we use everyday drops dead in the water?????

        Great physics idea .. love it and you just want to hand wave at it and expect me to not think you guys are are all crazy.

      • I don’t deny anything. You are the one maning assumptions about frequencies. I rely on proven and applied models that work. They clearly say that your explanation with back-radiation is irrelevant. The s-b law has not been falsified, so why do you question it?

    • Robert,
      “Then there is rotation.”

      Explain how the rotation affects the AVERAGE emissions of the Moon which must be equal to the average incident energy independent of the rate of rotation? You seem to be considering linear averages of temperature and not the proper average of emissions which in the end are converted to an EQUIVALENT average temperature. If Pi is X, Po must also be X, independent of the rotation rate and the average temperature is calculated by using SB to convert X to a temperature.

      • “Explain how the rotation affects the AVERAGE emissions of the Moon which must be equal to the average incident energy independent of the rate of rotation? ”
        At night, the moon cools from 150K to 93 K over two weeks. Just a back of envelope assuming a 24 h day for the moon that it would only cool to 120-130 K you get a 20 K higher mean at the equator. It comes from the moon not cooling to close to 0 at night.

      • Robert,
        Your explanation isn’t answering my question.

        So what is happening to the difference between the energy arriving at the Moon and the energy emitted by it? If the average temperature calculated as the equivalent temperature of average emissions is different then the equivalent temperature of the incident radiation, that difference must be going somewhere.

      • I should clear things up, I’m not saying its important if the Moon was a proper black body. I’m not even saying its important in any discussion (except it effects currents on Earth which are important) but just that makes a big difference in a theoretical comparison of the Moon with a Moon- like Earth

      • Robert,

        It only matters related to the distribution of emissions, not the average emissions which in LTE must be equal to the average incoming energy rate or else the system will cool or warm and not be in LTE. The incoming energy rate is independent of rotation, so what makes you believe that the outgoing rate will be dependent on this?

        The fact that the incoming radiation is equal to the outgoing radiation is for all intents and purposes, the definition of LTE. In other words, the dE/dt term in equation 1) is zero, i.e Pi = Po. Or in the case of a system with a periodic stimulus applied (like the Earth), the average dE/dt integrated over a whole number of periods of the periodic stimulus (years) will be zero, or at least be asymptotically approaching zero.

    • @ co2isnotevil August 21, 2017 at 8:50 am

      Robert,
      “Then there is rotation.”

      You keep on missing the point that I and others have made to you regarding your comparison of the Earth with the Moon.

      <b.The problem is not the Moon. The problem is not that the Moon is not sufficiently akin to a black body. the problem is not the rotational speed of the Moon.

      You keep on asking people

      Explain how the rotation affects the AVERAGE emissions of the Moon which must be equal to the average incident energy independent of the rate of rotation?

      The problem is that the Earth is nothing like the Moon and is nothing like a black body and the rotational speed of the Earth has consequence since the Earth is not a black body. For example;

      (i) A black body should be a good conductor such that it reaches equilibrium relatively quickly. The Earth is a poor conductor and never reaches equilibrium, or at any rate not on time scales measured in tens of years, hundreds of years, thousands of years.
      (ii) A black body should absorb radiation/energy at the surface (ie., the place from which it radiates energy). The Earth does not absorb radiation./energy at its surface. Approximately 70% of the planet is covered by water and all but no solar irradiance is absorbed at the surface of the ocean.
      (iii) The absorption characteristics of a black body should be uniform over its surface. The absorption characteristics of the Earth are not uniform over its surface.
      (iv) A black body should radiate uniformly over its surface. The Earth does not radiate uniformly over its surface.
      (v) A black body should not have an internal heat source. The Earth has an internal heat source.
      (vi) A black body should not be able to distribute and drive energy received differently over its surface. The Earth distributes energy received at one place and radiates it differently across its entire surface.

      I consider that you should re-read my comment richard verney August 20, 2017 at 5:02 pm

      As I observed the Earth was sufficiently akin to a black body, we cannot on our present understandings of matters explain the temperature profile of the Holocene. if the Earth were sufficiently akin to a black body, it would not have responded in that manner.

      There can be no meaningful comparison between the Moon and the Earth. They are too different, and you need to go back to the drawing board on your assertion that a useful comparison can be made between the moon and the Earth. See further my comment at richard verney August 21, 2017 at 8:20 am which explains that we would still have oceans, and hence we would still have clouds.

      • Richard,

        If you can’t connect the dots between the Moon, whose response is absolutely deterministic, and the Earth based on the physics of COE and Stefan-Boltzmann, what physical laws do you propose governs the ratio between Earth’s surface emissions and the emissions of the planet as a whole? My whole analysis treats the atmosphere as a black box as it characterizes the behavior at the boundaries of this black box (not to be confused with a black body), so whatever complexities you perceive are within the black box whose behavior is being modelled are superfluous since whatever effects these complications have are already accounted for by the measured data.

        Bear in mind that the correspondence of the physical laws that govern how the Moon behaves and how the Earth behaves is a hypothesis and I have supplied 2 different tests that confirm this as valid. If you think I’m wrong, come up with a prediction of my model and a test that falsifies this prediction. This is how science is supposed to work, although climate science hasn’t worked this way since the inception of the IPCC.

      • I am of the opinion that there is a very precise comparison between the moon and earth surface temperature.

        TSI=1360.8W/m^2
        V=4pi/3

        Earth, two shells irradiated on the hemisphere, shells represent atmosphere and solid:

        Surface temperature:
        TSI/2pi/V^2

        Moon. one shell, no atmosphere, declining power according to inverse square law:

        (TSI/2piV)/4

        By the way, the value of TSI is claimed to be very accurate after a recent revision. Divide it with the stefan-boltzmann constant, 0.0000000567, to find T^4. Surprising, isn´t it?

        Treating the system as points with probability distribution according to T^4 appears to be a correct approach to model energy flow and forces. As Prevost said. the emission from a body depends on the internal state only.

        The draper point show that heat flow is independent of mass. Practically all solids glow at 798K, that means that surface emission from a body depends on the internal heat flow only. The surface temperature is, according to proven and applied physics, dependent only on the temperature of the source, the glowing interior.

      • “I am of the opinion that there is a very precise comparison between the moon and earth surface temperature.”

        Yes, the same laws of physics apply to both the Moon and the Earth and only the laws of physics can explain how the Moon or the Earth responds (sensitivity) to changes in the incident energy (forcing).

        Some seem to be getting derailed by the apparent complexity of what goes on within the atmosphere. As I keep trying to articulate, whatever effects this complexity has, it’s already being accounted for by the measured data. To the extent that the measured data supports the SB Law as governing the relationship between the surface temperature and the planets emissions, the top level constraints on what is manifested by all this complexity are COE and the SB Law.

      • I’ll make it simple. You assume that the moon absorbs like a disk and emits like an orb. This can’t happen if the surface on the dark side is not warmed by the surface absorbing.
        Earth is not a good conductor but at least there is convection of heat around the surface.

      • There is no dark side of the Moon, its all dark (and light). If the Moon was tidally locked to the Moon, rather than the Earth, then instead of dividing by 4 (area sphere/area circle), then you would just divide by 2 to arrive at the average incident energy.

      • You’re still missing the point. Heat is stored in the rock but barely anything travels to another sq km nearby let alone to the other side. Just this should mean a cooler mean surface temp than an Earth without an atmosphere but oceans to share the heat around ( or a metal ball).

      • “Just this should mean a cooler mean surface temp than an Earth without an atmosphere but oceans to share the heat around ( or a metal ball).”

        Even if oceans were present without any GHG effects or clouds, the average surface temperature CALCULATED AS THE TEMPERATURE OF AN EQUIVALENT BLACK BLACK BODY EMITTING THE AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF THE PLANET, would still be the same as the EQUIVALENT temperature of the average incoming flux.

        Only GHG’s and clouds can attenuate and redistribute surface emissions back to the surface (and/or clouds) and out into space leading to a colder EQUIVALENT temperature for outgoing radiation than the EQUIVALENT temperature of the surface emitting that energy, whether this is the surface below or the top of clouds.

        I keep emphasizing EQUIVALENT as what this means is the TEMPERATURE OF AN EQUIVALENT BLACK BLACK BODY. It just happens when we do this for each 100 km^2 region of the surface as measured by satellites (10km x 10km), the surface temperature recorded by a thermometer at that point in time and space is close enough to the EQUIVALENT temperature that any errors are small enough to be ignored for the purpose of the analysis.

    • Compare the ground temperature of a desert near the tropics in mid summer with the ground temperature of the moon at the equator at noon. The former are typically 320-330K at noon occasionally getting to 340K. The max on the moon at the equator is 390. The difference is even greater for higher altitude deserts despite more IR getting through to the ground because of cooling from the atmosphere.
      I’m not disproving anything except comparing the Earth with the moon when talking about a GHE is pointless.

      • Robert,
        A higher noon temperature and lower night time temperature are the only consequences of a slower rotation rate (for the MOON). However, in LTE, and LTE is all that matters relative to the sensitivity, the average outgoing emissions must be the same as the average incoming solar power and since the incoming power isn’t affected by the rotation rate, neither are the Moons output emissions nor its equivalent temperature and only the equivalent temperature of the average emissions is truly representative of an ‘average temperature’.

      • The mean T^4 might be the same but the mean T will be different if the spread of temps is different.
        I’m regretting bringing up rotation. Its just another problems because the surface of the Moon is like a sphere of many independent BBs. Its not the main point.

      • Robert,

        “The mean T^4 might be the same but the mean T will be different if the spread of temps is different.”

        Correct, moreover; the mean T is a devoid of any physical meaning related to energy which is the quantify that must be conserved.

      • What I really mean is that the average T is devoid of any physical relationship to emissions and only emissions matter for the energy balance and sensitivity.

        It actually does have the physical meaning of being linear to the average energy stored by the emitting matter. Note that being linear to the amount of stored energy, but being order T^4 to the emitted energy means that as matter warm, it cools at an ever accelerating rate requiring more power to sustain higher temperatures. This is sometimes referred to as Planck ‘feedback’ but is really not properly characterized as feedback, but I will acknowledge ‘feedback like’ as a more proper description.

      • This analogy is written in a rush. The modelling as if its a BB is like a large rain gauge with a leak and an average amount of rain going in, instead of a collection of rain gauges with different amount of rain falling in each with the same average. The smaller ones might have a leak rate as function of water height^4 as the larger one but the average leaking out will be different because of the large spread in heights, except for exceptional circumstances.
        I’m saying the Earth will be warmer because the gauges are connected by pipes and the difference in heights is smaller.
        Sorry. The best I could do in shirt time.

  49. All those who claim that CO2 is the cause of climate change and all these furniture are nothing more than tycoons tricks, which should learn to enter politics, and so do science become the cow of the marauder of those robbers who know nothing else but invent how to do more Enrich it on someone else’s account.
    Earth, as well as other planets, suffer from climate change, the cause of which is the interplay of planets and suns, where it is the most effective challenger to all changes – MAGNETISM.

  50. I like the idea of bringing electronic circuits into the climate-modeling game. The approach here is classic ‘top-down’, while ‘bottom-up’ would avoid hard-to-settle theory-arguments. But the difference is mainly stylistics, and pedantry.

    After WWII, modeling with the new op-amps became a fad, or even a mild mania. Like with the original discovery of the effects of electricity on living (and even dead!) tissues, folks kinda went off the deep end.

    Paradoxically, the emergence of the compact, low-power transistors and close behind them Integrated Circuits, played a key roll in the denouement of the Op-amp Model Movement. Folks wanted to be able to build bigger, more-realistic models, but when the means arrived, it delivered sad news too.

    The breakthrough with op-amps was the realization that to use an amplifier to mimic a given phenomenon, don’t try to directly control gain. Instead, peg the amp out to it’s max gain, and then use *feedback* to throttle it down & track the phenomenon-signal. Op-amps are ‘feedback machines’, ab initio.

    The op-amp feedback breakthrough also led to rapid advances & applications in Control Theory and servo-mechanisms. Feedback; all feedback, all the time.

    There has been some discussion that nonlinearities are an issue with op-amps. Many devices & effects in electronics are intrinsically nonlinear, and the orthodox reaction is to impose linearity. However, plenty of the more-troublesome phenomena we’d like to model, are themselves nonlinear, and often there is a matching nonlinear electronic behavior.

    Simple electronic models are very illuminating, especially for those with elementary electronics. Sophisticated instantiations tend to run into trouble, but we did kinda ‘give-up at the first sign of trouble’.

    • Ted,
      Yes, this is a top down behavioral model driven by the laws of physics, rather than a bottom up model driven by heuristics like the traditional GCM. The difference is that my top down model has on only 3 coefficients, all of which are measurable while bottom up GCM’s typically have thousands of coefficients, most of which are unknown and are guessed and then tuned to fit a narrow set of measurements.

      • “I also agree that the GHG effect does not violate the second law. Photons don’t care about the temperature of its destination is and will still add energy to it when absorbed.”

        You would have a point if we determined bulk properties like temperature with quantum-concepts like photons. But we don’t count photons in heat transfer. Actually, if you do, you get the wrong results. Heat transfer equations doesn’t include photons, and they have been proven to work really good.
        The second law says nothing about photons, so why do you think it is an argument.

      • .That claim is not accurate.

        The way to model clouds is to characterize them by the fraction of surface covered by them and then apply the Physical Model with values of α, κ and ε specific to average clear and average cloudy skies and then weighting the results based on the specific proportions of each.

        That is three coeffs for each case plus another to indicate ratio. = 7

        As was also pointed out above , one-size-fits-all coeffs can not adequately represent all cloud at all altitudes either so even the 7 fail to do the job.

        It is true that one of the main problems with GCMs is the number of poorly defined parameters they have but just not having any is does not make your model better.

      • @lifeisthermal if what you said was true and I went into a binary sun system with one hot sun and one cold sun, then according to you the colder sun stops radiating because it “knows” there is a hotter sun around. See the problem it’s nothing to do with bulk properties what you are conflating is situations you can simplify to just one calculation. Have two fires in either side of your house do you only feel the heat from the hotter one? How does the colder one know not to send thermal emissions to the hotter one?

        You can then play games like having a door in front of the hot fire and quickly close it and see if you can measure the emission from the cold fire which is now the hottest emission in the room. It’s called delayed choice and as the penny should have dropped it looks just like the single photon case now.

      • co2isnotevil,

        Top-down and bottom-up approaches can both succeed, and they can both fail. The GCMs stumble not so much on the choice of heuristic design, but because the parameters & values are being populated without adequate justification, validation, or reliable data. It’s not that the bottom-up tool is inherently bad or weak, but that the Consensus-driven user is waving it in the air, voodoo-fashion.

        The large number of coefficients found in GCMs partly reflects that these are not “a” model, but many more or less independent models. The connections among these (sub)-models is itself a fraught topic … but central.

        The interaction within such a sub-model construction relates very well to electronics, in the analogy with impedance, which is a mature method of characterizing the transaction between subsystems.

        The amplification factor is controlled by feedback, which in turn is controlled by impedance. If the sub-models are properly implemented in electronics (or SPICE), we can know the impedances.

        Especially where an amplification might become a switch, a bistable multivibrator, the impedance can be the key.

      • Ted,
        Yes, I agree that both bottom and top down models are useful, but the veracity of a bottom up model is suspect unless it can be correlated to the results of a top down model. I’m very familiar with the design of IC’s and standard practices are to design the top down model first and then verify the model of a bottom up implementation to the top down model. This is especially important for IC design because if you get it wrong, maskmaking costs are in the millions to correct any error and time to market will suffer by months.

      • ” LdB
        August 21, 2017 at 9:32 am

        @lifeisthermal if what you said was true and I went into a binary sun system with one hot sun and one cold sun, then according to you the colder sun stops radiating because it “knows” there is a hotter sun around. ”

        Even if I try really hard, I cannot understand how you come to that conclusion. I don´t know any physics that would allow that. How did you come up with that idea?

        Look, I follow textbook-physics only. All of it was proven 100 years ago. The whole idea is to get rid of strings, 11 dimensions, dark matter, magic photon-blankets in fantasy-greenhouse and other unicorns. Apparently, the simplest possible model of a heat engine with optimized flow, produce an exact solution

        “See the problem it’s nothing to do with bulk properties what you are conflating is situations you can simplify to just one calculation. Have two fires in either side of your house do you only feel the heat from the hotter one? How does the colder one know not to send thermal emissions to the hotter one?”

        Again, I cannot understand how or why you make up these strange scenarios. It has nothing to do with physics. that much I understand.

        To be clear, we have highly functional theories and equations that describe the physics of heat and temperature, heat transfer and thermal energy. What I do is: use them. The equations for heat transfer clearly show that your ideas about how fires “think”, can be totally ignored. I use the equations without assuming that fires “think”, because I only need T^4 to know what happens. The heat flow is entirely dependent on temperature and temperature differences, everything else depends on the heat flow. A heat engine.

        “You can then play games like having a door in front of the hot fire and quickly close it and see if you can measure the emission from the cold fire which is now the hottest emission in the room. It’s called delayed choice and as the penny should have dropped it looks just like the single photon case now.”

        Ok, let´s see if I understand you right.

        I should play a game with fire and a door. It is called delayed choice, a penny should have dropped.

        Do you not see the irrelevance in what you write?

        Why would I choose your description of delayed choice as support for your theory of heat flow, when I can use a proven and widely applied LAW in combination with the simplest geometry?

        Again, we already have highly functional theories and models for describing heat flow and temperature. When used to define the state of the system, they give the right answer. For earth, the moon, Venus and Mars. It is the most conservative, logic and rational model that can be made, and it is correct.

        Tell me more about “delayed choice”, what part of the first law is it?

      • co2isnotevil,

        Top-down has taken over lately in the IC-design business, it’s true, but mainly for business/economic reasons.

        Compared to bottom-up, it’s faster and cheaper. Competition is severe, and this is the edge.

        Top-down importantly also verifies smoother & cheaper, but bottom-up will still verify, just slower and harder. In exploratory situations, most of the effort may be in the verify-cycle.

        Whole-body electronic climate simulation looks like a very big bite. A top-down climate circuit assumes we have a valid conceptual GCM. Instead, what we have are the intriguing offerings & assertions of maverick-hardy individuals … or the Consensus.

        Smaller sub-components of the planetary dynamic are more amenable. That hairball heuristic GCMs have wildebeest herds of coefficients, gives us a shot at cutting one out & cornering it.

        If the top-level factors in climate theory were solid enough to support a top-down solution, then we could ask that bottom-up results correlate with the valid top-level model. But WUWT is here, because we ain’t there.

        Meanwhile, what we have that’s workable, is inefficient verification of partial bottom-up incursions. Divide, conquer … and verify, round after round. True, bottom-up verification leaves us with only a piece of the picture, but that reminds nicely that we don’t have a complete picture.

        And because computer-capability is still exploding, both the direct cost of intensively verification-dependent approaches and the (business-killer) delay this task represents, continue to steadily decline. This was a primary argument supporting the move to top-down, and it’s decaying with Moore’s Law.

      • @lifeisthermal you say you don’t get the two heat source example so explain it to me in your great physics.

        So you have two suns or two fires and you say the energy only goes from the hot one to the cold one. So start from the cold one and the thermal emission leaves (we know its an electromagnetic wave easy to prove). So we have this EM wave going across the room heading to the hotter source now how does it suddenly get stopped so it can’t be absorbed by the hotter body?

        You keep saying the physics is basic so all you have to do is now stop the EM wave and not break physics in the process? You say it obvious so explain it.

  51. The 270K average temperature of the Moon would be the Earth’s average temperature if there were no GHG’s since this also means no liquid water, ice or clouds resulting in an Earth albedo of 0.12 just like the Moon.

    Why do you conclude that there would be no liquid water? Why do you conclude that there would be no clouds? We see clouds over the Arctic and over the Antarctic notwithstanding the cold average temperatures of those regions.

    If the Earth had an average surface temperature of 270K there would still be a lot of open water since in the equatorial/tropical regions of the planet there is sufficient solar energy received and absorbed by the oceans to keep them from freezing.

    It is also likely that there would still be oceanic currents distributing the energy/heat of the equatorial/tropical ocean polewards, but the oceanic currents would be less warm and would not reach so far towards high latitudes. There would be more permanent ice at the poles, and fluctuations in sea ice (freezing and thawing with seasons) would extend further to mid latitudes.,

    Consider the historic temperature of Mars. It is generally thought that Mars had running water some billion or so years ago. What was the average temperature of Mars during that time? It was a lot less than 270K. It is possible to have a lot of running and open water even with a cold average temperature.

    The comparison between the Moon and the Earth needs to go back to the drawing board.

    • Richard,
      “Why do you conclude that there would be no liquid water?”

      Because in this hypothetical case without GHG’s, there can be no water at all otherwise there would be water vapor. The idea that water vapor absorption is independent of the other effects of water is flawed, even though the effects of clouds and water vapor can be quantified independently. In polar regions, clouds are the result of evaporation that largely occurred elsewhere.

      Even today, the equatorial temperature of Mars is sufficient for liquid water to exist. The issue is the atmospheric pressure which causes any water to quickly vaporize. BTW, on a molar basis per m^2 of surface and the atmosphere above it, Mars has far more atmospheric CO2 then the Earth has.

      I’ll pose the same question of you that ristvan was unable to answer. Which of equations 1) through 4) does not apply to the Earth system? It seems that the objection is the SB equation of equation 3), in which case what other testable law of physics can you suggest determines the relationship between surface emissions and the emissions of the planet?

      Keep in mind that the T^4 relationship is verified by the measured data. To see this, examine figure 8, where the green line is the prediction of SB with an emissivity of 0.61 while the small yellow dots are the monthly averages for the relationship between the surface temperature (Y axis) and planet emissions (X axis) for all 2.5 degree slices of latitude of the planet across nearly 3 decades of measurements, while the larger green and blue dots are the 3 decade averages of this relationship. It’s pretty obvious that the average of the measured data conforms quite closely to the prediction of the SB Law. Keep in mind that there are close to a trillion individual measurements that led to this result.

      • Thanks your reply, but your answer is inconsistent with the premise behind the argument. Obviously there is no point is contending that if the Moon and the Earth were the same 9apart from size), then the Earth would be like the Moon. That does not take the position forward.

        If one wants to take the matter forward, one has to consider the Earth as it is, but absent the radiative effect of radiative gases. In other words, what if CO2, Methane, Water Vapour etc did not possess radiative properties, but had all their other physical properties?

        Your contention is that the 270K average temperature of the Moon would be the Earth’s average temperature since at this average temperature, there would be no liquid water, ice or clouds resulting in an Earth albedo of 0.12 just like the Moon. It would not matter how the Earth has an average temperature of 270K, it merely matters what would the Earth look like if it had an average temperature of 270K? You have not answered that.

        You cannot possibly be arguing that it is impossible to have ice on a body that has no atmosphere since comets have no atmosphere and (frequently) contain a large component of ice. The ice of which the comet is composed of when it receives enough solar energy starts vapourising and if the comet had sufficient mass it would be able to retain that vapour and form an atmosphere.

        It this planet had no CO2, no methane, no ozone etc, and if this planet were to have an average temperature of 270K (however it came to have such a temperature) it would still have liquid water, inevitably there would be water vapour and clouds. One cannot get away from that basic fact.

        It is possible to conduct a mind/thought experiment to consider what would this planet look like if water vapour had no radiative properties, but save for the absence of radiative qualities, water possesses all other properties including the absorption of EMR at various wavelength, phases, phase changes, specif heat and latent heat etc.

        I am well aware of the position on Mars, and have frequently commented upon it. Notwithstanding that the Martian atmosphere, on a numerical basis has an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules than does Earth’s atmosphere, and notwithstanding that the molecules of CO2 are much more densely/closely packed in the Martian atmosphere compared to Earth’s atmosphere (such that the prospects of a re-radiated photon being captured and re-radiated from a GHG molecule is greater in the Martian atmosphere), there is no (or all but no) radiative GHE on Mars.

        If one considers the temperature of Earth is governed by the molecules of GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere then it is surprising that on Mars there is no measurable radiative GHE even though there are more molecules of GHGs in the Martian atmosphere. When one further considers matters and considers that if one were to remove from Earth’s atmosphere all non GHGs, (ie., remove all the Nitrogen, Oxygen , Argon etc), then the density/pressure of what would remain of Earth’s atmosphere would be very similar to the pressure/ density of the Martian atmosphere, and on one planet there is claimed to be a radiative enhanced GHE, whereas on the other planet there is not, and the difference between the two planets would appear to be one of atmospheric pressure/density, not the presence and amount of GHGs in the respective atmospheres

        Our planet is not a BB and does not behave like one. We do not khow whether SB applies to gases which themselves are not BBs. There is simply too much unknown, to make the leaps that you are making. That does not necessarily mean that you are grossly wrong, merely that one has no idea to what extent you are making a suitable ball park working model.

      • Richard,

        “It would not matter how the Earth has an average temperature of 270K, it merely matters what would the Earth look like if it had an average temperature of 270K? You have not answered that.”

        If the Earth had an average temperature of 270K, the average equatorial temperature would be well above freezing so liquid water would still be present, however, ice would extend down to the edge of the tropics. It would be like a super ice age, but not quite a snowball Earth.

        “We do not khow whether SB applies to gases which themselves are not BBs.”

        But we do know that it applies to gray bodies, which are non ideal black bodies. The hypothesis is that the planet does behave this way and the tests confirm it. If you want to object, simply saying you don’t know is not sufficient. The data is pretty clear that the planet’s between output emissions and the surface temperature behaves almost exactly like a gray body should. If you want to dispute my hypothesis, you really need to come up with a test that falsifies it and unlike most other hypotheses about how the climate behaves, this one is testable.

        In principle, gases do not radiate photons and are not emitting bodies of any kind, although GHG’s can re-emit absorbed energy as photons. To the extent that the absorbed energy originated from a nearly ideal BB surface, the T^4 relationship will be preserved.

        When we examine the emitted spectrum from space, it’s a Planck distribution with net attenuation of about 3 db in the absorption bands. This is represented as a linear reduction of the emissions quantified by an equivalent emissivity and the basic T^4 relationship is still there.

        As of yet, nobody has been able to come up with any test that invalidates the basic T^4 relationship between the surface temperature and the emissions of the planet.

      • –Notwithstanding that the Martian atmosphere, on a numerical basis has an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules than does Earth’s atmosphere, and notwithstanding that the molecules of CO2 are much more densely/closely packed in the Martian atmosphere compared to Earth’s atmosphere (such that the prospects of a re-radiated photon being captured and re-radiated from a GHG molecule is greater in the Martian atmosphere), there is no (or all but no) radiative GHE on Mars. —
        There also water vapor on Mars, but Earth has much more water vapor than the dry planet Mars.
        But since people are excited by 400 ppm of CO2 in Earth atmosphere, it worth nothing that Mars has 210 ppm of water vapor: Mars:
        “Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) – 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) – 100; Neon (Ne) – 2.5” And etc
        Of course with Earth there wetter places. Or the large region of tropics has some number around 3% [or 30,000 ppm] and rest world about less 1%.
        With Mars at poles during the summer as much much than 210 ppm of water vapor, and in terms “weather” type events there is drier and wetter times in various locaions. And I tend to guess the tropics of mars is drier than other regions.
        The other aspect is vertical component of water vapor in the atmosphere. With Earth it’s drier with higher elevation, and Mars, it could be different rules in terms of ppm.

  52. Venus is a case of runaway clouds and not runaway GHG’s as often claimed.

    As I understand the basics of the radiant GHE, it is based upon Earth’s atmosphere being essentially transparent to the wavelengths of incoming solar irradiance but rather opaque to outgoing/upwelling long wave radiation. The surface absorbs radiation at one wavelength but radiates that radiation at a different wavelength and the so called GHGs intercept the upwelling LWIR and then they re-radiate this absorbed LWIR in all directions, half of which is projected back to the surface as DWLWIR (which in the K&T energy budget cartoon is claimed to be absorbed by the surface).

    If there is a GHE on Venus, then the process must be somewhat different since the atmosphere of Venus not simply reflects much of the incoming solar irradiance, but more significantly it absorbs most of the incoming solar irradiance.

    Very little solar irradiance is absorbed by the surface of Venus simply because very little solar irradiance reaches the surface. As I understand the findings of the Russian Venera Lander mission, it measured the solar irradiance at just 17 W/m^2. This is radically different to the position on Earth.

    • “As I understand the findings of the Russian Venera Lander mission, it measured the solar irradiance at just 17 W/m^2. This is radically different to the position on Earth.”
      And the hot surface would not absorb any of that radiation.
      But the clouds reflect about 75% of say 2600 watts of sunlight. Or absorb .25 times 2600 being
      650 watts of sunlight.
      The only thing on earth which absorbs so much energy is the earth’s oceans.
      Solar panels absorb and convert about .2, thermal solar panels absorb .6- 1000 times .6 is
      600 watts [of course one is using water or if fancy perhaps ammonia [which also useful liquid].
      Now cloud droplets of acid probably don’t absorb .25 of the sunlight.
      If put garbage bag with some water in it and put in the sun, it might reach near 70 C. If put more water in garbage bag, it might never get close to 70 C, but will absorb more energy than a less filled garbage bag which more quickly reaches a temperature of near 70 C.
      But if clouds absorb 5 to 10% of the energy of the sunlight this will turn the surface of Venus into the furnace that it is.

    • “Earth’s atmosphere being essentially transparent to the wavelengths of incoming solar irradiance”. This is a common misunderstanding. The atmosphere absorbs the incoming SW radiation and the amount is about 71 W/2, the surface absorbs about 167 W/m2, totally 238 W/m2.

      • aveollia,

        ” … the amount is about 71 W/2, the surface absorbs about 167 W/m2, totally 238 W/m2.”

        This comes from Trenberth’s diagram. What you don’t realize is that its not the gases in the atmosphere that are absorbing 71 W/m^2, but the water in clouds. Trenberth conflates the effects of GHG’s with that of clouds to make it seem like GHG effects are more important than they really are.

        Since the water in clouds is tightly coupled to the water in the oceans, in LTE, the solar energy absorbed by clouds is functionally equivalent to the solar energy absorbed by the oceans, moreover; the data supports that the emissions of clouds are roughly linearly proportional to the emissions of the surface beneath.

      • To CO2isnotevil. I think that I understand quite well, what happens to the SW radiation in the atmosphere. I have published a research study about this : http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/GEO/Vol%205_1_2.pdf

        In the clear sky conditions, the total absorption of SW radiation is 69 W/m2. The absorption is caused by the following GHGs: water vapor 77.2 %, ozone 19.5 %, CO2 2.3 %, CH4 0.7 %, and N2O 0.2 %.

        I have also published a paper about the energy balance of clear, cloudy, and all-sky conditions (probably the only one so far). The SW absorption fluxes are: clear sky 69, cloudy sky 72, and all-sky 71 W/m2. I think that I am the only one, who have noticed that the SW radiation reflected by the surface cannot pass the cloudy sky without absorption. The reflected SW radiation by the surface is 24 W/m2, 1.3 W/m2 is absorbed by the clouds and the radiation flux into space is thus 22.7 W/m2 in the all-sky conditions.

        Link: http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=11043

      • aveollia,
        First you said that 71 W/m^2 of incoming solar energy that you refer to as SW and then say that the clear sky absorbs 69 W/m^2 of SW (which I presume you still mean solar) but then break it down in to GHG absorption from the various gases that are only active in the LWIR of emissions and not LEAVING the planet not the solar energy arriving to the planet. Did you really mean the absorption of surface emissions?

        Otherwise, your percentages attributed to each gas are consistent with what I calculate for surface emissions absorption by a standard atmosphere, but the total absorption seems a little low as 69/390 represents only about 17.5% of what the surface emits while I get a value closer to 58 percent which is more consistent with what other people get.

      • The atmosphere absorbs the incoming SW radiation and the amount is about 71 W/2

        That is why I used the expression essentially, rather than stating that it was transparent. I was saying that it is not fully transparent whilst not wishing to complicate the simple point I was making. There is no need to be distracted in detail.

        The basis of the radiant GHE is that the atmosphere is transparent to incoming energy but because of GHGs it is opaque to outgoing energy. That is an over simplification, but it the underlying principle.

      • This comes from Trenberth’s diagram. What you don’t realize is that its not the gases in the atmosphere that are absorbing 71 W/m^2, but the water in clouds. Trenberth conflates the effects of GHG’s with that of clouds to make it seem like GHG effects are more important than they really are.

        Whilst I consider that there could be some merit in the point that you make, it may be that you over estimate the position.

        As I understand matters under clear skies at the equator, the amount of solar irradiance reaching the service is around 1,000 W/m2. That is a lot less than TOA. Wikipedia suggests:

        When 1361 W/m2 is arriving above the atmosphere (when the sun is at the zenith in a cloudless sky), direct sun is about 1050 W/m2, and global radiation on a horizontal surface at ground level is about 1120 W/m2.[8] The latter figure includes radiation scattered or reemitted by atmosphere and surroundings

      • Wikipedia includes solar energy reflected away and that does not participate in warming the planet. While at the equator the incoming is a lot less than TOA, you seem to be comparing it to the average emissions at TOA. At the equator, the emissions at TOA are well above average and at the poles theye well below.

        Beside, its not the peak solar input that matters, but the surface temperature that determines how much power is leaving TOA. If the Earth was tidally locked to the Sun, then the peak matters because this peak becomes the average.

  53. Brad Keyes:

    You wrote “In order to be right, you only need to get the agreement of NATURE”

    Fine. But you still need a consensus as to what “nature” is saying.

    As I point out, temperatures ALWAYS rise whenever atmospheric SO2 levels are reduced.
    ]
    Nature is clearly sending a message, but it is totally being ignored by all of the non-scientists currently discussing climate change on this thread.

    (A real scientist would carefully evaluate any new information being offered, and if found to be correct, change his views accordingly).

    The control knob of Earth’s temperature’s is, and always has been, simply the amount of SO2 aerosols, volcanic or anthropogenic, in the atmosphere.

  54. I shouldn’t need to remind people of this, but relative to science, the ONLY arbiter of what is and what is not valid science is the scientific method and not what anybody thinks, believes, assumes or has a gut feeling about.

    1) Establish a hypothesis
    – COE and the SB Law quantifies how the macroscopic properties of the planet must behave

    2) Test predictions of the hypothesis
    – The hypothesis predicts that the ratio between planet emissions and surface emissions will
    correspond to the equivalent emissivity of a gray body.
    – Furthermore, the hypothesis predicts that the effective emissivity can be calculated by alternate
    means related to quantifiable metrics that describe the internals of the atmosphere.
    – An even less obvious prediction is that the relationship between planet emissions as a function
    of the surface temperature will exhibit the T^4 relationship of the SB Law with the emissivity
    calculated above by two orthogonal methods.
    – The sensitivity is dT/dPi, where T is the surface temperature and Pi is the incident solar power.

    3) Modify the hypothesis if tests do not confirm it and repeat.

    Tests confirm that all of these predictions are supported by the satellite data.

    Nobody has been able to come up with any other physical law which can quantify the macroscopic relationship between surface emissions and the planets emissions and that supercede the requirements of the SB Law and COE.

    Nobody has been able to come up with any unambiguous test that falsifies this hypothesis.

    If anyone can present a test that falsifies the hypothesis, or can establish other laws of physics that quantify the relationship between planet emissions and surface emission, I will be happy to modify the hypothesis, but lacking a test that fails, there’s no reason to modify it.

    Someone please explain what is it about the scientific method that makes any of this suspect?
    Yes, the predictions may be non obvious, but validating these non obvious predictions just reinforces how valid the hypothesis actually is. Consider the Sun bending light or the precession of Mercury as similar examples of this.

    • George White,

      I think your project is a valuable contribution. Science is politicized, though. By ‘them’, of course! But we’ve become intellectually hypertrophied Viking combatants, ourselves. Had folks not, this blog would be long-gone.

      Even with friendly contributors. The Vikings were rougher on none, than their own.

      Science is on probation, and it didn’t start with Gore & Hansen, in ’88.

      Most of us can intuit our way through complex & treacherous info-scapes, much better than we can by deductive analysis. And analysis is not as topic-portable as intuition. So we’re content with using science as a verification, after we come to our best working-conclusions, without it.

      I like what you’re doing, in the round, but I responded because of my interest in the circuitry ‘promise’. Elevating the circuit-angle would elevate my interest-level. Has nothing to do with the Scientific Method … I intuit that circuitry is under-exploited, and thus contains a lot of potential.

      Tenacity is a broad trait of the science-active. James Hansen knew that, and now happily defiles himself with nuke-talk. Al Gore didn’t know that, and he’s spun out to the guard-rails. Charles Darwin pussy-footed happily along, until he was realistically beaten by Alfred Wallace. Got the shared-citation, only because he was beloved in the community … and Wallace was from the wrong side of the tracks.

      So the melee & ambiguity in climate is nothing new, scientifically.

      Negative results are underrated, too. Bottom-up ‘characteristically’ rallies the negatives (nope, not here; nope, not there) … but top-down can ride them, too, even in the presence of an incomplete – or outright bogus – conceptual model.

  55. I prefer a more simple calculation of climate sensitivity. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from 270 ppm to 400 ppm, or 130 ppm. Ergo, according to theory, the temperature increase to date should be 0.75 degrees based on the direct effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity estimates say the actual amount of observed warming should be much greater than that, 1.25 to 3.72 degrees.

    Okay, so how much actual warming have we observed since concentrations went from 270 to 400 ppm? Around 0.50 degrees. This implies that climate sensitivity is negative. Thinking a bit more about this – it seems unlikely that the earth, which has been around for a long time, and habitable by plants and animals, is dominated by positive climate feedback. Systems dominated by positive feedback don’t tend to be very stable for long periods of time. If they are something will come along and knock them out of whack.

    While the proposition that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas seems pretty settled to me, I don’t think it is very well understood what the magnitude of that impact might be. So far the actual data says…very small.

    And all of this is assuming that carbon dioxide concentrations are the dominant influencer of temperature, which is not proven.

    The beauty here is I don’t have to know all the input and output factors for determining temperature. We have run a giant experiment on the Earth, and the answer is…we obviously have low sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. There is simply no other possible conclusion.

    • A very well established opinion. The IPCC model (and the GCMs) show 50 % too high temperatures. The conclusion is that the IPCC model is too sensitive for CO2.

      • Exactly. What is even more interesting is that each IPCC report has revised the sensitivity number downward. It is still not low enough, but eventually they will begin to match reality.

    • So, you think it is physical to describe emissive power of a glowing rock, with a subzero trace gas that is a heat sink addition to the vacuum?

      From what you say, I can spray dry ice in the air of my house, and it will warm up.

      We have a problem with knowledge about thermodynamics. A worldwide problem.

      • a problem with knowledge about thermodynamics,

        Absolutely.
        To my mind its coming from the conflation of temperature with energy.

        So we have ‘warm object’ and ‘cool object’
        Both above zero Kelvin so both are radiating energy

        Cool object patently receives/absorbs radiation from Warm and its temperature will rise. Fine.
        Warm will see radiation from Cool and so everyone says will absorb it. It has to. Right OK.

        But what does Warm *do* with the energy it received from Cool?

        It CANNOT use it to raise its own temperature. It breaks every rule.

        So lets try Carnot and his heat engines to resolve what Warm does with Cool’s energy.
        Because that is what is going on here.
        Heat energy is heat energy and temperature is mechanical energy – the jiggling around of the molecules of whatever it is that has ‘temperature’

        I think that is where The Problem is.
        In a Carnot engine (heat > mechanical) the conversion from heat to mechanical can only be 100% efficient if the engine has an exhaust at a temperature of zero Kelvin.
        (The engine *has* to have an exhaust or it cannot function)

        The exhaust of the Carnot engine becomes a third player/part in the heat/temperature equations and scenario.
        We got a lecture just upthread about ‘Real’ and ‘Imaginary’ thermodynamics and why disbelievers of the GGGE are crazies.
        The text books only ever talk about 2 objects – Warm and Cool. They never countenance the Exhaust which you have to do converting heat to temperature.

        So.
        In the Carnot thinking about GHG energy absorption. yes CO2 absorbs heat energy coming from the dirt below. As long as the CO2 molecule was cooler than what emitted the heat radiation, it will raise its temp = it will become more mechanically energetic.
        But that conversion loses energy, some always goes down The Exhaust.
        The CO2 may absorb more energy, again getting warmer and again sending some down the exhaust. But as its warmer than last time, more goes down the exhaust.
        This may continue until the CO2 molecule is at the same temperature as the object that sent it the heat radiation when all the incoming energy is ‘sent down the exhaust’

        You ‘may’ consider that as being reflected and that is effectively what happens when Cools radiates upon Warm. The energy is certainly absorbed but because its no use for making any more mechanical movement, its all sent down the exhaust.

        Having an exhaust fits with the conservation of energy idea. Warm objects radiates, cool objects absorbs/keeps some of the energy and releases the remainder. The amount of energy is unchanged.

        The exhaust manifest itself as a flow of low quality (long wavelength) energy – stuff that appears to be coming from a *very* cold object.
        For CO2 molecules jiggling about in the atmosphere and all moving with different speeds as gas molecules do (the average speed determines the temperature), this radiation from the exhaust is spread across a wide bandwidth and is quite lost ‘in the noise’

        The CO2 molecules may re-radiate at their new high temperature (never more than that of the dirt below them) but. they will have be quick before their newly increased energy is stolen/shared by the other atmospheric gasses)
        But because of the Carnot restriction, this energy will simply be dumped down the exhaust of the dirt, The dirt will see a cool object radiating at it, absorb it then immediately re-radiate it. The dirt simply reflects the downwelling radiation from the CO2

        Meanwhile the CO2 is happily shredding the radiation via the Carnot engine. Taking in high temperature photons, slicing off whatever it can and dumping the rest as very long wavelength, vary cold photons into the emptiness of space because that, at 4 Kelvin, is the only place that will accept them.

        And all you really needed to know was that cO2, by being a heavy molecule compared to other gasses in the atmosphere, has higher thermal conductivity.

        Yes very lovely CO2isnotevil, but where are you describing as ‘the surface of the Earth’?
        All you lovely thought and calcs apply in the stratosphere, that’s where the energy moves around via radiation and that’s why there’ no weather there.
        Down here on the dirt, heat is constantly being converted & reconverted to mechanical energy. each conversion has a loss and putting CO2 into the air increases those losses – via Carnot and high thermal conductivity.

      • Peta,

        Both the warmer and colder objects are emitting, but the colder object is emitting less, so the warmer object is absorbing less from the cold object than it’s emitting itself, thus is still cooling, but at a slower rate.

        Now, if both the warmer and cooler object are themselves supplied with enough energy to maintain their temperature and prevent that cooling, then the adjacent cooler object will make the warmer object a little warmer, and this is basically what the radiative GHG effect is and why it doesn’t violate any laws of physics.

        In the case of the radiative GHG effect, the energy source maintaining the hotter objects temperature (the surface) is the Sun. The energy source maintaining the temperature of the cooler object (GHG molecules and clouds) is the surface, but the total fluxes in the system are still constrained by the incoming flux from the Sun as the energy of the surface emissions that are warming the cooler object came from the Sun a short time in the past and are now coincident with new solar energy arriving at the surface so that both must be combined to determine the incoming energy rate to the surface and the temperature that this rate will sustain.

      • Peta,

        The key thing to grasp regarding the radiative GHE is that the 2nd law doesn’t apply at the individual molecule or partical level, but only to bulk net flow, which must be from warm to cold (and not the other way around). Thus, emitted photons from the surface absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated back downwards towards the surface and reabsorbed at a lower point can result in the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface being warmer that it would otherwise be, even though the net flow of energy is still from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere (as it’s required to be to satisfy the 2nd law).

        Emitted photons themselves don’t have a temperature or tag saying what the temperature of their emitter was, and there’s just no escaping that absorbed photons warm.

      • But an emitted photon from low temperature has low energy in comparison to what the surface emits. And the energy levels which fit the low energy are already filled to the brim in molecules which is 33 degrees hotter. Any 15 micron photons that does reach the surface will make zero difference.

      • Peta,

        The key thing to grasp via the radiative GHE is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply at the individual particle level, but rather only to the direction of net or bulk flow, which it says can only be from warmer to colder (and not the other way around). The net flow of energy of the Earth atmosphere system is up away from the surface with the radiative GHE.

        Individual emitted photons don’t have a temperature or tags on them indicating the temperature of the object they were emitted from. If the surface has some of its IR emission absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated back downwards towards the surface, those downward re-emitted photons will warm the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface above what it would otherwise be in absence of the initial IR absorption from the surface (or if the surface radiated totally uninhibited straight into space).

        The re-radiation back downward of some of what’s absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface ultimately requires and/or ‘forces’ the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to be emitting up at higher rates (higher than 240 W/m^2) in order for the surface and the whole of the atmosphere to ‘pushing through’ the required 240 W/m^2 back out to space to achieve radiative balance with the Sun. It’s important to keep in mind that it’s the whole combined surface/atmosphere system that is in pure radiative equilibrium with the Sun — not just the upper atmosphere.

      • No matter if you have 10000 suns emitting 240W/m², you will never reach a temperature equal to more than 240W/m². Don’t you know that?

        It is not about number of photons, it is about density of higher energy states in the emitter, and that depends on the temperature.
        Only photons emitted from a source with higher density of higher energy levels, can heat a colder body. Just read any textbook on heat transfer and thermal energy to confirm that.

        Why do you think that adding *heat absorbers*, and not *heat emitters*, to a constant, limited heat flow, can increase the heat flow power of the heat source heating the absorber?

        The atmosphere is an extra heat sink added to the vacuum. Instead of heating only a solid, the limited and constant heat flow from the sun must also heat a very cold fluid.

        Since when does the addition of a cold fluid with water vapor and dry ice to a hot surface that heats the fluid, increase the power of its own heat source?

        Please give a non-greenhouse reference to support that claim.

      • Peta in Cumbria (now moved to Notts) August 21, 2017 at 2:07 pm

        But because of the Carnot restriction, this energy will simply be dumped down the exhaust of the dirt, The dirt will see a cool object radiating at it, absorb it then immediately re-radiate it. The dirt simply reflects the downwelling radiation from the CO2

        The ‘dirt will see’ a 15 micron photon whether from a hotter or cooler object it knows not, it just absorbs it!

      • You can believe what you want. If you prefer a calculation of emission at the surface that gives you an anser that is wrong by 33degrees, and then use cold damp air with dry ice as a heat source for a warm surface, that is your choice. I prefer proven models with flows of energy and forces, combined with geometri from observation. I get exact solutions for the three inner planets and the moon. What do you get?

      • lifeisthermal August 22, 2017 at 1:40 am
        And a 15 micron photon is emitted at 220K. How warm can a solid get from photons from a heat source at 220K?

        Wherever do you get that strange idea from?

        A blackbody at 300K emits 6.32128 W/m2/sr between 15 and 16 micron
        A blackbody at 220K emits 1.98652 W/m2/sr between 15 and 16 micron
        A blackbody at 320K emits 7.74974 W/m2/sr between 15 and 16 micron

        The temperature at which the photon is emitted is irrelevant the absorber knows the wavelength and energy of the photon not where and when it was emitted.

      • “The temperature at which the photon is emitted is irrelevant…”

        So, even though the theory of heat transfer is perfectly clear about that the transfer of heat depends on the difference in temperature, you claim the opposite.

        It’s about time you blanket-people pick up a textbook on heat transfer. I know you like fantasies about photon-blankets and unicorns in the sky, but this is ridiculous.

        You seem unaware of that tour statement violates proven and applied thermodynamic models. Which no sane person would even think about questioning.

        Heat, the “net” energy transferred, is the only energy that can raise temperature. Except for work, bit co2 does no work.
        *Heat transfer only goes from warm to cold, the rate depends on temperature difference*

        You say that temperature doesn’t matter. This is proof of the failure of gh-theory.

      • Look at co2:s action in the absorption spectrum from satellites.

        As you yourself provide examples of, photons and their energy depends on the power of the heat flow, the power of the heat flow doesn´t depend on the photons.

      • Temperature as a number in kelvin is pretty irrelevant. T⁴, on the other hand, is the REAL energy density of the heat flow in the point of measurement.

        Did you just decide to ignore that I wrote “equal to”, and decided to make a fool of yourself?

        Not much of an argument you provided. What do you think yourself, did you make a difference?

      • So you are entirely unaware of the foundation of thermodynamics? That the emissive power of a body with a temperature, is directly proportional to T^4? Only a constant turns T^4 into Watt/m^2. T^4 is the relation between a point and a surface of 1m^2.
        Emissive power and temperature is one and the same.

      • Oh, yeah, you blanket-people think that what words you use make a difference.

        Read carefully. The power of irradiance in sunlight is calculated as h.e.a.t. It doesn´t matter what words you use for it. The heat at the surface is mathematically equal to the “energy flow” from the sun. Any differences is then entirely a product of your assumptions, because calculations show that your words does not affect the physics of sunlight and heat flow.

      • Not sure how this is relevant.

        The point is, I don’t need to know what the mechanisms are, or understand all the feedback systems in a complex system are, I can simply derive the correct answer based on information readily available, using the theory they say is correct. Beyond this the science doesn’t really matter very much – let the experts spend decades deciphering it all, the point is that a crises is not imminent, and like won’t occur for hundreds of years.

      • These “experts” have constructed a theory which they preach as truth, and the theory is a violation of 100% consensus physics in every statement it does.

        It is based on the statement that earth surface is “colder than it should be”. This means that the theory starts out with saying: the laws of physics doesn´t work. Then it makes a claim about how the coldest part of the system, the fluid atmosphere, is a heat source.

        You need your rational glasses on now. A theory dismissing proven physics as a start, then say the coldest body of three is the “control knob” for heat, when two of them are glowing balls.

        Can you make a more flawed foundation of a physical theory? Everything in it is wrong, because everything is based on dismissing the proven physics for heat and temperature.

        I think you DO need to know what the mechanisms are.

      • “Temperature is a bulk property. So the 2nd law applies.”

        Yes it is, and yes the 2nd Law most certainly applies. What you’re missing is that the 2nd law is totally satisfied with the radiative GHE, as the net flow of energy is from warm to cold, i.e. from the surface upward as it’s required to be.

        You seem to not understand that the source of energy of the system is the Sun — not the colder atmosphere above the surface. There are effectively 3 bodies involved here: The Sun (the energy source of the system), the surface of Earth itself (and below), and the atmosphere in between the surface and space. All the atmosphere is essentially doing is slowing down the rate at which the system as a whole can cool by radiating into space. The GHE is simply requiring the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to emitting up at higher rates in order for the surface and the whole of the atmosphere together to be in radiative equilibrium with the Sun at the TOA.

      • Clausius:
        “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”

        This statement is based on heat engines. It is a conclusion coming from knowledge of the first law. Both laws describe all energy in a system, and they say that the observed system can be defined by the change in internal energy which is either accounted for as heat or turned into work. It also says in the second law: no heat is transferred against the gradient unless it is work. That´s it.

        Now, you say that it is the “net-flow”. Why? The law is complete, and there is no “net” involved.

        The laws of thermodynamics applies to EVERY process in a system, AND the whole system.
        In the bulk, energy transfers as heat or work according to potentials in different temperatures. From calculation of the surface and atmosphere we KNOW that there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface. Because it is on average 33 degrees colder.
        If there is no heat transferred from the cold, damp air, then it has to be work, right? Because there is no other transfer than heat or work.

        Please let me see you make an argument about how co2 does work on the surface.

        “The GHE is simply requiring the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to emitting up at higher rates in order for the surface and the whole of the atmosphere together to be in radiative equilibrium with the Sun at the TOA.”

        It is interesting that you make this claim. You write that the atmospher “require” increased power from its heat source. You claim that the solid surface emissive power depends on the cold, external fluid that absorbs the emitted heat.

        One of the early revelations about the emission of heat, and the relation to temperature, was handed to Prevost. He stated: the emission from a body depends on the internal state only.

        In what way is the atmosphere part of the solid surface internal state?
        Let me guess, the solid surface only is the “net”-internal state. And with photon-blankets that insulate the earth by doing the opposite of what thermal insulation does, the atmosphere transfer energy in violation with the 2nd law. And the atmosphere is the internal state, because unicorns.

        Why do you say that the emissive power of the solid surface depends on the external state in the atmosphere, when Prevost stated that it depends only on the internal state?

        It has not been questioned before, why do you question it?

      • No, they are part of a thermal field where heat is transferred. The flow of energy in the field has a power according to T^4. The field, and therefore the photons, transfer energy according to the fourth power of temperature. From the distribution vertically, it is clear that heat flow as probability from mean values in an instantaneous state, is a pretty exact model of reality using only temperature^4.

        How is this hard?

        The most functional laws of physics say that temperature^4 determines the potentials in the field. They do not include photons as an argument for heat flow from a cold fluid to its heat source. They specifically makes a universal law that accurately accounts for temperature and heat. There is absolutely no room for arguments about photons in heat transfer. Stop it.

        It´s like arguing about how many photons you need to light a fire. Heat and heat transfer does not include photons in calculations. What makes you think that you must include them?

        Temperature determines what photon does, what rules they obey in presence of temperature-potentials. Photons is quantum theory and absorption spectrum is the quantum behaviour of molecules in the bulk. The field strength in a point determines what the field does.

      • “There is absolutely no room for arguments about photons in heat transfer” except for when there is a vacumn between the source of the heat, and the object absorbing it.

      • Photons are unaffected by space and time in vacuum. That means that we have very clear limits on the system. We know exactly what the input power is, exactly what surface temperature is, and we have an effective temperature. From that we know exactly what the relationships are, everything in the system is driven by the heat flow measured in temperature. Heat flow density, power, work and temperature are the only independent physical relationship. Heat flow from any solid is the same at 798K, so heat flow doesn´t depend on mass. Doesn´t matter if it is a gas. A gas is low density matter, if heat flow is independent of a solid, then a gas is totally irrelevant for increasing temperature.

        Earth absorbs a finite amount of solar energy, the surface must balance that independent of the atmosphere. The heat flow density from a solid body depends only on the energy inside, the internal state.

        When you say”except for when there is a vacumn between the source of the heat”

        That is the exact situation that data from controlled experiments say is described fully by the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative transfer. Earth is in a vacuum. It can be considered as ideal circumstances and can be used for finding the limits of the system.

        A question, are you aware of that emission of heat from the surface at 384W/m^2 must have a source power according to the inverse square law, at 1536W? How do you manage that with the greenhouse?
        Take out the calculator and see what 16g^2 is.

      • Lifeisthermal says: “Temperature determines what photon does”

        That is not true. Electrons jumping between different energy levels (orbitals) are independent of temperature.

      • Maybe I´m not clear enough. The temperature includes all energy and forces in the field. It is the “net”. If you change temperature, you change everything. The electron needs a source of energy to jump, otherwise it is an example of creation of energy. The temperature represents heat flow, and that is what drives everything. The electron is entirely dependent on temperature. You cannot mean that the electrons in a field are excited equally in 100K as 500K?
        We can even determine temperature on a distance from excitance. A change in temperature is a change in energy levels.

      • –Mark S Johnson
        August 22, 2017 at 9:07 am

        PS…the stream of photons coming from the sun and striking the Earth is not a “heat flow” it is an energy flow…..again, two different things.–

        Would you agree that the solar energy at Earth distance in regards to perfect blackbody is about 120 C?

      • lifeisthermal August 22, 2017 at 7:38 am
        “The temperature at which the photon is emitted is irrelevant…”

        So, even though the theory of heat transfer is perfectly clear about that the transfer of heat depends on the difference in temperature, you claim the opposite.

        This was in response to your false assertion that “a 15 micron photon is emitted at 220K”
        As I pointed out a 15 micron photon can be emitted from bodies that are either colder or hotter than the surface absorbing them, the photon will be absorbed regardless of the temperature of its source.

        It’s about time you blanket-people pick up a textbook on heat transfer. I know you like fantasies about photon-blankets and unicorns in the sky, but this is ridiculous.

        You seem unaware of that tour statement violates proven and applied thermodynamic models. Which no sane person would even think about questioning.

        Your statement which I quoted is the one which “violates proven and applied thermodynamic models”.

  56. Thanks George for a very informative post. Worth a re-read for sure. Regarding this: “The 270K average temperature of the Moon would be the Earth’s average temperature if there were no GHG’s…” I agree the computed blackbody temperature for the Moon is 270K, no argument there. But, the Moon has a measured daytime average temperature of about 107C and an average nighttime average temperature of -153C. Averaging these two averages, with all the inherent dangers of such a move, we get 250K. This has always bothered me, any comment? It seems the two should be closer than that. Reference for temperatures: http://planetfacts.org/temperature-on-the-moon/

    • Andy,

      You need to either average emissions and convert the result to an EQUIVALENT temperature, or average the 4’th power of temperatures and then take the 4’th root. Doing either of these gets you to the correct average which will always be greater than the linear average of temperatures. There’s an example of this in another comment. Search for T2 to find it.

  57. “From what you say, I can spray dry ice in the air of my house, and it will warm up.”

    Nope that is not what the GHE is.
    It simply slows cooling of the hotter surface, by virtue of net heat transfer.
    IOW: both emit to each other but net flow is from hotter to colder, just as the 2nd LOT states
    Many experiments showing that my friend are available ….

    SO you will not get warmer … but you would stay warmer for longer.

    • Ok, that video ends the discussion. Do you ser a heat source heating a cold gas, and while heating a cold fluid, the power of the heat source increase?

      Can you increase the power of a limited constant heat flow with an absorbing cold fluid? Seriously?

      The emission from a body depends on the internal state only. How is the atmosphere a part of the solid surface internal state?

    • We get it, CO2 absorbs and thermalizes or reflects infra red. However, the experiment shows a closed system. The earths atmosphere is an open system. The warmer air would rise, along with the water vapor, leading to a dumping of heat at altitude. The real question is what is the climate sensitivity, which is the topic of this article.

  58. Many seem to be misled by all of the apparent complexity in the atmosphere. Yes, the atmosphere is certainly complex and I’m more than well aware of that complexity, however; whatever is measured for the average relationships between Pi, Po and T across a wide range of their values across 3 decades of 3 hour samples already accounts for the net effects of all that complexity. To the extent that these relationships are predictable, and the data suggests that they are, thus dT/dPi is also predictable, the complexity of how the system arrived at a state is irrelevant. All that matters is that in LTE, the system found its way into a thermodynamically balanced state where the measured average relationships between Pi, Po and T are what they need to be based on the requirement that the macroscopic properties of the planet must obey the laws of physics, specifically COE and SB, per my initial hypothesis.

    The main takeaway should be that trying to out psych all this complexity, which as we have seen in the comments is difficult to theorize, articulate and quantify, and then hope that the proper macroscopic relationships emerge from a simulation, is an exercise in futility unless you have a high level behavioral model to compare its results to. GCM’s attempt to do this modelling ‘open loop’ and is why their results are suspect at best.

    • “Yes, the atmosphere is certainly complex and I’m more than well aware of that complexity, however; whatever is measured for the average relationships between Pi, Po and T across a wide range of their values across 3 decades of 3 hour samples already accounts for the net effects of all that complexity.”

      This is the fundamental thing that apparently most everyone studying this subject (in the field and outside of it) doesn’t understand, and thus why they can’t understand your work and how you’re deriving and quantifying these things, including ultimately your best estimate sensitivity of about 0.35C per 2xCO2.

      In a nutshell, they don’t understand how you’re deducing a net incremental response from a newly imposed imbalance (like from added GHGs) from the prior measured net macroscopic behavior.

      • RW,
        As far as I can tell, the confusion arises as a consequence of all the complexity arm waived to make the macroscopic behavior appear to be far more complicated than the measurements say that it is. The many levels of obfuscation and misapplied terms don’t help either, nor does 3 decades of media misinformation, political interference and reams of deficient papers on the topic, the majority of which assume the high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC.

      • co2isnotevil,

        But even those on the skeptic/denier side of the issue, including those working in the field and publishing in it, can’t seem to understand any of it either (and they would prefer it be true). So I don’t know — you’ve managed to totally fake everyone out (or they’ve faked themselves out by layering on so much complexity in their minds that they can’t see the forest through the trees).

      • RW,

        Most in the field concentrate on trying to understand the complexities, so of course they will resist any notion that there’s a simpler way to go about determining the sensitivity. This has also been obvious in the comments where most objections are of the form, “The climate is too complicated for a simple model to work” and then vaguely defined complexities are cited as ‘proof’. How the result manifested itself is irrelevant to my model which only quantifies what that result MUST be.

    • Rational, logic thinking in a world of flying photon-blankets, dry ice as heat source and a theory based on complete violation of thermodynamic laws. It’s like stealing candy from kids;)

  59. The models are clearly useless – a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted.
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract:
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    The forecasts in Fig 12 of my paper are similar to those in Ludecke et al.
    DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044


    It is well past time for a paradigm shift in the forecasting methods used by establishment climate science. The whole dangerous global warming delusion is approaching collapse.

    • Norman Page,

      I agree that it’s mostly natural, at least. And the quasi-cyclic picture looks good to me.

      Maybe we don’t have all the cycles identified, and maybe there are inputs that are effectively random, tricking or evading us. If so, these could make predictions unreliable.

      But if there’s been a warm spell, a cool spell is likely to follow. Even within an overall long-term warming-trend.

      A string of cool years could discredit AGW, whatever causes them, and even to an extent, whatever happens afterward. Not scientifically pretty, but politically potent.

      For now, we just watch the monthly T-values come in, and wait.

  60. It’s the average temperature corresponding to the equivalent temperature of the cloud fraction weighted energy emitted by clouds, energy emitted by the surface and surface energy passing through the clouds
    all of which passes through GHG’s affecting selective attenuation of specific bands of energy. None the less, the data tells us that on average, the emissions of clouds are linearly related to the temperature of the surface.

  61. I do not agree with the determined commenters insisting this is a great article.

    The Fix

    Correcting broken science that’s been settled by a consensus is made more difficult by its support from recursive logic where the errors justify themselves by defining what the consensus believes. The best way forward is to establish a new consensus. This means not just falsifying beliefs that support the status quo, but more importantly, replacing those beliefs with something more definitively settled.”

    Form a “new” consensus?
    That is an absurd strawman.

    Consensus severely damages science; especially climate science.
    Alarmists use “consensus” as a method to tell people to “shut up”, not as a beacon of science.

    Every personal attack leveled at critics of climate science, uses consensus as the guiding principle where naysayers, critics and skeptics are equated to Nazis or traitors.
    “Think of your grandchildren!” Phoeey!

    “Since politics has taken sides, climate science has become driven by the rules of politics rather than the rules of science. Taking a page from how a political consensus arises, the two sides must first understand and acknowledge what they have in common before they can address where they differ.”

    What rules of politics are they?
    This comes across as somebody’s easy chair assumption, not hard facts.

    What about all of the activists that were allowed to enter and control positions of power?
    Where are the rules that “politics” can deny grants and loans to scientists that fail to swear fealty to the climate deity?

    Most of the American Government takes a very dim view regarding “adjusting” original data to push a position.
    The government arm I worked for regularly caught data adjusters, terminated their employment and often filed a criminal case.
    Yet, multiple branches of the government have allowed shoddy data handling procedures and actively seek to avoid correcting the irregularities.

    Multiple Inspector Generals and Assistant Attorney Generals have cases of their career sitting in front of them; yet they are ignoring the cases
    Or is that normal politics too?.

    “Alarmists and deniers alike believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that GHG gases contribute to making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and that the climate changes. The denier label used by alarmists applies to anyone who doesn’t accept everything the consensus believes with the implication being that truths supported by real science are also being denied. Surely, if one believes that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, that man isn’t putting CO2 into the atmosphere, that GHG’s don’t contribute to surface warmth, that the climate isn’t changing or that the laws of physics don’t apply, they would be in denial, but few skeptics are that uninformed.”

    What a mouthful of nonsense!

    A) CO2 is a GHG. Big deal. Now prove it as a true function of daily life in weather!
    -* That is not a remainder problem, that is a direct prediction followed by absolute and repeatable observations.

    B) GHG is making the surface warmer? Not unless proven!
    -* To date, normal variance trumps all CO2 warming. This is before asking the climastrologists to explain how CO2 warms three fourths of Earth’s surface, the ocean? Tell me, do you wet noodles to whip the water molecules and surface tension into GHG compliance?

    C) Allegedly, based on few measurements; CO2 was as low as 280PPM. Now that metric is around 400PPM.
    Placing the emphasis on molecules; that represents 2.8 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 atmospheric molecules rising to 4 molecules per ten thousand atmospheric molecules.

    That’s a huge increase of 1.2 molecules of CO2 per ten thousand; yet the alarmists want everyone to be afraid.
    That is sad!

    D) CO2 is barely a GHG. CO2’s ability to absorb and emit infrared light is restricted to an extremely narrow frequency band. Unlike water that absorbs and emits a very large portion of the available bandwidths.

    E) The denier label applies to anyone who doesn’t accept consensus science.
    -* Again, not true! The denier label is viciously applied to anyone who might upset the catastrophic apple cart. A playbook ruse directly meant to slander scientists; a ruse taken from various socialist societies and encouraged recently by Strong and Alinsky.

    F) Then that wonderful strawman summary, where if everyone doesn’t believe what you claim about CO2, they are in denial and therefore deserve the denier label?
    -* Nor does the psychological ploy to cause people to choose joining your side or being “left out”; make any sort of a science argument.

    -*
    People can believe whatever they want. It is what people can prove or disprove that makes science, not consensus, not group think, not politics, and especially not beliefs; yours or anyone else.

    Now prove CO2 GHG effects on today’s temperature! Or tomorrows temperatures.
    Not just one spot, but everywhere and at all elevations.

    After thirty years of:
    • false predictions,
    • specious claims,
    • weather models that automate disaster predictions,
    • Trillions wasted without solid results,
    • Publishers’ hijacked,
    • CAGW climate team members caught ruining careers, modifying data; for “the cause”.
    • Scientists refused publication because they “disbelieve”,
    • Science by press release. The dodgier the science, the louder and more widespread the press release,
    • Activists ensconced at major news agencies,
    • Weather bureaus that fire highly qualified skeptical scientists while retaining or hiring true CAGW believers, so that every weather news is now “climate change”.
    • Climate, a science that does not understand nor recognize natural variation; instead they want the MWP wiped off the graph,
    • without “adjustments” temperatures are well within normal, worldwide.
    • The tide is not rising, unless NOAA applies geoid model calculations, isostatic land rise, whatever first,
    • The Antarctic, with it’s faster polar warming, is not melting.
    • The Arctic looks to gain ice this year.
    • Greenland is gaining ice.

    Everything the CAGW CO2 cult has touched is laid waste. Without proving CO2’s actual GHG role in open atmosphere; yet managing to ignore all of the other atmospheric molecules.

  62. “Most skeptics would agree that if there was significant anthropogenic warming”

    Really? Got anything to back that up? Because it looks a bit like unadulterated horsesh*t to me.

    • Bartleby,

      If a significant anthropogenic source of catastrophic warming could be proven, I would definitely be for identifying ways to mitigate any damage and so would most of the other people I’ve discussed this with. Of course, like all political issues, there are extremists on all sides who take positions based on insufficient information.

      The problem is that alarmists believe this too, but they’re also deluded into believing that that there’s a case to be made for catastrophic warming from CO2 emissions since words like ‘settled’, ‘consensus’ and ‘den ier’ have powerful meanings and these words are echoed relentlessly by an MSM that doesn’t know any better.

      Because of my predisposition to act if catastrophic consequences could be proven and as a result of the multi-trillion dollar price tag of mitigation, I decided to do my own due diligence as my education and experience has provided me with the knowledge and tools to do so. The result of that due diligence was that there’s no need for alarm now or in the future and whatever minor warming will result from CO2 emissions is more than offset by the benefits to agriculture of more CO2 and the.benefits of a warmed climate, although a climate warm enough to notice it changed will be hard, if not impossible, to achieve with CO2 emissions.

      • “If a significant anthropogenic source of catastrophic warming could be proven, I would definitely be for identifying ways to mitigate any damage and so would most of the other people I’ve discussed this with.”

        And so, CO2isNotEvil, it would seem the problem is obvious; there is no such evidence?

      • “it would seem the problem is obvious; there is no such evidence?”

        That would be correct. However, there is a lot of evidence to support CO2 as a GHG and that GHG’s warm the surface. There’s also very good evidence, and from my analysis indisputable evidence, that the effect of incremental CO2 while finite, is no more than the lower limit of the effect claimed by the IPCC.

        This is the difference between an effect we might want to worry about and and effect we can consider more beneficial than harmful. A catastrophic effect is only an abstract potential consequence of the high end of the presumed sensitivity which is even more impossible than the claimed lower limit.

      • I might add that, on the heels of a magnificent tomato Caprese dinner, with fresh mozzarella, live basil, extra virgin olive oil, balsamic vinegar, salt and pepper to taste, my sense of imminent doom is greatly diminished.

      • ” However, there is a lot of evidence to support CO2 as a GHG and that GHG’s warm the surface. “

        There is conjecture. This isn’t science, and I’ll beg to differ with anyone who says otherwise.

        An unquantifiable effect is supposition. The proof, as always, is in the pudding.

      • “An unquantifiable effect is supposition.”

        But the effect of increased GHG’s is quantifiable and I’ve written a full 3-d atmospheric simulator driven by Hitran absorption line data that supports this. This is where my estimate of Fa came from, where I calculated absorption over a range of conditions and then averaged based on the area affected by each condition. If I double Co2, Fa increases a bit and the emissivity drops by about 1.5%, corresponding to a required temperature increase of about 1.1C to achieve the same TOT emissions which is consistent with my assertion that the LTE sensitivity (ECS) is somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 C per W/m^2 where doubling Co2 is EQUIVALENT to an increase in Pi of about 3.7 W/m^2.

        .

      • Yes, and I can also demonstrate that water, in sufficient quantity is toxic to air breathing life forms; this fact alone does nothing to demonstrate water is toxic.

        It’s a losing battle you’re waging CO2, temperature, by any unsullied measure, hasn’t risen during a time when more that 30% of all CO2 ever released by humans in the entire history of measurement, has been released.

        No observed effect. You can trundle out all the bell jars you like; there’s no quantifiable effect in the real world.

      • Bartleby,

        It seems that you’re accepting the opposite of the warmist who insist that all of the warming observed since the start of the IR (coincident with the the end of the LWIR) is from man made causes while you insist it’s all natural. I claim that the choice is not between one or the other, but it’s a combination of both.

        The effect from CO2 I predict is still less than the warming we have observed since the start of the IR and a significant amount of this must warming still have a natural cause as the rebound from the LIA.

      • “It seems that you’re accepting the opposite of the warmist who insist that all of the warming observed since the start of the IR…”

        No, I’m not accepting I, including your models and lab experiments.

        I’ve not observed and increase in temperature coincident with a rise in atmospheric CO2 fraction; not hard. No effect observed. End of conversation.

        “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”

        — Paul Simon, “The Boxer”

      • Bartleby,

        The approximately 0.3C to 0.5C that can be attributed to CO2 during the last 150 years is barely at the level of a temperature change perceptible to ordinary human senses and that would be if you’re lived for 150 years to have observed the change. But then again, the curvature of the Earth is also mostly beyond the ability of human senses to detect.

        There’s a big difference between no effect whatsoever and a small, inconsequential effect. Asserting the former is what leads to the de nier label while the later is supported by physics and is consistent with both sides of the science.

      • The result of that due diligence was that there’s no need for alarm now or in the future and whatever minor warming will result from CO2 emissions is more than offset by the benefits to agriculture of more CO2 and the.benefits of a warmed climate

        Pretty much the same findings that everyone who’s looked at the matter independently came to.

      • CO2isnotevii:

        In your reply to Bartleby (Aug. 21, 6:51 pm), you wrote “:If a significant anthropogenic source of catastrophic warming could be proven, I would definitely be for identifying ways to mitigate any damage”

        Actually a proven anthropogenic source which can lead to catastrophic warming DOES exist.

        The mechanism is the removal of dimming anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide emissions from the atmosphere due to Clean Air efforts.

        This is fully discussed in my on-line post “Climate Change Deciphered”, which can be viewed by Googling the title. (It should be added that all El Ninos are due to reductions in atmoospheric SO2 levels – a later discovery).

        Since there is currently around 80 Megatonnes of anthropogenic SO2 emissions in the atmosphere, continued reductions in that amount could lead to approx. 2 deg. C. of catastrophic additional warming.

        With respect to mitigation, all that needs to be done is to halt all additional efforts to reduce SO2 emissions (insofar as possible)

      • Burl,
        Your hypothesis seems to be based on the high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC. If a more rational sensitivity is applied, the effect on temperature will be significantly reduced.

      • co2isnotevil:

        You state “Your hypothesis…”

        No, it is not a hypothesis, just a correlation of existing facts.that has escaped everyone until now.

        You obviously did not read (or understand) my on-line post, or you would not have commented as you did.

      • “co2isnotevil August 21, 2017 at 7:52 pm

        “An unquantifiable effect is supposition.”

        But the effect of increased GHG’s is quantifiable and I’ve written a full 3-d atmospheric simulator driven by Hitran absorption line data that supports this. This is where my estimate of Fa came from, where I calculated absorption over a range of conditions and then averaged based on the area affected by each condition. If I double Co2, Fa increases a bit and the emissivity drops by about 1.5%, corresponding to a required temperature increase of about 1.1C to achieve the same TOT emissions which is consistent with my assertion that the LTE sensitivity (ECS) is somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 C per W/m^2 where doubling Co2 is EQUIVALENT to an increase in Pi of about 3.7 W/m^2.”

        A full 3-D atmospheric simulation?

        One that includes all of the gases, in their proper proportions, including water?

        One that recognizes the very limited absorption/emission spectra available to CO2?

        How did you randomize the infrared emission direction?

        Did every molecule receive an infrared emission that was explicitly emitted by surface or atmospheric molecules?
        Or was there a general equation fudging the absorption/emission/absorption rates?

        Somehow, I doubt the 3-D model is an exact replication of atmosphere. leaving the latter case more likely.

        It still comes down to, proved a definitive prediction that can be proven by observations.

        “”co2isnotevil August 21, 2017
        Because of my predisposition to act if catastrophic consequences could be proven and as a result of the multi-trillion dollar price tag of mitigation,”

        That is your personal problem, not mine, not ours, not anybody else’s. It is your choice of fears.

        If there were possible catastrophic consequences” Based on what historical references?
        When have higher CO2 levels or higher Earth temperatures ever caused “catastrophic consequences”?

        Forget using the specious correlations used by climastrologists trying to infer CO2 caused extinctions. In each case, the climastrologists string together ever more unlikely scenarios while ignoring immense gaps in timelines.
        It falls back to prove it or move on with your “the Earth is ending” placards.

        Warmer periods are termed “optimums”, for very good reasons. It is the cold periods that are deadly to life and humans.

        Even blaming mankind for the CO2 increase, mankind has only managed 1.2 molecules of CO2 per ten thousand atmospheric molecules over the past century.

        That people have unreasonable expectations for those 1.2 CO2 molecules is severe understatement.

      • A full 3-D atmospheric simulation?

        I can dial in as many horizontal slices as I want and any grid size. It happens that when you reach a certain number of layers and a small enough grid size, taking it to the limit doesn’t change the results. The larger the grids and the smaller the slices, the more digits of precision are generated and the long the computations take. Obviously, you don’t need many digits of precision …

        One that includes all of the gases, in their proper proportions, including water?

        The gases I included, in order of importance, were, H2O, CO2, O3, CH4, N2O, CO and even O2 absorption.

        One that recognizes the very limited absorption/emission spectra available to CO2?

        It was driven by HITRAN line data which does this implicitly.

        How did you randomize the infrared emission direction?

        By insuring that as a bulk property and absent of clouds, the flux of energy absorbed by GHG’s leaving the top of the atmosphere was equal to that being returned to the surface.

        Did every molecule receive an infrared emission that was explicitly emitted by surface or atmospheric molecules?

        Obviously not every molecule by itself, but as a statistical population, yes, however only the water in clouds and GHG’s emit any appreciable amount energy within the atmosphere.

        Or was there a general equation fudging the absorption/emission/absorption rates?

        No.

        BTW, no simulation of the atmosphere is exact, the best we can do is approximate it, but given enough information, it’s possible to get arbitrarily close.

    • Most skeptics would agree that if there was significant anthropogenic warming, we should take steps to prepare for any consequences.

      Unadulterated? What adulterants were tested? Where’s the data?

      • You just need to test the horsesh*t for adulterants Ted. If it’s not pure horsesh*t it will be obvious.

        Yeah, it’s hard to find qualified testers. There are standards, and tests!

        Today, there are very few skeptics. And many are facultative, expressing themselves variably, depending on the environment.

        But tomorrow there will be billions of long-time skeptics, dyed in the wool for decades.

        Where’s the purity-fraction then? It’s not an easy mission, Bartleby.

      • I have to agree with the above series of exchanges.

        For sure, CO2 is a radiative gas, the laboratory properties of which are known, but there is no evidence that it is a GHG, at any rate at levels exceeding about 200 ppm. It is mere supposition and conjecture that CO2 is a GHG. It maybe, or it may not be but only proper observational empirical evidence will establish that.

        I even have issues with temperature rise since the 1940s. I would wish to see a proper re-measurement of the NH before I would accept that today the NH is any warmer than it was in the late 1930s/1940s.I am far convinced that there has been any significant warming these past 75 or so years. For sure there has been multidecadal variation, but I am far from convinced that the globe in 2017 is any warmer than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s notwithstanding the fact that this period encompasses some 95% of all manmade emissions.

      • ” … but there is no evidence that it is a GHG, at any rate at levels exceeding about 200 ppm …”

        This not true. A true statement would be “but there is no evidence that it has a GHG effect, radiant or otherwise, as large as the IPCC claims at any concentration”.

        There’s definitely evidence that the incremental effect due to increasing GHG concentrations is not zero, both as theory and by experiment. While the effect gets smaller as concentrations rise, it never drops to zero.

        They’ve clearly over-estimated the sensitivity by a wide margin and it seems likely that they also over-estimated the equivalent forcing of doubling CO2 concentrations by not accounting for incremental absorption by the atmosphere that’s ultimately emitted into space. I haven’t addressed the equivalent forcing issue because its not necessary given by how much they over-estimated the sensitivity.

      • riichard verney:

        Average global temperatures in 2017 are clearly higher than they were in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, with NH.temperatures being even higher

        For a complete explanation of what has happened to Earth’s climate since 1850, Google “Climate Change Deciphered”..

  63. Something else I’ve noticed is that the IPCC and its ‘consensus’ has been adding layer upon layer of obfuscation to the concept of sensitivity and perhaps this is confusing many, as this is what the goal seems to have been.

    One thing Hansen did get more or less right with his feedback paper was to express gain (sensitivity) as the dimensionless ratio of W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing. Schlesinger changed this along with his ‘corrections’ for Hansen’s other errors, to be a change in temperature per W/m^2 of forcing.

    The most relevant sensitivity from AR1 was the sensitivity factor of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2 where doubling CO2 was equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 of solar forcing, keeping the system constant and even then it was detached from the more meaningful and far less plausible metric of 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing. Schlesinger changed the dimensions of the metric in order to add the conversion from W/m^2 to T as part of the open loop gain (and then undo it to calculate feedback) and to differentiate between the asserted sensitivity as being incremental and the average sensitivity of only 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of accumulated solar forcing.

    Somewhere along the line, the sensitivity was reinterpreted to be the temperature effect from doubling Co2, combining the 0.8 +/- 0.4 sensitivity factor and the 3.7 equivalent forcing into a single metric.

    The more recent layer of obfuscation are the various RCP scenarios where the number following RPC is the presumed forcing in W/m^2 with a temperature effect is still assumed to be 0.8 +/- 0.4C per W/m^2, where the CO2 increase is backed out assuming 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent forcing per doubling. The scenarios are further expressed as representing various scenarios assuming business as usual, blah, blah, blah.

    WTF

  64. Hi George

    I did not manage to read through all of it, and mostly I could not wrap my had around all you are saying. The funny thing however is, that quite a number of parts could have been taken from my essay..

    https://www.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid

    Note: my essay contains one major mistake, making it pretty useless as it is. Ocean water emissivity is not what I calculated it to be (~0.84), but rather 0.94. So I will need to rewrite it anyhow.
    Yet it contains a lot of usefull facts, and most notably the model still works, with the best part being my analysis of weather data to determine the magnitude of cloud forcing.
    Note that if cloud forcing was only about 30W/m2 (like the IPCC claims), and we assumed clouds to cover an average 30% of the surface, we could assume 30/0.3 = 100W/m2 of cloud forcing for an all overcast sky.
    Now average emissions will be about 236W/m2 (corresponging to amount solar radiation received 342*(1-0.31) in this case), and that will be down from about 390W/m2 the surface would emit at its given average temperature. The the total “GHE” would amount to 390 – 236 = 154W/m2. Yet this would be including cloud forcing. Without clouds, average emissions would then rather be 236 + 30 = 266.
    So an all overcast sky should reduve emissions by 100/266 = 37.6% vs. a clear sky. But that is not what we can observe. Rather I had the impression, that nocturnal cooling was much more strongly impaired by clouds, at least by up to 2/3s or so.
    So had to analyze weather data to some usefull and quantifiable results. This is what it looks like:

    Without going through the details hereto, it shows that cloud forcing must be massive. An all overcast scenario is diminishing night time cooling by a 85%. On average however, and I discussed this in my essay, clouds seem to impair emissivity by a 35%.
    35% of 266W/m2 would be 93W/m2. However that includes the assumption of cloud forcind being only 30W/m2, which does not hold true, obviously. We could solve that by an iterative process, or just bring up a reasonable formula. With x standing for cloud forcing, the equation would be x = 0,35 * (236 + x), which is true for x = 127.
    So cloud forcing amounts to 127W/m2, that is out of a GHE of 154W/m2. That would leave only 27W/m2 for the remaining GHE, but only of surface emissivity was indeed 1. Emissivity however is less than 1, and if we take a chance and include clouds with the surface (as we do when we talk about absorptivity), then it is (236 + 127) / 390 = 0.93.
    As emissivity of water is about 0.94, and land has definitely a lower emissivty, this figure seems to satisfy it all. With a surface emissivity of 0.93 (a drop of 27W/m2 vs. a perfect black body), and a cloud forcing of 127W/m2, the total GHE of 154W/m2 is explained. And that is without any green house gas.

    • Leitwolf,
      Yes the warming effect from clouds is more than 30 W/m^2. The top of clouds have an emission temperature of about 265K with corresponding to emissions over 240 W/m^2, which even adjusted down for emissivity is far more than 30 W/m^2 since an approximately equal amount of energy must be directed back down to the surface.

      One thing to be wary about cloud coverage is that it must be specified as some average emissivity. For example, the 66% of the surface covered by clouds in the ISCCP data is based on average clouds having an emissivity of about 0.72 as this also encompasses a significant fraction of partly cloudy conditions. If instead, you selected the cloudy threshold to have an average emissivity of 0.9, the fraction of the surface covered by clouds would be much less.

      • To co2isnotevil. It looks like that you are capable to carry out spectral analyses using line-by-line calculations.. It also looks like that you have never questioned the RF formula of Myhre et al., which is the basis of IPCC’s simple model and all GCMs (that is why their results are almost the same). The evidence is not in the fact, that it has been used in so many research studies. This was the answer what I got from Harde, when I asked, why he is using the Myhre’s formula. I recommend you carry out or reproduce the original study of Myhre et al. I did, and I got a different result, link: http://www.seipub.org/DES/paperInfo.aspx?ID=17162

        In doing so, the calculation will give the answer directly, what is the surface temperature increase needed to increase the surface emitted LW radiation in order to keep the ourgoing LW radiation in the same value for CO2 concentration of 560 ppm as it was for the value of 280 ppm. The climate sensitivity of my calculations were 0.6 Celsius degrees. A funny thing is that Myhre et al. did not show this temperature value but only the RF values. The calculations must be carried out by trial and error, because otherwise it is not possible to find out the outgoing radiation value being exactly the same for two CO2 concentrations 280 ppm and 560 ppm.

      • This is something I did a long time ago and have a table of this somewhere and code to reproduce it, but its late here now, so I will look at it tomorrow. If I recall, I had to increase the surface temp by less than 1C to achieve the same energy at TOT after doubling Co2 and no where near the 3C claimed by the IPCC.

      • aveollila,
        This was something I did way back in 2010 and I can’t seem to find table, which is probably on one of my decommissioned computers. It would probably be easier to reconstruct this which I will put on my list of things to do and try to get to it over the next few days.

        I did find some a log of some clear sky results for the difference between 280 ppm and 560 ppm, but this didn’t have the results from adjusting the surface temp to equalize emissions. One of the things that I noticed, but had forgotten about was that as CO2 absorption increases, H2O absorption decreases owing to the overlap between the two sets of absorption lines. The H2O absorption decrease is equal to about 20-25% of the CO2 absorption increase.

      • aveolilla,

        “what is the surface temperature increase needed to increase the surface emitted LW radiation in order to keep the ourgoing LW radiation in the same value for CO2 concentration of 560 ppm as it was for the value of 280 ppm.”

        If assumed that the 3.7 W/m^2 of RF is equal Pi (post albedo solar power in), it would be about 1.1C intrinsically, but this assumption is almost certainly wrong; and half of that or around 0.55C is probably correct. This is because the 3.7 W/m^2 is just the additional instantaneous up IR capture from the surface, and is henceforth re-radiated both up and down in the atmosphere in roughly equal proportions (i.e. henceforth acts to both warm and cool in roughly equal proportions).

        co2isnotevil has devised a black box exercise to quantify for this and it yields/supports that it is pretty close to half, or for 2xCO2 only about 0.55C of theoretical intrinsic surface warming ability.

  65. Modeling the GHGE.
    1. You cannot model an average. Behavior changes depending on latitude, time of day, and season, etc. E.g. At the poles the ratio of CO2:H2O is about 1:1. At the equator the ratio is more like 1:1000. Whatever changes the ratio of CO2:H2O changes how the GHGE works.
    2. To the best of my knowledge the alarmist description of how the GHGE works is wrong. I’ve been told “the photon absorbed is immediately re-emitted”. That is demonstratively false. The photon absorbed is thermalized because re-emission takes many milliseconds. Each millisecond sees an air molecule experience about 1 million collisions with other air molecules. So the energy absorbed must be shared about. In those circumstances I don’t see how re-emission can happen at the same frequency. It seems likely to me that radiative emissions from air will tend to happen at lower energies. Because more molecules have that much energy available. I believe water vapour has many such low energy bands. All this makes modeling the GHGE quite difficult. I’d love to know what Will Happer has to say about the fine detail of this!
    Given all this, I’m not surprised alarmists obfuscate everything they do. To be convinced by alarmists GHGE predictions I want to see the science they did on points 1 & 2 (above). Science = data collection and experiment; not hypothetical modeling based on inadequate understanding and data.

    • Of course you can model an average, and I guess it’s much easier to do that than try a real simulation. Problem is: the result you get does not really have any real world meaning. That’s what I really meant by can’t model an average. Once you start modeling averages, you need to demonstrate the result makes sense by validating it against the real world.

    • ““the photon absorbed is immediately re-emitted”. I do not know from which source, this quotation is coming, but it is wrong. If a photon has been absorbed and then re-emitted immediately, there is actually no absorption. In absorption process, a photon is absorbed, it creates mechanical movements between atoms of this GH gas molecule, which means increase of thermal energy, and thereafter this molecule re-emits another photon with lower frequency, which means a lower energy level.

    • mark,

      “You cannot model an average. Behavior changes depending on latitude, time of day, and season, etc.”

      I’m measuring changes in the yearly average of adjacent slices of mid latitude, close to the slices which have an average temperature representative of the average of the whole. The poles do get squirrelly, especially during winter months, but the poles represent only a small fraction of the area of the planet.

      “The photon absorbed is thermalized because re-emission takes many milliseconds. Each millisecond sees an air molecule experience about 1 million collisions with other air molecules.”

      Except that no energy is converted between the state energy of an energized GHG molecule and the kinetic energy of translational motion by a collision. Quantum mechanics requires the entire quanta of absorbed energy be absorbed or emitted as a single event so the most likely event is that a collision will cause an energized GHG molecule to emit a photon and return to the ground state. The photon of energy is never ‘thermalized’ unless it happens to be absorbed by the liquid or solid water in clouds, or the sensor of a thermometer, and the entire quanta is thermalized at once. Of course, each re-emission pair involves a new photon of the same energy as the absorbed photon.

      The exception is collisional broadening, where small amounts of energy can be added to or subtracted from the photon energy and added or subtracted from the energy of the collision resulting in the absorption or emission of a photon a little bit on either side of the central resonance. Since this has an equal probability of subtracting from or adding to the collision energy, no net ‘thermalization’ occurs. Besides collisional broadening is a low probability event at the relatively low pressures found in the atmosphere.

      • co2isnotevil August 21, 2017 at 11:38 pm
        “The photon absorbed is thermalized because re-emission takes many milliseconds. Each millisecond sees an air molecule experience about 1 million collisions with other air molecules.”

        Except that no energy is converted between the state energy of an energized GHG molecule and the kinetic energy of translational motion by a collision. Quantum mechanics requires the entire quanta of absorbed energy be absorbed or emitted as a single event so the most likely event is that a collision will cause an energized GHG molecule to emit a photon and return to the ground state. The photon of energy is never ‘thermalized’ unless it happens to be absorbed by the liquid or solid water in clouds, or the sensor of a thermometer, and the entire quanta is thermalized at once. Of course, each re-emission pair involves a new photon of the same energy as the absorbed photon.

        Not true, when an IR photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule its vibrational and rotational levels are increased, collisions can remove energy and reduce the ro/vib to lower levels. At atmospheric pressure the number of collisions is so high that the most likely result is that the excited state is deactivated by exchange to the surrounding gas molecules. High up in the atmosphere at lower pressure the collisional deactivation rate is lower so it is more likely that a photon will be emitted. The entire original exciting quantum does not have to be thermalized at once.

      • Phill,
        The rotational states of CO2 are in the microwave region and have very low energies. These are responsible for the fine structure in the absorption spectrum, but this fine structure is symmetric on either side of the primary lines which means that energy can be either added to or subtracted from rotational states upon the absorption or emission of a photon so to the extent that rotational state energy itself can be converted into translation motion, it works both ways and the net is zero.

      • co2isnotevil August 22, 2017 at 8:40 am
        Phill,
        The rotational states of CO2 are in the microwave region and have very low energies. These are responsible for the fine structure in the absorption spectrum, but this fine structure is symmetric on either side of the primary lines which means that energy can be either added to or subtracted from rotational states upon the absorption or emission of a photon so to the extent that rotational state energy itself can be converted into translation motion, it works both ways and the net is zero.

        No. When CO2 absorbs a photon in the 15 micron band it is excited from a rotational level in the ground vibrational level to another rotational level in the v=1 vibrational level. Let’s take it’s the v=1, J=7 level, 96% of the colliding molecules have a lower kinetic energy than that so energy can be chipped away a level at a time by the thousands of collisions that occur during the radiational lifetime of the excited state. The normal selection rules don’t apply to collisional deactivation. While it is possible that some energy can be added the net effect is a decrease in energy, this has been observed in fluorescence studies. The CO2 laser relies on collisional deactivation of the lower state by Helium to achieve population inversion.

      • Phil,
        “so energy can be chipped away a level at a time by the thousands of collisions”

        No. The energy stored as state energy is stored as a resonant wave in the E-fields of the molecules electron cloud. Once you remove a little bit of the energy and move away from resonance, the probability of spontaneous emission starts to increase dramatically. Quantum Mechanics precludes what you say is occurring and dictates that the entire quanta of state energy must be be emitted or transferred in a single event. This means either emitting a photon or exchanging state with another similar GHG molecule. Conditions can push resonance a little bit on either side, but no where near far enough to maintain the state when energy is ‘chipped away’ a tiny bit at a time.

      • co2isnotevil August 23, 2017 at 10:45 am
        Phil,
        “so energy can be chipped away a level at a time by the thousands of collisions”

        No. The energy stored as state energy is stored as a resonant wave in the E-fields of the molecules electron cloud. Once you remove a little bit of the energy and move away from resonance, the probability of spontaneous emission starts to increase dramatically. Quantum Mechanics precludes what you say is occurring and dictates that the entire quanta of state energy must be be emitted or transferred in a single event. This means either emitting a photon or exchanging state with another similar GHG molecule. Conditions can push resonance a little bit on either side, but no where near far enough to maintain the state when energy is ‘chipped away’ a tiny bit at a time.

        I think you need to study some quantum mechanics, we are talking about rotational and vibrational transitions not electronic transitions. If what you said was true there would no ‘Stokes shift’ in fluorescence photography.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_shift

      • Phil,
        “… we are talking about rotational and vibrational transitions not electronic transitions.”

        No we’re not. We’re talking about solutions to Schroedinger’s Wave equation. While this is far easier to apply when describing photon absorption and emission of something simple like a Hydrogen atom, none the less, the basic concepts described by this equation apply to the absorption and emission of photons to/from any atom or molecule. Why do you think gases have absorption lines and not an absorption continuum like that exhibited by solids or liquids?

        You seem to be conflating the kinetic energy of mass in motion with quantized state energy stored as a resonant wave in the electron cloud of an atom or molecule. These two forms of energy are not arbitrarily interchangeable.

      • co2isnotevil August 23, 2017 at 12:04 pm
        Phil,
        “… we are talking about rotational and vibrational transitions not electronic transitions.”

        No we’re not. We’re talking about solutions to Schroedinger’s Wave equation. While this is far easier to apply when describing photon absorption and emission of something simple like a Hydrogen atom, none the less, the basic concepts described by this equation apply to the absorption and emission of photons to/from any atom or molecule. Why do you think gases have absorption lines and not an absorption continuum like that exhibited by solids or liquids?

        You seem to be conflating the kinetic energy of mass in motion with quantized state energy stored as a resonant wave in the electron cloud of an atom or molecule. These two forms of energy are not arbitrarily interchangeable.

        Your interpretation of QM is unable to explain the reality of what happens. The idea that the vibrational state of a molecule is a resonant wave in the electron cloud is nonsense, it is the nuclei that are moving. Explain the observations in Fig. 5.

        http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed059p446

      • Phil,

        What about this relates to how GHG’s operate in the atmosphere? The energy densities for laser induced florescence don’t occur in the atmosphere, except perhaps in a bolt of lightning. Even a 30 mw laser focused on a 10 mm^2 spot has an energy density of 3000 W/m^2. It’s important to understand that all of my comments are related to what’s happening in the atmosphere that’s being modelled by the top down behavioral model.

        Certainly, at high enough temperatures, collisions can induce energized states, but again, I’m focusing on what happens in the atmosphere, not what happens under more extreme conditions. In a particle accelerator, translational energy from colliding particles is converted into streams of high velocity particles, i.e. converting energy to fast moving mass, but this doesn’t happen in the atmosphere either except when the odd cosmic ray or when particles from a CME interacts with molecules high up in the atmosphere.

        I’ve also become more convinced that there are 2 kinds of ‘rotation’. One is a physical rotation of mass which can rotate at any speed and for all intents and purposes is not quantized and that this is the rotational degree of freedom that can readily exchange energy with spatial degrees of freedom. The other is more like spin where only the electrons E-fields are rotating in a resonant state where the allowed energies are clearly quantized and the rotation rate is very fast with periods on the order of a sub-harmonic of the Compton Frequency. At the energy densities found in the atmosphere, this can only exchange energy with other EM states, for example, vibration.

        Pedantic theory suggests that Equipartition of Energy applies in the limit, but clearly, this is a macroscopic property of the aggregate and does not apply individually to molecules, moreover; the energy of the photons involved with GHG absorption and emissions are already about the same as the kinetic energy of molecules in motion, thus is already equalized. Presuming that the arbitrary conversion between these two types of energy is required for conformance to Equipartition of Energy, which isn’t even required since they are already equalized in the bulk, seems to be the origin of climate science errors related to ‘thermalization’. Measurements of the emitted spectrum of the planet also contradict the idea that any significant amount of ‘thermalization’ is occurring. If it was, we would expect nearly infinite attenuation in the absorption bands, yet we only observe about a 3db reduction (a factor of 2).

        You didn’t answer my question about the significance of the impedance quantified by 2h/q^2 which is fundamental to why allowed state energies are constrained by resonances. I’ll give you some more hints. The ratio between the impedance of free space and this impedance is the only dimensionless physical constant. One more hint is that it can be derived by EQUIVALENTLY modelling photons and electrons as obeying Maxwell’s Equations.

      • co2isnotevil August 24, 2017 at 9:54 am
        Phil,

        What about this relates to how GHG’s operate in the atmosphere? The energy densities for laser induced florescence don’t occur in the atmosphere, except perhaps in a bolt of lightning. Even a 30 mw laser focused on a 10 mm^2 spot has an energy density of 3000 W/m^2. It’s important to understand that all of my comments are related to what’s happening in the atmosphere that’s being modelled by the top down behavioral model.

        The QM is the same, the advantage of using the laser is the ability to tune the exciting wavelength to excite a single state and study its subsequent behavior. Just because there are more photons doesn’t change what happens. You keep referring to electrons, we’re not talking about electronic transitions, the transitions in the IR are rotational-vibrational motions of the atoms in the molecules. These motions are quantized but can still exchange energy by collisions with other molecules, mostly the energy is transferred to the translational motion of the collision partner but can also involve vibrational modes if there is a matching energy separation, e.g. N2 to CO2 in a CO2 laser.

        moreover; the energy of the photons involved with GHG absorption and emissions are already about the same as the kinetic energy of molecules in motion, thus is already equalized.

        Actually at 300K only about 4% of the molecules have kinetic energy equal to or more than the photon energy the majority are significantly lower, at 220K it’s more like 1%.

      • When we are taking about GHG absorption and emission, we are definitely talking about electron shells absorbing and emitting photons. When an atom or molecule absorbs a photon, that energy is added to or subtracted from the energy of the electrons. This is why only photons with specific energies and not all energies can be absorbed. The energy has to ‘fit’ within the molecules shared electron fields and if you add enough, you can disassociated the atoms in the molecule.

        From E = hv, the energy of a 15u photon, which in the middle of the major CO2 absorption band, is about 1.3E-20 joules. From E = 1/2mv^2, the average velocity of an air molecule is about 500 m/sec and the mass of a CO2 molecule is 44 AMU or about 7E-26 kg making its kinetic energy 8.8E-21 which is only about 10% less then the photons involved with CO2 absorption, so its a lot closer than you think.

      • co2isnotevil August 24, 2017 at 11:18 pm
        When we are taking about GHG absorption and emission, we are definitely talking about electron shells absorbing and emitting photons. When an atom or molecule absorbs a photon, that energy is added to or subtracted from the energy of the electrons. This is why only photons with specific energies and not all energies can be absorbed. The energy has to ‘fit’ within the molecules shared electron fields and if you add enough, you can disassociated the atoms in the molecule.

        The main absorption band of CO2 in the atmosphere is the bending mode, the energy absorbed causes the molecule to bend, i.e. the atoms are caused to move in space relative to each other.
        Here’s a nice illustration of the CO2 bending mode:
        http://www.chemtube3d.com/vibrationsCO2.htm

        From E = hv, the energy of a 15u photon, which in the middle of the major CO2 absorption band, is about 1.3E-20 joules. From E = 1/2mv^2, the average velocity of an air molecule is about 500 m/sec and the mass of a CO2 molecule is 44 AMU or about 7E-26 kg making its kinetic energy 8.8E-21 which is only about 10% less then the photons involved with CO2 absorption, so its a lot closer than you think.

        I was taking T=220K since we were talking about the stratosphere, in which case the average kinetic energy is: 0.455E-20 J
        Only about 1.4% of the molecules have kinetic energy more than 1.3E-20 J
        A CO2 molecule with the average kinetic energy will have an rms velocity of ~350 m/s (N2 ~440 m/s)

        For 300 K the corresponding values are:
        0.62E-20 J
        4%
        412 m/s

        In other words it isn’t as close as you think.

      • Phil.

        ” … the atoms are caused to move in space relative to each other.”

        It’s only the electron shell bending around nuclei that remain relatively stationary. The vibrations are very fast and the inertial of the nuclei prevents them from moving very far. Keep in mind that the diameter of an atom (1E-10) is about 5000 times greater than the diameter of the nucleus (2E-15).

        Relative to the energy balance and the sensitivity, which is all I’m concerned about here, the stratosphere is mostly irrelevant as most of the planets emissions originate at lower levels in the atmosphere, moreover; most of the GHG effect that’s related to the surface temperature occurs in the lower troposphere.

      • Phil,

        If your point of view is correct, why don’t we see narrow band absorption converted into broadband (Planck) emission, as we would in liquid or solid? This is the basic question that I’ve yet to see anyone actually answer who thinks the absorbed IR in the atmosphere is ‘thermalized’ by collisions with the non-GHG molecules.

        You are aware that the only way the mainstream view or theory of atmospheric radiation works is if Kirchoff’s law is applied to each wavelength independently (except if absorbed by the condensed water in clouds), right?

        If the end result of the physics is different, there has to be different physics occurring, otherwise the result would be the same whether one is dealing with a liquid, a solid, or a gas. But it’s not the same.

      • RW,

        Exactly correct. The assumption that Kirchoff’s Law and Equipartition of Energy must be adhered to at the limit (i.e. as the space delta goes to zero) seems to be the fundamental problem. Both of these are bulk properties and not properties of individual atoms or molecules. It’s all about statistical distributions and not absolutes.

      • RW August 25, 2017 at 8:52 am
        Phil,

        If your point of view is correct, why don’t we see narrow band absorption converted into broadband (Planck) emission, as we would in liquid or solid? This is the basic question that I’ve yet to see anyone actually answer who thinks the absorbed IR in the atmosphere is ‘thermalized’ by collisions with the non-GHG molecules.

        Because the physics of the condensed phases are different from the physics of gases. Typically gases have line spectra, if you illuminate CO2 with a single wave length at low pressure you’ll get a few lines emitted from that energy level. Add a little N2 and you’ll get multiple lines from the original level and other lower levels which have been populated by collisions. Add more N2 and the emission lines disappear because the energy is all transferred to the translational modes of the N2. Even if by chance the energy was transferred to a vibrational mode of a N2 molecule (would require an highly excited CO2 molecule) there still wouldn’t be an emission because N2 doesn’t emit at that wavelength.

        If the end result of the physics is different, there has to be different physics occurring, otherwise the result would be the same whether one is dealing with a liquid, a solid, or a gas. But it’s not the same.

        Exactly, the physics is different.

      • Phil.

        The effect you are seeing is that when a collision occurs and the energy is high enough, lower energy states can be energized or returned to the ground state by emission, with equal probability. Another effect is that a collision with an energized molecule can result in not all of the energy being emitted as a photon, but a fraction of the energy can be retained to energize a lower energy state, for example, the uwave rotation bands of CO2. To the extent that energy is added to the linear kinetic energy, it’s also removed in equal and opposite amounts so the net average is zero.

        One experiment you should try is to see what the emission spectra looks like when the heat applied is coming from a laser in the transparent region of the spectrum. If the laser is tuned slightly above or below the primary line without increasing the likelyhood of collisions, you will see more emissions in the lower energy bands. And of course, the total energy involved in the uwave region is such a tiny fraction of the whole, any net exchange would be imperceptible anyway.

      • Phil.

        The effect you are seeing is that when a collision occurs and the energy is high enough, lower energy states can be energized or returned to the ground state by emission, with equal probability. Another effect is that a collision with an energized molecule can result in not all of the energy being emitted as a photon, but a fraction of the energy can be retained to energize a lower energy state, for example, the uwave rotation bands of CO2. To the extent that energy is added to the linear kinetic energy, it’s also removed in equal and opposite amounts so the net average is zero.

        One experiment you should try is to see what the emission spectra looks like when the heat applied is coming from a laser in the transparent region of the spectrum. If the laser is tuned slightly above or below the primary line without increasing the likelyhood of collisions, you will see more emissions in the lower energy bands. And of course, the total energy involved in the uwave region is such a tiny fraction of the whole, any net exchange would be imperceptible anyway.

        BTW, we do see a small amount of thermalization from water vapor, as energized water vapor molecules condense and add their energy to the condensing water droplet. We see this as a slightly higher attenuation (about 4 db, rather than 3 db) in the most saturated water vapor lines.

      • Phil,

        Something else to try is to add up the energy of the emissions before and after adding the N2 and see if the total emitted energy changes. It thermalization is occurring, the total should be much less. If collisions are adding to the emissions, you should see more power being emitted. If neither of these is happening, or they are happening in equal and opposite amounts, the total emitted power will be the same and just redistributed across other wavelengths.

      • co2isnotevil August 25, 2017 at 11:07 am
        Phil.

        ” … the atoms are caused to move in space relative to each other.”

        It’s only the electron shell bending around nuclei that remain relatively stationary. The vibrations are very fast and the inertial of the nuclei prevents them from moving very far. Keep in mind that the diameter of an atom (1E-10) is about 5000 times greater than the diameter of the nucleus (2E-15).

        The electron shell remains fixed with respect to the nucleus but the vibrational mode involves the relative motion of the nuclei. Best modeled as an anharmonic oscillator but can be approximated at low levels as an harmonic oscillator (mass and spring). Regardless the of the inertia it’s still the nuclei that move, bear in mind that for CO2 they’re on average 116 pm apart.
        http://www.chem.purdue.edu/courses/chm424/Handouts/16.1%20Molecular%20Vibrations.pdf

        Relative to the energy balance and the sensitivity, which is all I’m concerned about here, the stratosphere is mostly irrelevant as most of the planets emissions originate at lower levels in the atmosphere, moreover; most of the GHG effect that’s related to the surface temperature occurs in the lower troposphere.

        As shown above your assertion was still wrong, 96% not 99% but still a long way from 50%!

      • Phil,

        Here’s the calculation that shows how the nucleus isn’t moving by very much as a CO2 molecule vibrates:

        For the Oxygen atoms in a CO2 molecule, the total force acting between the nucleus and the electron shell is given by,

        F = e0*q^2/d^2

        e = 8.85E-12
        q = 8*1.6E-19 = 1.3E-18
        d = 1E-10 meters (approx distance from nucleus to electrons)

        F = 1.5E-27 Nt.

        The fraction of this that can arise by bending the electron shell by the amount that occurs in a CO2 molecule is than 25% of the total force, but lets consider the entire force is acting on the nucleus.

        mass of Oxygen atom = 16amu = 2.6E-26 kg

        The acceleration acting on the nucleus is a = F/m

        a = 5.8E-2 m/sec^2

        The distance between the center of the nucleus and the electron shell is about 1A or about 1E-10 m. The most it would need to move is about 20% of this distance, or 2E-11 m.

        d = a*t^2/2

        for d = 2E-11 and a = 5.8E-2

        t = sqrt(2*d/a) = 2.5E-5 seconds

        This is about 25 us corresponding to a frequency of only 38 Khz.

        Half of the 5E-14 second period of a 15u photon, which approximately corresponds to the period of vibration that results, is no where near enough time for the nucleus to move 2E-11 m and at the most, it will move by about a millionth of the distance between the nucleus and the electron shell. Even less considering that only a fraction of the total electrostatic force will be acting on the nucleus and there are on other forces acting on the nucleus to make up the difference.

        Even at the frequency of the rotational states, little movement will result. However; the movement of mass, for example the same kind of physical rotations that say an atmospheric O2 or N2 molecule will exhibit, are slow enough that the nucleus will be dragged along for the ride.

      • co2isnotevil August 25, 2017 at 12:14 pm
        Phil,

        Something else to try is to add up the energy of the emissions before and after adding the N2 and see if the total emitted energy changes. It thermalization is occurring, the total should be much less. If collisions are adding to the emissions, you should see more power being emitted. If neither of these is happening, or they are happening in equal and opposite amounts, the total emitted power will be the same and just redistributed across other wavelengths.

        In my LIF experiments with OH the emitted signal dropped significantly as pressure was increase until there was no observable signal. That’s why it’s often referred to as quenching!

        “Suffers from quenching, i.e. collisional deexitation  quantitative species concentration measurements not trivial”

        From: https://www.princeton.edu/cefrc/Files/2011%20Lecture%20Notes/Alden/Lecture-5-LIF.pdf

      • Phil,

        Are you saying the total emitted energy dropped to zero, or did it all just get transferred into other bands? If total emissions dropped to zero, you wouldn’t see any emissions anywhere in the spectrum. Based on the figures in the paper, it looks like the energy in the central line is just getting moved into the fine structure on either side. The emissions you’re measuring also don’t look like they include the uwave emissions as the molecule returns to the ground state from rotation states, although some of this is seen indirectly as the emissions at energies higher than the primary line as both rotational and vibrational states return to the ground state at once.

        The pulsed nature of the setup also seems a little problematic. A 1 us pulse with a 10 Hz rep rate isn’t necessarily representative of the steady state behavior under continuous excitation where the system is not given a chance to cool.

      • Phil,

        “Because the physics of the condensed phases are different from the physics of gases.”

        Yes, I know that. What I meant was the line of succession of physical processes is claimed to be the same for all three states of matter, yet the end result is different. You are aware that the mainstream view of atmospheric radiation doesn’t differentiate their use and definition of the manifestation of LTE in the atmosphere compared to that of a liquid or solid, correct? It’s all claimed to be the same.

        The claimed line of succession of physical processes is that the absorbed photonic energy is converted/transferred into the mechanical energy of molecules in motion via collisions with non-GHG molecules and then subsequently transferred back to photonic emission via collisions, right? This is also what is agreed to happen in a liquid or solid in LTE, right? That is, collisions equalize everything and manifest LTE the same was as it would in a liquid or solid.

        Now, we come to my question that as of yet I’ve not seen anyone be able to provide an answer. That is, in the atmosphere, there’s no narrow band absorption converted into broadband Planck emission (as would universally occur in liquid or solid absorbing and emitting radiation).

        That is, if we define end result A as matter in LTE with absorbed and emitted radiant flux, in order to predict the emitted spectrum for a liquid or solid, Planck’s law (in conjunction with Wien’s displacement law) is what has to be applied in order to predict the correct emitted spectrum, REGARDLESS of the wavelength distribution absorbed by the matter. However, in the atmosphere (except for the condensed water in clouds) this won’t work, and the only way to predict the correct spectrum is to scale per wavelength such that the emitted intensity per wavelength is proportional to each wavelength’s absorbed intensity. Now, what fakes me out is the field still considers this emitted spectrum to be Planck, but I guess there are multiple definitions and use of the term Planck and it’s valid to consider this spectrum as a Planck emitted one (as I think Grant himself refers to it as being Planck) . To me, it’s simply a multi-wavelength distribution of narrow band absorption and emission, i.e. non-Planck, and that which amounts to what would be end result B — not end result A. Or no conversion of narrow band absorption into broadband Planck emission (per Planck’s law).

        How can the line of succession of physics be the same (as claimed) if the end result is different? What difference of physics accounts for the difference? That is, what accounts for the difference between end result A and end result B?

      • Phil,

        Also to clarify what I mean, as a hypothetical example, lets say we have a device that can emit a stream of IR photons of only one wavelength and we point the device toward a container with liquid water in it (in a state of thermal equilibrium) so the stream of photons is absorbed by the liquid water, causing an energy imbalance. That is, the water is receiving more (net) energy flux than it’s radiating away, causing the water to warm and radiate more. Is the additional radiation emitted by the water (from the warming of the water) all re-radiated in the same wavelength as the single wavelength emitting device? Or is it re-radiated as a broad band spectrum based on the increased temperature of the water according to Planck’s law?

        If your answer is no to the former and yes to the latter, do you then agree that what is occurring is a process of narrow band absorption being converted into broad band (Planck) emission? If yes, are you aware that this does NOT occur in the atmosphere? Unless absorbed by the (liquid) water or ice in clouds?

      • The point is the only way the mainstream view can get their model to actually work is to (arbitrarily) apply Kirchoff’s law to each wavelength independently. You are aware of this, right?

      • Phil,
        And just to be sure you know that when I said a millionth of the distance, I was exaggerating to make a point. The difference that the nucleus moves, relative to the movement of the electrons is bounded by the ratio between the mass of the electrons and the mass of the nucleus which for both C and O is about 3500. Even at this upper bound, the nuclei are remaining relatively stationary with respect to each other even though though they’re moving a distance of about 30 times the diameter of the nucleus. Only about 9970 more to get to the orbit of the innermost electron shell …

      • co2isnotevil August 25, 2017 at 2:12 pm
        Are you saying the total emitted energy dropped to zero, or did it all just get transferred into other bands? If total emissions dropped to zero, you wouldn’t see any emissions anywhere in the spectrum.

        That’s correct, the emissions drop to zero. In these experiments the additional gases are only at the ~1 torr. level, in the atmosphere the additional gas levels are about 1000x greater.

        Based on the figures in the paper, it looks like the energy in the central line is just getting moved into the fine structure on either side.

        If you look at Fig 10 when the H2 was added some of the v=! states were collisional deactivated into the upper rotational levels of the v=0 manifold and lines originating within that manifold occur.

        The emissions you’re measuring also don’t look like they include the uwave emissions as the molecule returns to the ground state from rotation states, although some of this is seen indirectly as the emissions at energies higher than the primary line as both rotational and vibrational states return to the ground state at once.

        The scans in this case do not include any pure rotational transitions which would be in the microwave bands, the collisional losses to lower states make many more transitions accessible.

        The pulsed nature of the setup also seems a little problematic. A 1 us pulse with a 10 Hz rep rate isn’t necessarily representative of the steady state behavior under continuous excitation where the system is not given a chance to cool.

        Not sure what you mean by cool, pulsed experiments have the advantage of allowing gated detection systems. In the experiments I did I used a 8nsec duration pulse at ten Hz.

      • Phil,

        “That’s correct, the emissions drop to zero.”

        This isn’t what the paper is telling me. It’s saying that the energy moves into the fine structure on either side of the primary band. It also seems like you’re calling the fine structure rotation modes, but the rotation modes are no where near the 3.1u CO2 line. The fine structure on either side are not rotation modes although the spacing of the find structure lines corresponds to the energy of those rotation modes. The emissions from the lines on either side of the main one are either the result of 1) the relaxation of the primary line where not all of the energy is emitted as a photon and some is retained as low energy rotation modes or 2) the combined relaxation of the main line plus a rotation mode at the same time. These are stimulated emission modes, where the stimulation is not another photon, but the energy of a collision.

        You also haven’t commented on the analysis that shows how the forces required to move the nucleus across the space required in the time required for the it to track changes in a vibrating (or spinning) electron shell is far beyond the energy in 3u photon. The mass ratio of 1/3500 between the mass of the electrons and the mass of the nucleus is enough to understand why movements of the nucleus are far, far smaller than the motions of the electron cloud.

        In general, all molecules of a gas have 3 degrees of freedom relative to rotation, independent of whether it’s IR active and the rotation speeds are relatively slow when energy is shared among them and the 3 translational degrees of freedom. The rotation rate of the EM induced rotation mode in CO2 is far, far faster. CO2, as a linear molecule is often considered to have only 2 degrees of rotational freedom since rotating along its long axis isn’t moving any mass. These are the 2 degrees of mechanical rotation. The EM induced rotation is the third degree of freedom where the molecule’s electron shell is spinning in place and not moving any mass. This is related to the energy we see in the uwave region and is the right amount of energy to explain the line spacing in the fine structure.

        Why would the mechanical modes of rotation be quantized at the levels of energy seen? Technically, a molecule can be rotating along one of its degrees of freedom at 1 RPM and the energy required to to this is millions of times less then the energy represented by the spacing in the fine structure.

      • Phil,
        When I calculated the electrostatic force, I used the wrong constant in Coulomb’s Law and it does look like enough force for time the electron shell to push the nucleus. However; it’s still the motion of the E-fields in the electron shell that’s pushing the nucleus back and forth and not the other way around. The point that this started from still stands which was that the photons absorbed and emitted by a GHG molecule are absorbed and emitted by the electron shell shared between the atoms and as such, Quantum Mechanics applies, and all the energy of a quanta must be accounted for by a single event.

        Co2 is vibrating on the order of 2E13 times per second and an air molecule at 500 m/sec traverses about 25pm per period of vibration. A Co2 molecule is about 230 pm long and 100 pm wide and never gets closer than a couple of atomic diameters to another molecule upon collisions. The electrostatic interaction of a collision act over a few dozen atomic diameters. During the course of a collision it will have vibrated about 100 times and the colliding molecule will not even ‘see’ the variability in the E-fields from the vibration, except by its average (unless its an unenergized CO2). Collisions will bend the electron shells of both molecules and this could be enough to change the resonance of an energized molecule and result in its emission of a photon and/or reorganization of its state energy or even transferring state energy from one CO2 molecule to another (very rare anyway).

        Rotations are at about a 100 Ghz rate which rotates once per 10 ps. During this time, a typical air molecule at 500 m/sec will have travelled about 5 nm which is about the distance over which the electrons interact during a collision. I can see how a CO2 molecule rotating across either of its two rotational degrees of mechanical freedom can act like a baseball bat and change the direction and/or rotation of another molecule depending on where in the rotation it is, energized or not, but I don’t see how the energy of this kind of rotation needs to be quantized and the nature of emission lines means quantization.

        I can certainly see how energy stored in the electrons must be quantized, but not simple mechanical rotation, except perhaps at the Planck scale, especially since rotation rates otherwise need to be in multiples of about 50-100 Ghz based on the energy difference between the lines in the fine structure. There must be other rotation rates between zero and 50-100 billion rotations per second. Besides, we don’t see any lines from O2 or N2 related to rotation, so are the minimum rotation rates for these even higher than 1E11? Of course, O2 and N2 aren’t linear and have all 3 mechanical degrees of freedom…

      • co2isnotevil August 26, 2017 at 9:21 am
        Phil,

        “That’s correct, the emissions drop to zero.”

        This isn’t what the paper is telling me.
        No, if you’d read what I posted you will see that I was referring to my experiments where I used much higher pressure than the ~1 torr. in the paper (which is a much lower pressure than the pressure in the stratosphere).

        It’s saying that the energy moves into the fine structure on either side of the primary band. It also seems like you’re calling the fine structure rotation modes, but the rotation modes are no where near the 3.1u CO2 line. The fine structure on either side are not rotation modes although the spacing of the find structure lines corresponds to the energy of those rotation modes.

        They certainly are rotational modes. Each vibrational level is interspersed with more closely spaced rotational levels. When energy is emitted form one rovibrational state it transitions to a lower rovibrational star according to the selection rules:
        when ΔJ = 0 it’s called the Q-branch
        when ΔJ = -1 it’s called the P-branch
        when ΔJ = +1 it’s called the R-branch

        The emissions from the lines on either side of the main one are either the result of 1) the relaxation of the primary line where not all of the energy is emitted as a photon and some is retained as low energy rotation modes or 2) the combined relaxation of the main line plus a rotation mode at the same time. These are stimulated emission modes, where the stimulation is not another photon, but the energy of a collision.

        No they are not stimulated emissions.

        In general, all molecules of a gas have 3 degrees of freedom relative to rotation, independent of whether it’s IR active and the rotation speeds are relatively slow when energy is shared among them and the 3 translational degrees of freedom. The rotation rate of the EM induced rotation mode in CO2 is far, far faster. CO2, as a linear molecule is often considered to have only 2 degrees of rotational freedom since rotating along its long axis isn’t moving any mass. These are the 2 degrees of mechanical rotation.

        CO2 has three translational dof, 2 rotational dof and 4 vibrational dof.

        The EM induced rotation is the third degree of freedom where the molecule’s electron shell is spinning in place and not moving any mass. This is related to the energy we see in the uwave region and is the right amount of energy to explain the line spacing in the fine structure.

        This is a fiction.

        Why would the mechanical modes of rotation be quantized at the levels of energy seen? Technically, a molecule can be rotating along one of its degrees of freedom at 1 RPM and the energy required to to this is millions of times less then the energy represented by the spacing in the fine structure.

        The rotational modes certainly are quantized despite your personal incredulity I suggest you read a text on molecular spectroscopy, you have much to learn.

        co2isnotevil August 26, 2017 at 5:06 pm
        Of course, O2 and N2 aren’t linear and have all 3 mechanical degrees of freedom…

        Of course O2 and N2 are linear and have 6 dof, 3 translational, 2 rotational and 1 vibrational.

        co2isnotevil August 25, 2017 at 11:56 am
        One experiment you should try is to see what the emission spectra looks like when the heat applied is coming from a laser in the transparent region of the spectrum. If the laser is tuned slightly above or below the primary line without increasing the likelyhood of collisions, you will see more emissions in the lower energy bands.

        If the laser is tuned away from the primary line you won’t see any emission at all!

      • Phil,

        No reply to my last 3 messages above? If the line of succession of physical processes is claimed to be the same, why a different end result? Why no conversion of narrow band absorption into broadband Planck emission? And why the need to arbitrarily apply Kirchoff’s law to each wavelength independently?

        BTW, I don’t think George is saying it’s universally precluded to be happing in a gas, but rather only that in this particular case of the gases of the Earth’s atmosphere it isn’t happening.

      • RW August 28, 2017 at 8:34 am
        Phil,

        No reply to my last 3 messages above? If the line of succession of physical processes is claimed to be the same, why a different end result? Why no conversion of narrow band absorption into broadband Planck emission? And why the need to arbitrarily apply Kirchoff’s law to each wavelength independently?

        I’d answered it before, the processes aren’t the same, there’s no way to get a Planck emission from a gas, the emissions are quantized.

        BTW, I don’t think George is saying it’s universally precluded to be happing in a gas, but rather only that in this particular case of the gases of the Earth’s atmosphere it isn’t happening.

        Actually he is, he’s claiming that all the textbooks ever written on vibrational/rotational spectra are wrong, that he doesn’t think rotations are quantized and that the absorbed quantum is indivisible and are electrical not molecular motions!

      • “…there’s no way to get a Planck emission from a gas.”

        Can Phil. elaborate or point to a gas spectrum showing this? For example, earth atm. looking up and the sun very nearly demonstrate a way to get a Planck emission from a gas.

      • Trick August 28, 2017 at 10:22 am
        “…there’s no way to get a Planck emission from a gas.”

        Can Phil. elaborate or point to a gas spectrum showing this? For example, earth atm. looking up and the sun very nearly demonstrate a way to get a Planck emission from a gas.

        Here you go:

      • Phil. – That is only for CO2 gas. The atm. Planck emission looking up is composed of way more species. As I suspected, you show it is possible to get Planck emission from a single gas at ~300K in the major CO2 bandwidth. Adding in the rest of the atm. species at ~300K, you will get close to a complete Planck emission from a gas, contrary to what you wrote. Just as you will get a Planck emission spectrum from the sun at ~6000K. For a set of tables of the solar irradiance at intervals of 10 nm or 20 nm over most of the spectrum see M. P. Thekaekara and A. J. Drummond, 1971: “Standard values for the solar constant and its spectral components” Nature Physical Science, Vol. 229, pp. 6–9.

      • Phil,

        “I’d answered it before, the processes aren’t the same,”

        No, the line of succession of physical process is claimed to be the same, which is absorption of EM radiation being converted into the mechanical energy of molecules in motion by collisions and subsequently back to photonic emission. Of course, the physics of a gas differ from a liquid or solid, but that’s trivial. The physics are also different between a liquid and solid.

        “there’s no way to get a Planck emission from a gas, the emissions are quantized.”

        I don’t interpret George to be saying this at all. He’s only saying that in the gases and conditions of the Earth’s atmosphere it isn’t happening.

        “BTW, I don’t think George is saying it’s universally precluded to be happing in a gas, but rather only that in this particular case of the gases of the Earth’s atmosphere it isn’t happening.

        Actually he is, he’s claiming that all the textbooks ever written on vibrational/rotational spectra are wrong, that he doesn’t think rotations are quantized and that the absorbed quantum is indivisible and are electrical not molecular motions!”

        Let’s see what George says, because I think he does think a gas under some conditions can emit a Planck spectrum.

      • Sorry for the delay in responding. Things came up …

        “Actually he is, he’s claiming that all the textbooks ever written on vibrational/rotational spectra are wrong, that he doesn’t think rotations are quantized and that the absorbed quantum is indivisible and are electrical not molecular motions!”

        What I’m saying is that quantization is an effect having to do with photons being absorbed by matter. Any results at high pressure, the Sun (it’s a plasma, not a gas) or other ‘experiments’ that vastly exceed the conditions found in the atmosphere are irrelevant to how the Earth’s atmosphere operates. For the gases. liquid and solid water in the Earth’s atmosphere photons are absorbed by electron shells (i.e. not protons or neutrons).

        I’m not saying that anything in textbooks is wrong, just incomplete and often misinterpreted, especially related to the concept of ‘thermalization’.

        I think there is also confusion about the label of ‘rotation’ lines. The fine structure ON EITHER SIDE of vibration lines are combined emissions from rotation and vibration. The specific energies of rotation are in the millimeter wavelengths, not micron wavelengths. What you are observing as ‘rotation’ lines are similar to sidebands when a carrier frequency is modulated. Note as well that there are lines on either side, which means both that energy is added to ‘rotation’ energy is removed from ‘rotation’ in nearly equal and opposite amounts, therefore, the the extent that quantized rotation can be transferred to translation energy, there is NO LITTLE TO NO NET THERMALIZATION, since this process goes both ways.

        Here’s what’s not adequately explained:

        1) The existence of significant emissions at TOA in absorption bands (avg 3db attenuation)
        2) Mechanical rotation is not quantized in O2/N2, that is, related lines are not seen in the spectrum
        yet those molecules are certainly rotating.
        3) The n=1 rotation mode of CO2 is spinning at about a 100 Ghz rate. What about rotations between
        0 and 100 Ghz? Don’t they exist? Clearly not all rotations between 1 and 100 Ghz have the same
        quantum of energy.

        As far as I can tell, the only justification for ‘thermalization’ is applying Equipartition of Energy at the limit (i.e. where delta space approaches 0). Equipartition doesn’t apply to individual molecules and is a bulk property. It should not apply to equalizing the energy of quantum mechanical vibrations and rotations with translational degrees of freedom. In effect, quantized states have no degrees of freedom!

        When individual molecules combine and start sharing electrons, then the degrees of freedom for what energy photons can be absorbed (and emitted) increases exponentially (factorially?) as the number of particles increases.

      • RW August 29, 2017 at 4:57 am
        Phil,

        “I’d answered it before, the processes aren’t the same,”

        No, the line of succession of physical process is claimed to be the same, which is absorption of EM radiation being converted into the mechanical energy of molecules in motion by collisions and subsequently back to photonic emission.

        No, that’s not correct, collisions do deactivate the molecular, however as I’ve pointed out before very few of the neighboring molecules have enough energy to populate the first vibrational level. Not only that but only a very limited fraction of such collisions will be able to excite the vibration but instead will result in translational energy transfer.

        “there’s no way to get a Planck emission from a gas, the emissions are quantized.”

        I don’t interpret George to be saying this at all. He’s only saying that in the gases and conditions of the Earth’s atmosphere it isn’t happening.

        “BTW, I don’t think George is saying it’s universally precluded to be happing in a gas, but rather only that in this particular case of the gases of the Earth’s atmosphere it isn’t happening.

        Actually he is, he’s claiming that all the textbooks ever written on vibrational/rotational spectra are wrong, that he doesn’t think rotations are quantized and that the absorbed quantum is indivisible and are electrical not molecular motions!”

        Let’s see what George says, because I think he does think a gas under some conditions can emit a Planck spectrum.

        Well what he thinks is not the point, he has some strange ideas about vibrational/rotational transitions, gases emit line spectra.

      • Trick August 28, 2017 at 4:09 pm
        Phil. – That is only for CO2 gas. The atm. Planck emission looking up is composed of way more species.

        Not too many more active species:

        Bear in mind that what appears to be a continuous band in the 700cm^-1 region is in fact very closely packed lines. The resolution of the spectrum isn’t adequate to see them, here’s somewhat better resolution:

        As I suspected, you show it is possible to get Planck emission from a single gas at ~300K in the major CO2 bandwidth.

        No that’s not what is shown at all.

        Adding in the rest of the atm. species at ~300K, you will get close to a complete Planck emission from a gas, contrary to what you wrote.

        As you can see when the other gases are added it’s nowhere near a Planck spectrum even if you pretend they’re not line spectra.

        Just as you will get a Planck emission spectrum from the sun at ~6000K.

        Which has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric spectra.

      • Phil

        “No, that’s not correct, collisions do deactivate the molecular, however as I’ve pointed out before very few of the neighboring molecules have enough energy to populate the first vibrational level. Not only that but only a very limited fraction of such collisions will be able to excite the vibration but instead will result in translational energy transfer.”

        The point is the absorbed photonic energy is claimed to not stay with the GHG molecule, right? It ultimately has this energy transferred/converted into the mechanical energy of molecules in motion of the entire mix of molecules that make up the gas, right? That is, primarily N2 and O2. Translational energy transfer is the transfer into the kinetic energy of molecules in motion, is it not?

      • Phil,

        “gases emit line spectra.”

        Just to be sure, this is what you’re claiming? That gases in all forms and conditions can only emit separate line spectra and cannot emit a broad band Planck spectrum????

      • RW August 29, 2017 at 8:14 am
        Phil

        “No, that’s not correct, collisions do deactivate the molecular, however as I’ve pointed out before very few of the neighboring molecules have enough energy to populate the first vibrational level. Not only that but only a very limited fraction of such collisions will be able to excite the vibration but instead will result in translational energy transfer.”

        The point is the absorbed photonic energy is claimed to not stay with the GHG molecule, right? It ultimately has this energy transferred/converted into the mechanical energy of molecules in motion of the entire mix of molecules that make up the gas, right? That is, primarily N2 and O2. Translational energy transfer is the transfer into the kinetic energy of molecules in motion, is it not?

        Correct.

      • RW August 29, 2017 at 8:22 am
        Phil,

        “gases emit line spectra.”

        Just to be sure, this is what you’re claiming? That gases in all forms and conditions can only emit separate line spectra and cannot emit a broad band Planck spectrum????

        That’s what the physics says, the lines have a finite width but can be broadened until ultimately the lines completely overlap, but that requires higher pressures and temperatures than we experience in our atmosphere. Venus is another matter.

      • Phil., thanks for the atm. spectrums, saved me the time looking for them. I see what you mean more clearly. Of course, an object that is ~transparent at certain wavenumbers won’t have a Planck spectrum at those wavenumbers – due the minimal photons absorbed/emitted (very low emissivity).

        However, I will disagree with you in that your CO2 plot does show a Planck emission at wavenumbers where that gas strongly absorbs/emits. I am not pretending they’re not line sprectra, the spectrums really are continuous with the pressure broadening effect. The broadening occurs from constituent translational motion which is not quantized.

        The sun of course DOES have something to do with atm. day spectra as it is the strongest source of its illumination. My original point on the sun was it is a big ball of gas with a near Planck emission curve as shown in the source I cited.

      • Phil,

        “That’s what the physics says, the lines have a finite width but can be broadened until ultimately the lines completely overlap, but that requires higher pressures and temperatures than we experience in our atmosphere.”

        OK, let’s see what George says. I don’t believe that it is universally precluded for a gas to emit a Planck spectrum, but maybe this is what he’s saying and/or claiming, though this is not how I’m interpreting him.

      • Phil,

        “That’s what the physics says, the lines have a finite width but can be broadened until ultimately the lines completely overlap, but that requires higher pressures and temperatures than we experience in our atmosphere.”

        OK, let’s see what George says. I don’t believe that it is universally precluded for a gas to emit a Planck spectrum, but maybe this is what he’s saying and/or claiming, though this is not how I’m interpreting him.

      • Trick August 29, 2017 at 12:30 pm
        However, I will disagree with you in that your CO2 plot does show a Planck emission at wavenumbers where that gas strongly absorbs/emits. I am not pretending they’re not line sprectra, the spectrums really are continuous with the pressure broadening effect. The broadening occurs from constituent translational motion which is not quantized.

        You’re confusing the resolution of the spectra with pressure broadening. Even at atmospheric pressure the lines are clearly separated by about 1.5 cm^-1

        The sun of course DOES have something to do with atm. day spectra as it is the strongest source of its illumination. My original point on the sun was it is a big ball of gas with a near Planck emission curve as shown in the source I cited.

        Well a big ball of plasma and of course no vibrational or rotational spectra.

      • “Even at atmospheric pressure the lines are clearly separated by about 1.5 cm^-1”

        Only in the LBL computation Phil., in nature the pressure broadening is continous over the wavenumbers as the constituent particle translational velocities are not quantized.

      • Trick August 29, 2017 at 9:00 pm
        “Even at atmospheric pressure the lines are clearly separated by about 1.5 cm^-1”

        Only in the LBL computation Phil., in nature the pressure broadening is continous over the wavenumbers as the constituent particle translational velocities are not quantized.

        Even in LBL calculations the pressure broadening is included (it’s the most time consuming part of the calculation). Typically at atmospheric pressure the half-width of the lines is as much as 0.1cm-1, much less than the line separation of ~1.5cm-1. As I said above the reason you can’t see clearly separated lines is the resolution of the spectrometer.

      • Concur 6:28am; the LBL analysis and spectrophotometer return “separated lines” (Phil. term). In nature, a gas exhibits very close to a continuous ideal Planck emission in the wavenumbers for which it is not ~transparent (i.e. is strongly absorbing). A typical spectrophotometer measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm.

      • Trick August 30, 2017 at 6:43 am
        Concur 6:28am; the LBL analysis and spectrophotometer return “separated lines” (Phil. term). In nature, a gas exhibits very close to a continuous ideal Planck emission in the wavenumbers for which it is not ~transparent (i.e. is strongly absorbing). A typical spectrophotometer measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm.

        Which is why you can’t distinguish the individual lines using such an instrument, use an FT-IR with at least 0.5cm-1 in order to see the lines. Just because you can’t see them with your instrument doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

      • Phil,

        “Because the physics of the condensed phases are different from the physics of gases. Typically gases have line spectra, if you illuminate CO2 with a single wave length at low pressure you’ll get a few lines emitted from that energy level. Add a little N2 and you’ll get multiple lines from the original level and other lower levels which have been populated by collisions. Add more N2 and the emission lines disappear because the energy is all transferred to the translational modes of the N2. Even if by chance the energy was transferred to a vibrational mode of a N2 molecule (would require an highly excited CO2 molecule) there still wouldn’t be an emission because N2 doesn’t emit at that wavelength.

        Exactly, the physics is different.”

        This is all rather vague, BTW. Let’s list what is agreed to be occurring: Only GHGs absorb and emit photons (except if absorbed by the condensed H2O in clouds). That is, the N2 and O2 have an emissivity near zero, and photons are pretty much only going into and out of GHG molecules. What this means is that macroscopically, there is (and would be) no difference in what’s directly observed so far as emitted spectrums, etc. That is, there’s no difference in measured temperature and bulk emissions properties that are observed. Right?

        This outset agreement makes this dispute difficult to resolve either way. You do see and understand that you can’t directly measure the difference claimed by George with established theory? That is, a thermometer measuring atmospheric temperature and/or decreasing temperature with height cannot distinguish between the two claimed line of succession of physical processes occurring, right? A thermometer will register the same thing for each claimed succession of physical processes.

        Moreover, in order to predict what’s is observed, both claimed mechanisms require one to do the same thing, which is the scale such that each wavelength’s emitted intensity is equal to each wavelength’s absorbed intensity (locally). Right?

      • “Just because you can’t see them with your instrument doesn’t mean they don’t exist.”

        You CAN see the pressure broadening lines with your instrument but those lines don’t have a physical existence Phil.. There are no lines from pressure broadening existing in nature, the lines are only artefacts in LBL analysis and spectrophotometer processing. Or show a physical reason for the translation velocity of the gas constituent particles to be quantized thus exhibit discrete lines in nature for the pressure broadening region. The pressure broadening of the rotational line of CO2 in nature is as continuous as the velocities of the constituent gas particles causing that broadening along and near the Planck emission line for say 300K CO2 (at wavenumbers for high emissivity, low transmissivity).

      • At the temperatures and pressures of the atmosphere, pressure broadening, or collisional broadening, is an insignificant factor. This spreads out the spectrum of individual lines while keeping the probability of absorption mostly unchanged. It doesn’t introduce new lines in the spectrum.

      • “Only GHGs absorb and emit photons (except if absorbed by the condensed H2O in clouds). That is, the N2 and O2 have an emissivity near zero..”

        This is inconsistent language; dinitrogen, dioxygen DO absorb and emit photons if they have an emissivity “near zero” in the wavenumbers where N2, O2 are nearly transparent at 1bar looking up (i.e. N2, O2 add little atm. opacity at 1bar). Better language to say some constituent particles of the atm. are IR active in the wavenumber range of interest for these discussions.

      • Trick August 30, 2017 at 9:14 am
        “Just because you can’t see them with your instrument doesn’t mean they don’t exist.”

        You CAN see the pressure broadening lines with your instrument but those lines don’t have a physical existence Phil.. There are no lines from pressure broadening existing in nature, the lines are only artefacts in LBL analysis and spectrophotometer processing.

        Of course those lines exist, they are real ro-vibrational transitions, they are not artifacts!
        The pressure broadening is caused by interactions between the collision partners and the energy levels in the molecules, consequently the lines have a greater half width, however they are not larger than the inter line spacing which you claimed.

        co2isnotevil August 30, 2017 at 9:39 am
        At the temperatures and pressures of the atmosphere, pressure broadening, or collisional broadening, is an insignificant factor. This spreads out the spectrum of individual lines while keeping the probability of absorption mostly unchanged. It doesn’t introduce new lines in the spectrum.

        It is a small amount of broadening, ~0.1 cm-1 compared with the natural half width ~0.002 cm-1. It is not insignificant, in fact it’s an important effect in the cooling of the stratosphere since the CO2 higher in the atmosphere will not be able to absorb the full width of the line from lower down.

      • “It is a small amount of broadening, ~0.1 cm-1 ”

        Still not very significant, especially around the 15u CO2 line which is very wide and where most of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is being absorbed. The most significant widening effect I see in the simulations for CO2 and H2O lines (the ones that matter) is due to species concentration and not temperature or pressure. Relative to stratospheric cooling, you’re contradicting yourself relative to thermalization. The broader capture window of the atmosphere below is absorbing all the photons in the marginally wider bands anyway. Any emissions in those bands that are not captured by the stratosphere must be coming from GHG’s, yet you were contending that most GHG absorbed energy is ‘thermalized’ into the kinetic energy of matter in motion. Where’s this energy coming from? Of course, this isn’t a ‘cooling’ effect on the stratosphere anyway, but just a reduction in the energy captured by GHG’s.

      • “Of course those lines exist, they are real ro-vibrational transitions, they are not artifacts!”

        The lines in the LBL analysis and measured by spectrophotometer are different, right? As your charts show. Depending on the resolution chosen by humans in both processing techniques, so of course they are artifacts. Nature doesn’t know what resolution was chosen.

        The ~15micron line exists as a discrete quantum from each moving CO2 particle as it is emitted and the wavenumber is smoothly shifted continuously both sides in a gas (the pressure broadening) based on the particles unquantized translational +/- velocity in, for example, your CO2 chart. There is not another unique bunch of discrete lines (besides the CO2 spin level jump at ~15 micron); nature produces smooth radiance along the Planck emission curve that you show both sides of the jump from the same line.

        Well, unless you want to go down to ~Planck length and observe each photon discretely, in which case in the limit, yeah, you can get a naturally discrete LBL Planck emission curve for each photon wavenumber due the distribution of all particle velocities emitting the photons. Sheesh, max. resolution. Fun discussion though.

      • George,

        Can you clarify for us. Are you saying that universally a gas (no matter its makeup and conditions) cannot emit a Planck spectrum because it’s universally precluded by quantum mechanics? I’ve not interpreted you to be claiming this at all, but rather only that you’re claiming QM precludes it from happening in the gases that make up Earth’s atmosphere, given what’s observed (in particular no narrow band absorption converted into broadband Planck emission).

      • RW,

        Quantum Mechanics governs both line emissions and Planck emissions where both originate from the electron shells of molecules. Quantum mechanics puts strict limits on the energies that any single molecule can absorb or emit. In principle, the allowed wavelengths are resonances related to the size and shape of the electron cloud which for single molecules is specific and well defined.

        As molecules condense into a liquid, the wavelengths of energy that can ‘fit’ in the electron cloud increases to various sums and differences of what the individual molecules can do. It doesn’t take many molecules in the liquid before the degrees of freedom in the electron cloud increases by so much, that photons of almost any energy can be absorbed or emitted by the shared electron cloud. The determination of what energies are allowed is similar to how a low energy rotation mode can be combined with a higher energy vibration mode to create a spectrum of ‘sidebands’ on either side of the vibration energy spaced by the energy of the low energy rotation mode.

        The distribution of Planck emissions vs. temperature is a macroscopic property based on statistical distributions guided by Quantum Mechanical considerations. See the derivation of Planck’s Law here:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

        Note that the derivation starts with the assumption of cavity resonator comprised of radiating matter (not gases).

      • George,

        So are conditions possible where a gas, if dense enough, can emit a Planck spectrum (and not solely individual lines like the gases do that make up the Earth’s atmosphere)? Sorry if you answered it and I wasn’t able to deduce that you did.

      • RW,
        Gas in the form of a supercritical fluid is likely to emit a Planck spectrum. For example, the bottom few hundred meters of the Venusian atmosphere. Ordinary gas molecules generally will not. Even when gases have multiple absorption lines, the emissions across them will not follow a Planck distribution.
        However; when you look at the distribution of velocities of a heated gas, the distribution does look a bit Planck like.

      • co2isnotevil August 30, 2017 at 3:29 pm
        Relative to stratospheric cooling, you’re contradicting yourself relative to thermalization. The broader capture window of the atmosphere below is absorbing all the photons in the marginally wider bands anyway. Any emissions in those bands that are not captured by the stratosphere must be coming from GHG’s, yet you were contending that most GHG absorbed energy is ‘thermalized’ into the kinetic energy of matter in motion. Where’s this energy coming from? Of course, this isn’t a ‘cooling’ effect on the stratosphere anyway, but just a reduction in the energy captured by GHG’s.

        You appear to have reading comprehension problems, this is what I posted earlier, clearly I am not contradicting myself:
        Phil. August 22, 2017 at 5:54 am
        Not true, when an IR photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule its vibrational and rotational levels are increased, collisions can remove energy and reduce the ro/vib to lower levels. At atmospheric pressure the number of collisions is so high that the most likely result is that the excited state is deactivated by exchange to the surrounding gas molecules. High up in the atmosphere at lower pressure the collisional deactivation rate is lower so it is more likely that a photon will be emitted.

        Emission by CO2 molecules in the stratosphere which is not absorbed by CO2 molecules higher up is responsible for cooling the stratosphere.

      • co2isnotevil August 30, 2017 at 3:48 pm
        RW,

        Quantum Mechanics governs both line emissions and Planck emissions where both originate from the electron shells of molecules. Quantum mechanics puts strict limits on the energies that any single molecule can absorb or emit. In principle, the allowed wavelengths are resonances related to the size and shape of the electron cloud which for single molecules is specific and well defined.

        Not for rotational and vibrational spectra which originate from the motion of the nuclei, not the electrons.

      • Phil.

        “Not for rotational and vibrational spectra which originate from the motion of the nuclei, not the electrons.”

        How exactly are you going to move the nucleus without moving the electrons first? The only way to move the nucleus is by squeezing the electron shell, creating a differential E-field whose force then moves the positively charged nucleus.

      • no Phil.

        the energy transitions involved
        in atmospheric ir are the bending
        and rotational modes of molecules.

        not of electron transitions. not of
        nuclei motion.

      • Trick August 30, 2017 at 1:55 pm
        “Of course those lines exist, they are real ro-vibrational transitions, they are not artifacts!”

        The lines in the LBL analysis and measured by spectrophotometer are different, right? As your charts show. Depending on the resolution chosen by humans in both processing techniques, so of course they are artifacts. Nature doesn’t know what resolution was chosen.

        No they’re the same lines, when you measure the spectrum with a spectrophotometer you average the measurement over a range of wavenumber (this is the resolution), when you do so over ~4cm-1 you smear three lines out over that range. That means you see a smoothed out spectrum and can’t distinguish those individual lines, they still exist though. Use a high resolution spectrophotometer and there they are!

      • notevil – both you and phil have this wrong.

        the ir energy transitions involved in ghg forcing
        are not of electron shells, or of nuclei, but of the
        rotational and vibrational quantized energy
        levels of the ghg molecules. this is why all ghg molecules
        must have 3 or more
        atoms — only they have energy
        transitions in the IR range.

      • ” there they are!”

        There it is. The one line of the CO2 normal bending mode at ~15micron from each solar illuminated molecule, as your chart shows, slightly broadened continuously and smoothly along the Planck emission curve from inter and intra molecular collision forces causing gas constituent velocity changes that result in differing relative motion between a source of photons and molecules that absorb them.

        Sound bites aren’t communicating well here, most of this research was concluded several decades ago from test data and fills whole sections, if not chapters, of text books. The details, oh the details… Bring your spectrophotometer down to Planck length resolution for those or use the continous formulae LBL.

      • George,

        “Gas in the form of a supercritical fluid is likely to emit a Planck spectrum. For example, the bottom few hundred meters of the Venusian atmosphere. Ordinary gas molecules generally will not. Even when gases have multiple absorption lines, the emissions across them will not follow a Planck distribution.
        However; when you look at the distribution of velocities of a heated gas, the distribution does look a bit Planck like.”

        OK. So the point of all of this is that the atmosphere is not emitting according to its temperature, i.e. not as a direct result of the speed of its molecules in motion.

        Now, my understanding behind your derived view is that you don’t dispute that collisions are happening way faster than the spontaneous emission of photons from GHGs. You’re simply deriving that upon the collisions, the absorbed photonic energy which is stored primarily as internal vibration energy in the GHG molecule, is not being transferred into the kinetic energy of molecules in motion with the other non-GHG molecules, and as a result, the GHG molecules quickly accumulate enough absorbed photons to reach their ionization energy level or ‘ionization potential’, where the absorption of a photon then triggers the emission of another photon a very short time after a photon is absorbed. And that this is the dominant way photon emissions are triggered in the atmosphere from GHGs. I note curiously that you do not think this means the gas and thus the emission is non-LTE, because there is every reason to think that collisions between GHG and non-GHG molecules would equalize their kinetic energy of motion amongst each other locally, and therefore the gas would still be in LTE, even though the photons being absorbed and emitted by the GHGs were not being ‘shared’ with the other surrounding non-GHG molecules.

        In accordance with this variant of LTE for radiating gas per Wikipedia:

        “It is important to note that this local equilibrium may apply only to a certain subset of particles in the system. For example, LTE is usually applied only to massive particles. In a radiating gas, the photons being emitted and absorbed by the gas need not be in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other or with the massive particles of the gas in order for LTE to exist. In some cases, it is not considered necessary for free electrons to be in equilibrium with the much more massive atoms or molecules for LTE to exist.”

        Is this about right?

      • “Is this about right?”

        Yes, with one addition which is that while the energy of a collision is not enough to energize a GHG molecule, it’s enough to distort the molecules electron field to change the resonance enough for the stored energy to be released as a photon. It’s a class of stimulated emission, but rather then being stimulated by an incoming photon, it’s stimulated by a collision.

      • crackers345 August 30, 2017 at 7:31 pm
        no Phil.

        the energy transitions involved
        in atmospheric ir are the bending
        and rotational modes of molecules.

        not of electron transitions. not of
        nuclei motion.

        Agreed, which I said earlier, the length of this thread has rather isolated the original comments. I emphasized the nuclear motion (which is where most of the moving mass is) to address co2isnotevil’s assertion that “It’s only the electron shell bending around nuclei that remain relatively stationary.” (see below)

        Phil. August 25, 2017 at 1:00 pm
        co2isnotevil August 25, 2017 at 11:07 am
        Phil.

        ” … the atoms are caused to move in space relative to each other.”

        co2isnotevil:
        “It’s only the electron shell bending around nuclei that remain relatively stationary. The vibrations are very fast and the inertial of the nuclei prevents them from moving very far. Keep in mind that the diameter of an atom (1E-10) is about 5000 times greater than the diameter of the nucleus (2E-15).”

        The electron shell remains fixed with respect to the nucleus but the vibrational mode involves the relative motion of the nuclei. Best modeled as an anharmonic oscillator but can be approximated at low levels as an harmonic oscillator (mass and spring). Regardless of the inertia it’s still the nuclei that move, bear in mind that for CO2 they’re on average 116 pm apart.
        http://www.chem.purdue.edu/courses/chm424/Handouts/16.1%20Molecular%20Vibrations.pdf

      • Phil.

        “It’s only the electron shell bending around nuclei that remain relatively stationary.”

        I corrected this after a recalculation showed that there was enough electrostatic force for the vibrating/rotating fields to drag the nucleus along with it. None the less, molecular bending is a consequence of a photons energy being contained within the e-fields of the molecules electrons. There’s no where else for it to go! The energies are no where near enough for the nucleus to absorb and emit photons.

      • RW August 31, 2017 at 4:44 am
        OK. So the point of all of this is that the atmosphere is not emitting according to its temperature, i.e. not as a direct result of the speed of its molecules in motion.

        Correct, the emissions in the IR spectrum depends on the vibrational and rotational excited states not the kinetic energy of the molecules.

        Now, my understanding behind your derived view is that you don’t dispute that collisions are happening way faster than the spontaneous emission of photons from GHGs. You’re simply deriving that upon the collisions, the absorbed photonic energy which is stored primarily as internal vibration energy in the GHG molecule, is not being transferred into the kinetic energy of molecules in motion with the other non-GHG molecules, and as a result, the GHG molecules quickly accumulate enough absorbed photons to reach their ionization energy level or ‘ionization potential’, where the absorption of a photon then triggers the emission of another photon a very short time after a photon is absorbed. And that this is the dominant way photon emissions are triggered in the atmosphere from GHGs.

        Which is complete nonsense.

      • Phil,

        “Which is complete nonsense.”

        Then why the Wikipedia referenced variant of the manifestation of LTE specifically for a radiating gas? It seems to fit exactly the mechanism George claiming.

        It seems to me that what LTE really most importantly means so far as atmospheric radiation is that conditions are locally stable, i.e. unchanging, so the radiant absorption is equal to the radiant emission. It would seem this condition of stability can hold even if the absorbed IR energy is not getting transferred to the other gas molecules, provided the GHG and non-GHG molecules are in LTE with each other, i.e. have their linear kinetic energy equally distributed amongst each other by collisions. This seems to be — at least by my interpretation — what that alternate definition or condition for LTE for a radiating gas means.

        BTW, for the mainstream view of atmospheric radiation to be able to predict spectra/spectrum as it does without contradiction, the LTE condition, independent of how it’s actually physically manifested, is all that’s required to exist. If there is more than one way the condition of LTE can hold, then the mainstream view could easily be wrong on the actual mechanism or line of succession of physical processes at work even though they are able to accurately predict with their model, i.e. still get the right answer for the final prediction of emitted spectrum.

      • Phil,

        If the mechanism proposed by George as I laid out is not what this Wikipedia definition variant of LTE is referring to for a radiating gas, then what mechanism is it referring to???

        “It is important to note that this local equilibrium may apply only to a certain subset of particles in the system. For example, LTE is usually applied only to massive particles. In a radiating gas, the photons being emitted and absorbed by the gas need not be in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other or with the massive particles of the gas in order for LTE to exist. In some cases, it is not considered necessary for free electrons to be in equilibrium with the much more massive atoms or molecules for LTE to exist.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium#Local_and_global_equilibrium

        How about an answer to this? I’m supposed to believe it’s pure coincidence that this exception is specifically for a radiating gas, even though a radiating gas is precisely what we’re dealing with in the atmosphere?

        Again, what mechanism is this LTE variant referring to if not the one George is claiming?

      • Trick August 30, 2017 at 9:53 pm
        ” there they are!”

        There it is. The one line of the CO2 normal bending mode at ~15micron from each solar illuminated molecule, as your chart shows, slightly broadened continuously and smoothly along the Planck emission curve from inter and intra molecular collision forces causing gas constituent velocity changes that result in differing relative motion between a source of photons and molecules that absorb them.

        No, there are over 50,000 ro-vibrational lines between 625 and 725 cm-1.

      • Any illusion that emissions from GHG’s are Planck like are strictly a consequence of the energizing radiation from the surface (or clouds) being Planck like originating from gray bodies (non ideal black bodies).

      • But only one CO2 bending normal mode line causing them all centered on ~15micron.

        Observational result is the same continuous, smooth Planck emission curve from different illuminated molecules emitting that same line at different relative speeds (in earth meteorology conditions) to your observing instrument as shown in your chart. Your spectrophotometer or LBL analysis is all that divides them into an artifact of separate lines at a certain resolution, nature does not as it is continuous in the Planck limit. Obvious you will not agree on that without digging into the original research from long ago and a blog is not the most efficient means to communicate.

      • co2isnotevil August 30, 2017 at 9:34 am
        I think there is also confusion about the label of ‘rotation’ lines. The fine structure ON EITHER SIDE of vibration lines are combined emissions from rotation and vibration.

        As I pointed out before the central feature of the CO2 IR absorption/emission at 15 microns is the Q-branch where the energy of the transition is purely vibrational. The branches on either side involve a change in the rotational level as well (P and R branches), here’s a simplified illustration.

        The specific energies of rotation are in the millimeter wavelengths, not micron wavelengths. What you are observing as ‘rotation’ lines are similar to sidebands when a carrier frequency is modulated. Note as well that there are lines on either side, which means both that energy is added to ‘rotation’ energy is removed from ‘rotation’ in nearly equal and opposite amounts, therefore, the the extent that quantized rotation can be transferred to translation energy, there is NO LITTLE TO NO NET THERMALIZATION, since this process goes both ways.

        No, if you look at the energy level diagram you’ll see that if the energy level v=1, J=7 is deactivated to J=6 then the corresponding emissions in the P, Q and R branches are removed and less energy is emitted, and the energy removed becomes translational energy of the colliding molecules. Very few of the colliding molecules have sufficient energy to do the reverse, i.e. raise from J=6 to J=7, so there is net thermalization.
        The same process occurs at the other rotational levels

        Here’s what’s not adequately explained:

        1) The existence of significant emissions at TOA in absorption bands (avg 3db attenuation)

        Any excited molecules at TOA will still emit.

        2) Mechanical rotation is not quantized in O2/N2, that is, related lines are not seen in the spectrum
        yet those molecules are certainly rotating.

        It certainly is quantized there just aren’t ro-vibrational emissions because those molecules don’t have a dipole. There are magnetic-dipole allowed microwave O2 emissions (because of its paramagnetism, that’s what UAH and RSS use to measure temperature) and Raman spectra also show multiple energy levels for both N2 and O2.

        3) The n=1 rotation mode of CO2 is spinning at about a 100 Ghz rate. What about rotations between
        0 and 100 Ghz? Don’t they exist? Clearly not all rotations between 1 and 100 Ghz have the same
        quantum of energy.

        Those rotations aren’t allowed, that’s what Quantum mechanics is all about.

      • “It certainly is quantized there just aren’t ro-vibrational emissions because those molecules don’t have a dipole.”

        Technically, everything is quantized at the Planck scale, but this is far too small to measure. The larger scale quantization we can measure is related to the discrete nature of energy storage in electron fields.

        CO2 has no dipole either. Being a linear molecule, CO2 has 2 rotational degrees of freedom (the third is spinning on its linear access). The two end over end rotation modes are the degrees of freedom shared with translational motion, but this not necessarily the same rotation initiated by the absorption of a photon or the energy ‘left over’ upon emission of a lower energy photon. This quantized rotational mode ends up rotating the electron field itself at a rate of about 100 billion rotations per second along the ‘third’ degree of rotational freedom and is closer to the concept of Quantum Mechanical spin then it is to a physical rotation.

        To the extent that an end over end rotation modes is exercised, that conversion is bidirectional and in the final analysis, little, if any, net conversion occurs. That is, thermalization is insignificant, relative to the photon flux. The most significant thermalization occurs as energized water vapor molecules condense and that energy is added to the condensing water droplet. This is observed in the most saturated parts of the water vapor spectrum where the attenuation in those absorption bands is slightly more than 3 db (1/2).

      • Trick August 31, 2017 at 9:16 am
        But only one CO2 bending normal mode line causing them all centered on ~15micron.

        Observational result is the same continuous, smooth Planck emission curve from different illuminated molecules emitting that same line at different relative speeds (in earth meteorology conditions) to your observing instrument as shown in your chart.

        That is not true.

        Your spectrophotometer or LBL analysis is all that divides them into an artifact of separate lines at a certain resolution, nature does not as it is continuous in the Planck limit. Obvious you will not agree on that without digging into the original research from long ago and a blog is not the most efficient means to communicate.

        I will not agree on that because it isn’t true, you have it backwards the separate emitted lines are smeared into a smooth curve when the resolution of the spectrometer is inadequate. Perhaps you should dig into the original research you talk about, so far I’m the only one producing any data at all.

      • RW August 31, 2017 at 7:46 am
        Phil,

        “Which is complete nonsense.”

        Then why the Wikipedia referenced variant of the manifestation of LTE specifically for a radiating gas? It seems to fit exactly the mechanism George claiming.

        It seems to me that what LTE really most importantly means so far as atmospheric radiation is that conditions are locally stable, i.e. unchanging, so the radiant absorption is equal to the radiant emission.

        The reference you quoted explicitly excludes radiation from LTE:
        “For example, LTE is usually applied only to massive particles. In a radiating gas, the photons being emitted and absorbed by the gas need not be in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other or with the massive particles of the gas in order for LTE to exist.”

      • Phil,

        “It seems to me that what LTE really most importantly means so far as atmospheric radiation is that conditions are locally stable, i.e. unchanging, so the radiant absorption is equal to the radiant emission.”

        LTE relative to thermodynamics is a macroscopic property of an aggregation. Relative to GHG molecules, the photons absorbed == photons emitted, thus they are in LTE with respect to the radiative environment and no thermalization is necessary to achieve LTE.

        Consider shining a 11u laser through the atmosphere (the atmosphere is nearly transparent at 11u). You can put a thermometer in the beam and the temperature will be higher than ambient, but turn off the laser and the temperature immediately returns to ambient. A laser in the visible spectrum will act the same way. You can keep the laser shining forever and nothing will change, so are you saying that this isn’t in LTE since the photons aren’t being shared with the kinetic energy of molecules in motion?

        The main issue here is the ARBITRARY conflation of kinetic energy of motion with EM energy and there is no question that photon energy captured by a GHG molecule is stored in the form of a time varying EM field. They can only be conflated for matter that can both absorb and emit all relevant wavelengths and the gases in the atmosphere do not have this property.

      • ”That is not true.”

        As I wrote, your own CO2 chart at 1:57pm shows that is true. You mean you now want to tell me that your own chart is not true?

        ”Perhaps you should dig into the original research..”

        That is what I have been doing. This whole conversation started with “…there’s no way to get a Planck emission from a gas” which caused me to “dig into” such & I found decades old original research does not agree. And neither does your 1:57pm chart on either side of the CO2 15micron bending normal mode which does show a way – in any wavenumber bands where any solar, terrestial illuminated gas (at earth atm. STP) is not significantly transparent (i.e. has high opacity, absorptivity).

      • Phil,

        “The reference you quoted explicitly excludes radiation from LTE:
        “For example, LTE is usually applied only to massive particles. In a radiating gas, the photons being emitted and absorbed by the gas need not be in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other or with the massive particles of the gas in order for LTE to exist.””

        No. I don’t see how you’re reading it as saying that. It’s saying that in the case of a radiating gas (unlike a liquid or solid, presumably) the absorbed radiation going into and out of the matter, i.e. the gas molecules, need not be in thermodynamic equilibrium with the gas molecules themselves in order for the condition of LTE to still exist. What this means is the photons can be going into and out of the GHG molecules, i.e. absorbed and emitted by the GHGs, but not have this energy thermalized (equalized by collisions) or not be in thermodynamic equilibrium with the matter itself (as long as the matter is still in LTE with itself). It’s making an exception in the specific case of a radiating gas, which precisely what the Earth’s atmosphere is and what we’re talking about.

        Now, whether it’s correct or not is another matter (in general in some cases or for the Earth’s atmosphere), but I don’t think you’re reading it right.

        The mainstream view of atmospheric radiation, i.e. that purported by Grant Petty, for example, says their definition and use of the term LTE is all forms of energy, even absorbed photonic, are equalized