Study: we have the global warming physical process backwards

From the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The missing piece of the climate puzzle

In classrooms and everyday conversation, explanations of global warming hinge on the greenhouse gas effect. In short, climate depends on the balance between two different kinds of radiation: The Earth absorbs incoming visible light from the sun, called “shortwave radiation,” and emits infrared light, or “longwave radiation,” into space.

Outgoing longwave radiation from CERES Instrument on NASA Aqua Satellite for March 18, 2011, near Vernal Equinox of 2011 Image Courtesy of NASA

Upsetting that energy balance are rising levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), that increasingly absorb some of the outgoing longwave radiation and trap it in the atmosphere. Energy accumulates in the climate system, and warming occurs. But in a paper out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, MIT researchers show that this canonical view of global warming is only half the story.

In computer modeling of Earth’s climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise. At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.

“The finding was a curiosity, conflicting with the basic understanding of global warming,” says lead author Aaron Donohoe, a former MIT postdoc who is now a research associate at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory. “It made us think that there must be something really weird going in the models in the years after CO2 was added. We wanted to resolve the paradox that climate models show warming via enhanced shortwave radiation, not decreased longwave radiation.”

Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding before realizing that it makes perfect sense — but for reasons no one had clarified and laid down in the literature.

They found the answer by drawing on both computer simulations and a simple energy-balance model. As longwave radiation gets trapped by CO2, the Earth starts to warm, impacting various parts of the climate system. Sea ice and snow cover melt, turning brilliant white reflectors of sunlight into darker spots. The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation. Both of these feedbacks lessen the amount of shortwave radiation that bounces back into space, and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.

Meanwhile, like any physical body experiencing warming, Earth sheds longwave radiation more effectively, canceling out the longwave-trapping effects of CO2. However, a darker Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.

“So there are two types of radiation important to climate, and one of them gets affected by CO2, but it’s the other one that’s directly driving global warming — that’s the surprising thing,”

…says Armour, who is a postdoc in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.

Out in the real world, aerosols in air pollution act to reflect a lot of sunlight, and so Earth has not experienced as much warming from shortwave solar radiation as it otherwise might have. But the authors calculate that enough warming will have occurred by midcentury to switch the main driver of global warming to increased solar radiation absorption.

The image shows longwave radiation emitted to space from Earth’s surface and atmosphere (left sphere) and shortwave solar radiation reflected back to space by the ocean, land, aerosols, and clouds (right sphere). Image courtesy of NASA

The paper is not challenging the physics of climate models; its value lies in helping the community interpret their output. “While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways,” says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory who was not involved in this research.

One way the study can be useful is in guiding what researchers look for in satellite observations of Earth’s radiation budget, as they track anthropogenic climate change in the decades to come. “I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen,” Donohoe says. “We would actually see the absorption of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.”

Reflected solar radiation from CERES Instrument on NASA Aqua Satellite for March 18, 2011, near Vernal Equinox of 2011 Image courtesy of NASA

The study sorts out another tricky climate-modeling issue — namely, the substantial disagreement between different models in when shortwave radiation takes over the heavy lifting in global warming. The authors demonstrate that the source of the differences lies in the way in which a model represents changes in cloud cover with global warming, another big factor in how well Earth can reflect shortwave solar energy.

###


The paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700 (open access)

Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2

Significance

The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.

Abstract

In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing—but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). A simple linear radiative feedback framework is used to explain this counterintuitive behavior. It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only. In the GCM mean, this OLR recovery timescale is only 20 y because of robust SW water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks. However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.


Note: This study was published in November 2014, but was not covered by WUWT then. Thanks to Dennis Wingo for bringing it to our attention.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dodgy Geezer

… But the authors calculate that enough warming will have occurred by midcentury …

I would like to apply for a job in an industry where you can only check whether the work I have done is of any use AFTER I am dead….

I Came I Saw I Left

The desire for that kind of life of security and ease is indeed seductive, but for some it’s as somebody here aptly put it a while back – his name on the office door felt like an epithet on his tomb.

Gabro

I’m gonna have an epitaph rather than an epithet, for fear of what my heirs might choose pithily to say.

Severian

Errrr…37 years. Not enough coffee yet. Coffee probably destroys the environment, but you’ll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands to get it away from me.

I Came I Saw I Left

Either works…

Auto

And I thought the science was settled.
Looks like it simply wasn’t understood at all.
Now, put your hand up if that is a surrise.

Auto

Auto

‘surprise’ – of course!
Sorry.

Auto

BallBounces

The mid-century mark is becoming increasingly important to AGW prognosticators. President Barron will have to deal with it.

Dodgy Geezer

That’s funny. During the 1970s the year 2000 was seen as the point at which all society on Earth collapsed….

Seems like 30 years in the future is a good time to forecast disaster…

Earthling2

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was 33 years ahead of its time. Generally seems like a good amount of time in advance to be science fiction.

Severian

Re Earthling2: And Blade Runner was 35 years in the future, 1982 to 2019. 30 years does seem to be a good rule of thumb doesn’t it? And, how many predictions of anything that far out have come true? I still want my jet pack dammit!

Richard G.

“The mid-century mark is becoming increasingly important to AGW prognosticators.”
I think you mean AGW procrastinators?

Ray in SC

Severian,

I want my own willing and compliant replicant as portrayed by Sean Young.

Joel Snider

The dates are chosen pretty much blithely with the only qualification being that it’s ‘just around the corner’, ‘near enough to inspire urgency, but not soon enough to debunk’.

Remember the title of that idiotic movie, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’?
It’s all about messaging with these guys. It gets tiring when every single word or action becomes just another way to pimp their pet issues. The language itself get perverted with spin, opportunism, and PC policing, to the point where you can’t even talk to each other anymore.
And an honest word never gets said.

JR

Back To The Future – also 30 years…..

noaaprogrammer

Orwell’s novel 1984 was published in 1949, 35 years.

george e. smith

I notice that their pictures show no clouds, even though NASANOAA says that earth’s cloud cover is around 60%.

And clouds keep short wave solar incoming radiation from reaching the condensed earth’s surface, where it can actually warm the earth. The earth is NOT warmed by its atmosphere.

The solid and liquid earth are hotter than the atmosphere. Clouds cool the surface they do not heat the atmosphere.

G

PS forget about moderation; my recent posts , simply refuse to post and give me a curt rejection message.

menicholas

I posted one yesterday a few paragraphs long, which upon hitting the post comment button simply disappeared, never to be seen again.
But I have never seen a rejection message, except once or twice a while back that I was writing too many posts…slow down.
But they were short one to five words replies to various comments.

[On this site, there is a specific list of “key words and trigger phrases” that will dump your comment into the “to be reviewed” queue. “Denier” or “Fraud”, for example, will always require your comment to be reviewed. Approved, most often, after review, but always reviewed. Be patient, there were 2.2 million comments approved before yours came up. .mod]

@mod – 2.2 million? Now, that’s a busy day… (Sorry, I get strange late at night. Had this image of a stadium full of Shakespeare’s monkeys, all busily clicking “Approve” buttons…)

“and give me a curt rejection message”
I had that too. I think it is just a glitch in the site mechanics, or maybe exceeding a count. I find that closing the tab and opening a new one generally fixes it.

menicholas

Thank you Mod.
I was not really too worried about it.
I have stuff go to moderation all the time, but usually it posts the comment with a note at top that I am sure only I can see telling me y comment is awaiting moderation.
But occasionally one does not do that. Sometimes they reappear after closing the browser, and reopening it, sometimes not.
I think sometimes it is just a glitch and the comment never made it to the WUWT server.
And…2.2 million is a lot!

richard

“and trap it in the atmosphere” i thought it was emitted in every direction immediately.

Bernie

So true.

Old England

and to think I though that increased water vapour in the atmosphere meant that more clouds formed and that those clouds then reflected short wave radiation back into space……..

Maybe these MIT people also have a hypothesis as to how increased CO2 prevents cloud formation from higher levels of water vapour ???

I don’t think that this paper is helped by the fact that the extent of artic and antarctic ice, taken together, hasn’t declined at all ……..

Ian W

And the higher the relative humidity the greater the enthalpy so considerably more energy is needed to raise the air temperature.

AGW is not Science

What tangled webs we weave, LOL.

I knew this “paper” was a steaming pile when seeing the following sentences:

“The greenhouse effect is well-established.” – Ah, yes the “well established” effect that has never been empirically shown – better known as “Hypothetical BS”

“Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.” – Ah yes, except when it doesn’t. 450mya with 10 times the current CO2 concentration, which was rising to about 11 times the current CO2 concentration, the Earth’s temperature managed to plummet from a temperature far higher than today into a full-blown glaciation which lasted millions of years. But we shouldn’t be bothered by such “inconvenient” facts.

“However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR).” – Ah, once again, MODELS reveal…the product of their input ASSUMPTIONS, and NOTHING more.

This “paper” is a fine illustration of what happens when “science” becomes an extrapolation of a glorified form of one’s own assumptions, without any connection to the real world. Kind of a microcosm of “climate science” generally.

noaaprogrammer

Yeah, how many papers involving, say, complex orbital calculations feel the need to start out by saying, “The law of gravity is well established.” Apparently warmunists must have some sense of insecurity in their belief system.

higley7

First of all the “trapping of energy” is bogus and bad thinking scientifically.

Second, what about the fact that most of the absorbed IR radiation is re-emitted almost instantaneously? The assumption that it heats the atmosphere is wrong. In daylight the CO2 and water vapor are saturated, both absorbing and emitting such that their effect is negligible, basically a wash.

It is at night that CO2 and water vapor unilaterally convert heat to IR in the absence of insolation and actively cool the atmosphere.

Third, the article above say that water vapor absorbs shortwave radiation, which is just plain wrong.

Fourth, they do not address the fact that the upper tropical troposphere, where this heating is supposedly happening, has not been warming, but has intact been gently cooling for about 40 years.

Finally, they completely ignore the water cycle and the convection mechanism that is responsible for carrying about 85% of the solar insolation energy budget to altitude, away from Earth’s surface, where adiabatic cooling occurs and the latent heat of water vapor is realized and lost to space.

Too many holes in their typically lousy model as well as their line of thinking. Focusing only on radiation, the surface, and these “radiative gases” (not greenhouse gases, as they function in no way to trap any energy) ignores other this more powerful negative feedback heat engine that naturally ramps up when warming occurs. The oceans and solar output set the climate temperature and the water cycle keeps the Earth at the set point fairly well.

It’s the water cycle and they ignore it? Wow.

John from Europe

Right on the nose… well done!

Well said sir higley.

Kenji

So ooo … you are suggesting that Bill Nye/Al Gore’s Bell Jar experiments are … WRONG!? Denier! Denier! Burn him! He’s a witch!

Yogi Bear

Water vapour absorbs solar near infrared, lots of it.

Water vapor absorbs strongly in the “near” IR. Near means closer to visible light, and most of this can legitimately be considered SW. More importantly, it is all incoming from the sun, because the earth radiates at temperatures cooler than this spectrum.
comment image

This is an interesting spin on the water vapor feedback. It can explain the current UAH puzzlement. Last time I checked, atmospheric water was not increasing.

Warren Blair

Absorption of solar radiation by water vapor in clear and cloudy skies: Implications for anomalous absorption
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901153/pdf

Kaiser Derden

slowed … not trapped … they are morons …

gnomish

not slowed, either- and certainly not trapped-
it is redistributed globally at the speed of light.
then the water gas has it and dumps it with the rest of its load when it changes phase.
and in the end, it’s all about the sun and the planet of water.

… not slowed either — it’s all wrong.

gnomish beat me to it — must have posted at exactly the same instant.

AndyHce

That Solar Radiation Spectrum is potentially interesting, if there was only some particular meaning to the colors used.

accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing
+===========
in other words no GHG effect.

“in other words no GHG effect.”
No. To quote the paper:
“The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.”
The expectation had been that GHG’s would restrict OLR, but this in the long run would be balanced by the greater radiation from warming. This paper seems to say that GHG-reduced OLR along with atmospheric absorption of SW would together balance the extra outgoing OLR from warming (which is, you guessed it, worse than we thought, in terms of warming).

As noted at the bottom the paper is now at least three years old. It hasn’t overturned everything.

The greenhouse effect is well-established
========
assertion is not proof. observation is prior. by the authors own words: “not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas “

AndyG55

“No. To quote the paper:
“The greenhouse effect is well-established. “

So the paper is in error from the very start, just mindlessly quoting “the mantra”

Thanks for that , Nick !! Keep digging deeper , petal….. Its funny !!

AndyG55

“This paper seems to say…… ”

A load of fantasy and anti-science BS.

It hasn’t overturned everything
≠=========
a theory fails if any prediction fails.

all that. is require to overthrow Newton is two objects that don’t fall at the same rate in a vacuum. you don’t need to show newton to be false for all objects. just a single failure is sufficient.

F. Leghorn

simple models help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways,

Explain why this isn’t an admission that this “simple model helps us understand why all our predictions keep turning out wrong”.

jim

‘The emperor has no clothes’; you are a busted flush, Nick.

Crispin in Waterloo

Nick

You cited
“…greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; ”

This is a poor description of what happens. It does not ‘reduce’ the OLR. There is no stash of OLR up there somewhere. No accumulating pile of IR. Increasing the concentration of CO2 or water vapour increases the ability of the atmosphere to radiate IR into space as it increases the number of radiators. While it increases the number of absorbers, the overall impact is that from space, the number of radiators ‘seen’ at the effective radiating altitude increases. The passage of a photon from anywhere to space is delayed a few microseconds, but the amount of OLR is not reduced.

I agree with higley7 that there are several fundamental flaws in this 2014 version of reality, just as there are with earlier versions.

A comparison that is not made is between the current temperature of the Earth with GHG’s and what it would be without them. The comparison is always made to the Earth without an atmosphere whereas the interesting comparison is Earth with and without GHG’s in the atmosphere.

With water available on the surface, the temperature might be higher than it is now, meaning the net effect of added GHG’s is cooling. Incoming SW and LW would heat the surface, the surface would heat the no-GHG air in contact with it, and the atmosphere would warm, with no way to cool radiatively. Heat would accumulate in the air, the air would heat the surface by contact at night.

With water and no CO2, we would have rain, thunderstorms, thermals, wind, a lapse rate and lots of global warming (relative to no atmosphere at all). Would adding CO2 always increase the average temperature of the troposphere already dominated by huge amounts of water vapour?

On the other hand the temperature might be a bit lower, crediting some GHG net warming. It might be a lot lower, but it will never be as low as an Earth with no atmosphere at all.

According to the chart above, there is a 350 W/sq m difference between clouds v.s. no clouds over tropical land. That is 100 times the supposed forcing of a few hundred ppm of CO2. Cloud feedbacks will dominate CO2 forcing, easily.

LdB

It’s another model, which may or may not bear any similarity to what actually happens.

Walter Sobchak

Crispin. It is not the surface, it is the oceans, which hold 1000 times as much energy as the atmosphere. It is the energy in the oceans that drives global weather. CO2 is a bit player.

Crispin,
“It does not ‘reduce’ the OLR. There is no stash of OLR up there somewhere.”
No stash is needed. With more GHGs, the layer which emits to space in their wavelengths is at higher altitude. The emitting gas is colder. That reduces OLR. The colder GHG is just as good as warmer at absorbing IR. So the high GHG layer gets warmer than it was before, at that altitude, but still cooler than the former, lower, emitting altitude.

“The comparison is always made to the Earth without an atmosphere whereas the interesting comparison is Earth with and without GHG’s in the atmosphere.”
I don’t think that is true. The comparison is between an atmosphere with and without GHGs. If water is excluded, some assumption has to be made about albedo. That’s the basis of the 33°C difference.

Crispin in Waterloo

Nick
,
>>“It does not ‘reduce’ the OLR. There is no stash of OLR up there somewhere.”
>…With more GHGs, the layer which emits to space in their wavelengths is at higher altitude.

The true picture of what is happening is not represented by the idea of an emitting layer. There is a continuously more open ‘window’ to space that broadens with altitude. The emitting layer idea is used as an analogy and is not useful for conceptualising what happens when the concentration of CO2 is increased without (meaningfully) expanding the volume of the atmosphere. Having more emitters in an unsaturated atmosphere means the efficiency of disposal is increased.

>The emitting gas is colder. That reduces OLR.

The OLR is never reduced. The emitting gas at high altitude is colder, that is true, and so is the space above them, however this mixes metaphors. There is no emitting layer, and it does not ‘rise’. The concept it ‘rising’ is an inappropriate extension of the metaphor. The entire atmosphere emits, and increasing the concentration of GHG’s cause it to emit more efficiently. The same applies with black carbon at night – it is very efficient at sending heat ‘north’.

>The colder GHG is just as good as warmer at absorbing IR. So the high GHG layer gets warmer than it was before, at that altitude, but still cooler than the former, lower, emitting altitude.

There is no such emitting layer. Even discussing an ‘effective emission altitude’ is misleading. If the total energy leaving the system is the constant, then increasing the concentration of emitters lowers the effective altitude because more of them send photons through ‘the window’. Even from ground level the window is open a little.

>>“The comparison is always made to the Earth without an atmosphere whereas the interesting comparison is Earth with and without GHG’s in the atmosphere.”

>I don’t think that is true. The comparison is between an atmosphere with and without GHGs. If water is excluded, some assumption has to be made about albedo. That’s the basis of the 33°C difference.

I know it is true, and that is why it is not discussed. The impression is given, repeatedly, that without an atmosphere and with a GHG atmosphere is the two cases to consider. Then it is claimed that the GHGs are the cause of all the difference. This is untrue. An atmosphere with water (which is a GHG but claimed to be only a feedback) and no GHG’s would be quite warm indeed. Adding GHG’s would not change the temperature much at all.

Considering an atmosphere without any GHG’s or water vapour, it quickly becomes apparent that it would be quite warm because the atmosphere would have a heating mechanism and no way to cool radiatively. Adding GHG’s to such an atmosphere, even water vapour, would cool it considerable.

This makes a lie out of the claim that the difference between a no-atmosphere Earth and a GHG + wet atmosphere is warmer because of the GHG’s alone. The additional claim is that because all the proposed 33 deg of warming is ’caused by the GHG’s’, then doubling the concentration will give some large increase in the bulk temperature. A no-GHG atmosphere that would be warmed by contact with the surface and having no way to radiatively cool itself, will not be warmed by the addition of 0.04% CO2. It will definitely not by warmed further by the addition of more CO2 because that is just adding emitters capable of cooling the atmosphere.

This is fundamental to how atmospheres and radiative cooling work. To assess the impact of an increase in CO2 concentration, it is imperative that the appropriate comparison is between an atmosphere with and without CO2, not a planet as we have now and no atmosphere at all. The latter comparison teaches is nothing at all about the impact of GHG’s because there is no baseline. No baseline, no quantifiable impact. I am surprised the IPCC has not discussed this.

I have seen amateur comments claim that the atmosphere without and GHG’s would be -33 but inevitably their references cite a no-atmosphere case like the moon, not a no-GHG atmosphere. In the early stupid days of CAGW it was maintained, even in journals, that water vapour was ‘only a feedback’ and that without GHG’s the world would be frozen. Gavin made that claim, among others. The ‘only a feedback’ story was defended vigorously. It is B.S. An earthly atmosphere with water and no other GHG’s would be nearly indistinguishable from what we have now. That being the case, adding CO2 has very little effect.

paqyfelyc

So, let’s resume this :
The cheese hole effect is well established
more cheese, more holes in the cheese
more holes in the cheese, less matter in the cheese
Hence more cheese, less matter in the cheese.

where cheese= GHG, matter = OLR hole =lower OLR

paqyfelyc

@Crispin in Waterloo
An atmosphere without any GHG (including, no GHG effect of water) would be a funny thing, and i have seen NO decent paper adressing this issue (only some obviously stupid -18°C temperature, with no serious back up)
It would still be ruled by gravitational lapse rate, hotter at the bottom than at the top, so at altitude high enough, any evaporated stuff (some otherworldly water with no GHG property, or whatever) will condensate and give it energy. But this condensed stuff will also radiate energy… negating the assumption that the surface directly radiate to space.
It would still heat in day, and cool at night.
It would still prevent the surface to lose as much energy as it would lose ithout any atmosphere

Geoff Sherrington

Nick,
On one hand “Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space”.
On the other hand, “While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise.”

For Gawd’s sake, which is it? Are there no reliable measurements of OLR? Or is there such confusion that model novelists have to say, ” … after a while, things change and it works the other way?”
What a cop out.
In the years since publication, have any authors of GCMs changed their model fundamentals to cope with the paper’s suggestions? Or is the paper just more ‘unicorn farts’ as Mosher would say. Geoff.

Geoff,
“In the years since publication, have any authors of GCMs changed their model fundamentals to cope with the paper’s suggestions?”
You should read the abstract again. This paper is reporting the results of GCM runs. The models aren’t wrong; they are saying that our ways of thinking need revision in the light of model results. Absorption within the atmosphere will be a bigger factor than reduction of outgoing OLR. That’s what the models are telling us, not what we have to tell the models.

joelobryan

Nature’s version of the UHI effect, i.e. albedo. Duh.

michael hart

So they’ve solved all the issues with cloud cover? I doubt it.

Hugs

No, but according to their models, they have.

barrybrill

Wow! So the models agree with Lindzen & Choi that net outgoing radiation is NOT reduced by an increased concentration of GHGs. Instead, All the warming is down to albedo?

ThinAir

The paper is either saying exactly that — only albedo matters — or it says nothing at all. While it seems to ignore the importance of the water vapor feedback.

Kurt

My vote is “nothing at all.” The paper presents a textbook example of the reification fallacy by observing a counter-intuitive phenomenon that only exists in an abstract model and trying to attach some physical significance to it.

Hans-Georg

Now that the AGW believers have noticed that the outgoing radiation just does not go back and also does not stay the same (a thing that other researchers have already noticed when they examined the atmosphere of the Antarctic and found that increasing CO2 even helps to cool it down ) the shirt must be put on from below. Now the atmosphere suddenly absorbs more sunlight, which mechanism this is due to, but remains clerical-glorified.

Well yes but it’s definitely “settled” wildly oscillating contradictory hypotheses you know.

Kenji

Speaking of albedo … all of my local building departments, CA Title-24, Greenpoint Rating, and LEED … all … insist upon “light colored” if not “white” roofs for every one of my buildings. Only thing is … that all the local Design Review Commissions BAN light colored roofing as annoying to neighbors and generally obnoxious-looking. So which is it going to be Nanny State? “Planet-saving” WHITE roofs? Or attractive buildings? I fEEl soooo guilty for each “dark” roof I Design. Ohhhhh mammmmaaa

John F. Hultquist

I’ve gotten to hate white autos — especially since the US Forest Service went from a light forest green to white. I traded last February — a white for a nice bright blue.
A few years ago we had a new roof put on. We asked for the whitest shingle the company made. Still, it seems to be about that of our Moon. For the past week it has been very white. Six inches of snow tends to do that. Now this morning it is back to its former dull color.

menicholas

My friends’ doctor told him that those little blue pills do not help with albedo either.

From the they have wrong but global warming theory is correct anyway department.

Frederic

Unless it’s from the “the theory is correct but nobody has interpreted it correctly so far” department.

Frenchie77

The proper terminology is “Fake but accurate” brought you to by the infamous Dan Rather whose motto was “I can’t wait til tomorrow for a story I need today.”

gnomish

carl sagan got famous for doing it before dan rather did

The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation.
≠========
the hotspot predicted by models has not happened. if anything atmospheric moisture is decreasing.

cirby

That’s the one thing that keeps getting glossed over.

The models all basically admit that CO2 alone doesn’t have enough “greenhouse power” to make the amount of warming they’re predicting, so they assume that there will be a large increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, multiplying the heating effect by a factor of at least two (and three, in some models).

If there’s not a dramatic increase in water vapor worldwide, AGW theory fails on yet another level.

Samuel C Cogar

……. so they (the warminists) assume that there will be a large increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, multiplying the heating effect by a factor of at least two (and three, in some models).

I guess the above will be “authorization” for the next “adjustment” to the Historical Temperature Record so that it will agree with the computer generated “temperature forecasts/models”.

menicholas

“That’s the one thing that keeps getting glossed over.”

That is one thing.
Everything else real is also being glossed over, and by glossed over I mean completely ignored.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

“The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.” — What is the relationship [Climate sensitivity factor] between CO2 converting long wave radiation in to temperature? Is it linearly related and curvilinearly related? In 1970s-80s, I presented models to estimate global solar radiation and net radiation.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

LdB

Been a while lets see how good my memory is, you will need to check these numbers.

CO2 has a symmetric stretching mode at around 1388 cm-1, asymmetric stretching mode at around 2349 cm-1, and a bending mode at around 667 cm-1. Hit a CO2 molecule with the shorter wavelengths it kicks out an emission in the longer wavelength. Hit it with 15 micron it will emit the higher frequencies. On a lab bench at 275K to 325K and 1 atmosphere the effect is about 4.4% to 8.0% for the higher frequencies to lower and I think it’s about 3.5-6% for the reverse but check both of these it has been a while. The gas mixture changes things around with Nitrogen and Water helping and any chemical site will explain why.

You obviously have access to a university and you can do a simple setup to check the numbers, get a quantum dot count the photons in and the photons out converted. Or do an article search on something like “IR single photon CO2 spectroscopy” which should eliminate all the bulk studies.

Does any of that help in climate science .. nope. That is on a bench under controlled situation and you are driving one way and measuring the other. In the real world you have both interactions together and you have all the various temperature and pressures in different proportions. You basically need a top to bottom cross section of the atmosphere and integrate that conversion along the entire section to know the answer of what it does. That is where you need climate science and real answers.

Crispin in Waterloo

Has anyone challenged or proven the assertion that a CO2 molecule, after absorbing a photon, emits it in a truly random direction? Why doesn’t the direction in bias the direction out? At all?

A good question Crispin and I think the answer lies in two physical mechanisms. Firstly that you cannot predict precisely when the IR excited molecule will re-emit. Secondly the molecules are in thermal motion so I think the photon re-emission momentum is about as random as random can be. If this were not so you could arrange for the mother of all powerful lasers.

It is random because we can’t know, from the information available, what molecule absorbed, what molecule emitted and what the spatial orientations were when absorption or emission occurred.

LdB

There is a complicated QM explaination to why the emission is random direction. However we can stay inside classical physics and give you an answer (lie) which will make sense. The emission under the classical story can only be relative to the position of the molecule. The molecule has no preference to direction so even if the emission is relative to the molecule position the distribution of emissions will be random thru all the directions.

This question always arises in classical physics people because of the stupid rutherford model of the atom and you have the nucleus in the way and an electron energy being involved. Since you have an orbital the temptation is to say that an emission might slam into the nucleus because you have turned the atom into a solid 3D thing. It’s the same problem of why don’t two electrons in the same orbital crash into each other occasionally. There is a notion of “collision” in quantum mechanics, where two objects briefly have a localized interaction but it is not really like the classical colission.

LdB

For the more advanced the true answer you need to know how localized the QM interaction is. If the wave packet representing the photon is spatially well localized, then the momentum uncertainty is large and you can say the emission is in all directions at the same time.

Experimentally you set up a quantum dot in the middle of a circle with detectors. You emit one photon and randomly select to view the photon with one detector you will see the photon flash. If you turn on all the detectors you will see the photon on exactly one detector and one detector may see it more than others. Why, well because one detector may be slightly closer or more sensitive, faster. The probability wave spreads out from the emission point and the first sensor to observe the wave it collapses at. You can no longer see the photon at the other sensors because there is only E=hv energy available and once absorbed at one point the probability of seeing it at any other point drops to zero.

For all the anti-QM crackpots I am not interested in discussing it and your comments will be ignored.

menicholas

comment image

AndyG55

“and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.”

Except its not warming rapidly. It is barely warming at all.

The only warming in the whole satellite temperature data has come from El Nino events.

The latter of these will shortly drop back to equal to or below its starting temperature.

Between El Nino events, there has been NO WARMING.

tom0mason

And the scientific method is —
Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding …

Then just model it.

No verification with observations, no measurement need to be done, no validation of the computer model(s).
No, just guess a new supposition superstition and off you go.

Mat

AndyG55, you made a bet with me nearly 4 years ago when you said:

“And there is good reason for this plateau, and why we are almost certainly going to start heading down hill”

That was on 4th January 2014 when the UAH 13 month rolling anomaly was about 0.15°. It’s now about 0.35°, and October was 0.65° (in non El Nino conditions).

Four years ago I said:
“I’m open to any number of years, but let’s say if that in three years global temperatures start trending downwards, I’ll revise my thinking. I sincerely hope that in the reverse case you will be open to revising yours.”

You agreed you would revise your thinking if temperatures did not go down. It has now been 4 years and the temperature has gone up steeply. Will you do what you promised and revise your thinking?

AndyG55

Temperatures are starting to drop.

A slight delay, but not by much. See what happens over the next few months.

Or are you going to rely on El Nino transients as well.

AndyG55

There is NO WARMING in the satellite data except for El Nino events

Get over it. !!

AndyG55

I don’t know what its like in the USA, but down here in Australia we have had the COLDEST start to November in 49 years…..

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/coldest-start-to-november-in-23-years-set-to-continue-20171104-gzf07g.html

I WANT MY SUMMER !!!

According to news, UK is also set for a very cold November,

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/875231/Snow-weather-forecast-November-coldest-winter-heavy-snow-UK-BBC-weather

And looking through some news links I found Canada is in a deep freeze as well

http://www.620ckrm.com/2017/11/09/regina-experiences-coldest-november-9-in-98-years/

Then apparently USA as well

https://www.agweb.com/article/the-us-witnessed-its-coldest-november-weather-in-38-years-ben-potter/

AndyG55

Heck, even HAdCRUT shows that the El Nino has already disappeared from the surface temperature.
comment image

And a solid, deep La Nino appears to be on the way.

Got your fossil fuel powered heating all ready to go ?

Mat

AndyG55, I replied to you in a thread below.

Jim Rose

The test of observed warming will come over the next five years. The last super El Nino, 1998, showed, after an initial undershoot, what appears to be a stepwise increase in temperature. So, will the just-passed super El Nino show a step-wise increase in temperature or not? If it does not — then there will be no observed warming. If it does, the there may be a warming trend — but of a nonlinear rachet-pawl variety.

Hans-Georg

The acid test for global warming will be in 10 years, when the AMO (C) becomes negative and at the same time the PDO is still negative. Then we will see what effect CO2 has. Apart from the coming weak solar cycles.

gregfreemyer

I hope you’re right that the post 2015/16 El Niño warming will be zero, but that’s not what the satellites are currently showing.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/

Hans-Georg

Dr. Spencer has made a statement on his website. Please read everything and not just the balloons of AGW.

gregfreemyer

I read most of Spencer’s blog posts. I just re-read the one about the large Oct. temp anomaly. He merely says that the UAH troposphere has diverged from the surface data, but he provides no explanation.

jim

And any AVERAGE warming is seen in slight increases in night time temps and winter temps ( if they are accurate, which is unlikely). The Earth isn’t getting ‘warmer’ it getting milder, if anything at all. Since when did ‘mildness’ harm anything or anyone.

JohnKnight

Well, some nut trees (like the almond in my back yard) need some hard frosts to stimulate flowering . . Hey, you asked ; )

menicholas

The amounts of chilling needed to stimulate optimum flower production in nut and fruit trees is usually not a whole lot.
Which is why things like almonds can even be grown in southern California, and we can even grow peaches in Florida.
But even with no chilling, there will still be flowering, and production.
But it will not be optimum.
And if such conditions persisted over many years and wide areas…do you think these species would be capable of adaptation, or would they just toss in the towel and commit almond tree seppuku?
We are only just beginning to understand epigenetics, but it is safe to say that species that have survived on Earth for tens of millions of years have been through some serious disruptions…many of them, warm and cold, dry and wet, you name it…and they are still here.

Life adapts.
That is why it is life.
http://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/Weather_Services/chilling_accumulation_models/about_chilling_units/

menicholas

And then there are the stats on exactly how much vertical elevation or change in latitude is required to counter a given rise in temp.
It aint much.

Mat

AndyG55, today you say:
“Temperatures are starting to drop.
A slight delay, but not by much. See what happens over the next few months.
Or are you going to rely on El Nino transients as well.”

On January 8 this year you said:
“Start of 2017. That’s 3 years
Let’s see where the go over the few months shall we.
December 2016 was 5th December in UAH and 9th December in RSS.
Looks like I might be pretty much on track.”

On January 4 2014, you said:
“we are almost certainly going to start heading down hill.”

Can you see a pattern yet?

AndyG55

Poor mat, getting desperate are you.

You can see the cooling phase coming, slightly delayed.

Trying to get in a couple of meaningless jibes before it does.

Can you see the pattern!

AndyG55

You don’t seem to have any knowledge about what an El Nino is.

Hint, little child. Its a big release of energy from the oceans.

ie.. and ocean COOLING event.,

… and there’s been one heck a LOT of energy that been released from the oceans over the 2015/16 El Nino TRANSIENT.

More than I thought, yes, it does seem that the effect of all those strong solar cycles last century was actually larger than anticipated.

Have you seen the large El Nino starting to form ??

Got plenty of fossil fuel powered heaters?

AndyG55

La Nina forming…….. time to CHILL-OUT

Make sure your fossil fueled electric heaters are working properly.
comment image

menicholas

Mat,
Of course…the pattern is completely obvious to anyone paying attention in the slightest:
Everything warmista alarmists have ever predicted or warned about has failed to materialize.
Every.
Thing.
No exceptions.
None.
Now…that is a pattern!

Am I misunderstanding something, or missing something? How can this theory be reconciled with the historic records showing temperature rises precede CO2 rises, and not vice versa?

Allan M R MacRae

Yes!

AGW is not Science

It can’t – QED. But their BS story is that once the ~800 year time lag has passed and BOTH temperature and CO2 are rising, that CO2 “contributes” to the warming. Unfortunately, their BS conveniently overlooks two GAPING holes in this “story” –

ONE, there is NO increase in the “rate” of warming, after the ~800 year time lag has passed and CO2 AND temperature are both rising.

TWO, even if one could argue (perhaps plausibly) that the scale of the graph is insufficient to show the (minuscule!) “contribution” of CO2 to the rising temperature, there is STILL one place where the supposed “contribution” of CO2 CANNOT hide. When whatever is (excuse me) REALLY causing the temperature to increase stops, what we SHOULD then see, if their BS was valid, is temperature CONTINUING TO INCREASE at a lower rate, that lower rate being the “contribution” of CO2 to the temperature rise. Instead, what we see is TEMPERATURES FALLING, WHILE CO2 LEVELS CONTINUE TO RISE, and then CO2 levels falling ?AFTER the SAME ~800 year time lag has passed.

So CO2’s “contribution” is NOTHING, essentially.

menicholas

Bingo!

AndyG55

If they want to use those Vostok graphs, they need to realise that :

1. Peak CO2 levels were NEVER able to maintain peak temperatures.

2. In fact, peak CO2 levels were ALWAYS coincident with the temperature starting to drop sharply.

>>
. . . that CO2 “contributes” to the warming. Unfortunately, their BS conveniently overlooks two GAPING holes in this “story” –
<<

They never point to the cooling sides of the graph. According to their logic the higher CO2 should be preventing temperatures from dropping–but it doesn’t. Frank Lansner covered it quite well back in a 2009 post (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/).

Jim

so what caused the little ice age. how do we know modern. warming post 1850 is simply warming due to end of lia? since climate models cannot explain the lia how can anyone be confident models can explain what happens post lia?

Non Nomen

…what caused the little ice age…

There seems to be no satisfactory answer, if any, to that question. Was it a decrease in solar radiation? Was it a decrease in CO2? Was it a mix? As long as there is no valid answer to that, there will be no explanation or prediction of things to come. Furthermore, models based on CO2 as driving force do not work properly, as Donohoe, Armour et al show. The seeds of doubt germinate…

Paul

“so what caused the little ice age.”

I’d settle for a solid explanation of what drive ENSO. I’m wondering if that’s not the climate clock tick.

marque2

The little ice age never happened, it was a localized event, don’t you read your Mann? There is one tree in Siberia which proved this.

Carbon BIgfoot

Geodetic factors spawned by mantle discharges in the deep oceans of the Pacific as theorized in this blog a year ago. Can someone recall the exact article?

paqyfelyc

oscillation is the natural behavior of most systems, controled by the system eigenvalues.
Now, ENSO involves wind pattern, so obviously you need a solid wind model to understand ENSO.

Hans-Georg

And is not only the LIA, also they connot explain the MWP before. So like the romanian warming period and the follow dark ages before the MWP. None of this up and downs they understand.

Javier

I like the Romanian and Bulgar warming periods.

Kelvin Vaughan

Javier November 13, 2017 at 7:20 am

I like the Romanian and Bulgar warming periods.

And they like you too.

JohnWho

And, what caused the recovery from the LIA?

Javier

The end of the LIA, obviously.

Tom O

Because it’s not about science, it’s about politics and population. Models don’t have to explain anything, just keep you from seeing what the magician’s left hand is doing while he is doing his show with the right. It’s all about the dazzle in front of your eyes, while the dull in the background goes unnoticed as it steals your money, your car, your freedom, and eventually, your life.

Tom

“At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.”

I thought the atmosphere was transparent to SWR.

Dan Sage

comment image

Dan Sage

It didn’t work. Second try.comment image

Dan: It seems to me, from looking at that graphic, that there is very little room for CO2 to do anything in its absorption band. Water vapor already blocks what appears to be 50% of the same wavelengths, which means that any increased CO2 can only ever block that final 50% of that narrow band, regardless of how much CO2 increases.

Dan Sage

Mr. Schrumpf, that is what it also appears to me.

richard verney

There are several different cartoons depicting what is thought to be the budget, such as this one from which you will note that it is claimed that the atmosphere absorbs 16% and clouds absorb 3% of incoming solar irradiance

Thus, the atmosphere is not transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance.

comment image?zoom=2

And

comment image

paqyfelyc

this cartoon is a lie: it represents a round surface, when it assume the Earth to be flat. Flat, one-side, not rotating, homogenous, no wind, close to equilibrium.
A plain lie.
And they dare paint skeptics as ‘flat Earther”. Trenberth and friends ARE the flat Earther here.
The truth is, the Earth is NOT at equilibrium.
Not in time.
It gains energy during ~half the day and lose at early morning, evening and night. It gains energy in late winter- early summer and lose energy in late summer-early winter. however, it also turns part of this day-summer extra energy into chemical energy (photosynthesis), turned back into heat during night&winter. It is closer to the sun (receive more energy) during north hemisphere winter. etc.
Not in space.
It gains energy at lower latitude, and lose at higher latitude.

This budget cartoon do not help understand, it helps planting false ideas in everyone mind.

And two-thirds of the energy absorbed by the surface comes from the atmosphere. We don’t really need much energy from the sun.

richard verney

I am frequently criticising this cartoon, and I consider that it is divorced from all reality.

I was merely pointing out that it has always been part of the AGW theory that the atmosphere is only partially transparent, and not completely transparent, to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance.

PS. In addition to the points raised above, the cartoon also ignores the fact that approximately 70% of the planet’s surface is covered by water, and the oceans do not absorb solar irradiance at their surface, but rather at depth.

Crispin in Waterloo

It has “back radiation 324” and shows all 324 absorbed by surface. Huh? No! From the upper levels, back radiation is mostly absorbed by the intervening water vapour and CO2 molecules multiple times before some of it reaches the surface. Some is re-radiated into space, some downwards and some sideways. Similarly “390 surface radiation” is captured on the way up and partly radiated back. Anyone agree?

According to this cartoon, the net energy gain from space is 168+324=492 Watts and the losses 390+78+24=492 Watts, a perfect balance. But look at the “67 Absorbed by Atmosphere” on the incoming stream. Of that total, half would be emitted as IR up and the other half down. Where is the “Absorbed by atmosphere” on the outgoing stream? Is it the “324 Back Radiation”? Can’t be. That 324 is only half of what would have to be absorbed to give that total downwards. GHG’s absorbing 648W would radiate about 324 downwards. If there is 324 down, there is 324 up. 648 W harvested out of 492 W? Call my patent lawyer!

The 67 W incoming absorbed would be shed 50% up and 50% down. To get 324 down-pointing from GHG’s there would have to be 648 outgoing, but the outgoing total is only 492, of which 24+78 are noted as not being radiative in the region of interest. How can 492 outgoing total be captured by GHG/s and 66% of it be send downwards again? It is not a mirror.

The cartoon is unrealistic so let’s look a little deeper: 492 outgoing total balancing 492 incoming cannot generate “324 absorbed by surface” exclusively from back radiation because the GHG molecules would have to capture 492*132%=648 W of outgoing radiation to do it, and there isn’t that much available. Taking the cartoon’s claim for 40 W ‘window’ as correct, it means the available energy is only 492-40 = 452. Thus the claim is that of 452 W available radiation, 143% of it is captured by GHG’s and 50% of that sent down to the surface to be absorbed.

I think a demonstration of a 43% return above unity would attract a lot of attention among the perpetual motion machine enthusiasts.

If you discount the 492 for thermals and evaporation, and from the remaining 390 radiation 40 W is lost through the window, there actually is only 350W IR radiation available, with 92.6% of it retuned to Earth? That means the GHG’s are capturing 85% more energy than is available and sending half of it back to the surface. Scotty, turn on the hyper-drive! I don’t think I can take and moooooore!

All this goes to demonstrate that, “A chart is an inaccurate representation of a partially understood truth.”

paqyfelyc

and, as pointed out lower, the surface lose MORE than the maximum energy it could possibly get if the atmosphere absorbed already all of earth emission (perfectly effective GHG case): 24+78+390=492 lost, versus a theoric maximum of 67+2×168 = 403 maximum possible to receive.
Also notice that the atmosphere somehow radiates 70% more downward that upward, 324 versus 195, and that again this 324 figure exceed the maximum of 235 in the case of a perfectly opaque to Earth radiation GHG.
This atmosphere isn’t a blanket that just prevent energy to get out, it is a Maxwell deamon heating device.
This cartoon doesn’t pass the first basic coherence check, but is is still teached everywhere. Says it all about “climate science”.

Geoff Sherrington

Waterloo,
Do energy levels allow the following repetitive cycle scheme?
After a burst of downwelling hits the surface and assuming it is mostly absorbed, it will heat the surface. The surface will become hotter and emit IR, some upwards.
The upgoing will be like that at the start of the cartoon, some heading up to heat the air, radiate in all directions, including a new lot of downwelling.
This cycle repeats over and over.
For simplicity, think that equal amounts of upwelling and down are produced each cycle. Upwelling goes to space, goodby. So we have a series where the participating upwelling becomes half, three quarters, seven eights etc, converging on 100%. The downwelling might as well not exist because these are rapid dissipative processes.
I have grossly simplified this scenario to set readers thinking about another cartoon diagram.

gregfreemyer

The clear sky atmosphere is. But I assume you know clouds blocks sunlight. So does dust, contrails, aerosols, etc.

richard verney

Solar insolation at the equator under clear skies is around 1,150 w/m2 and not 1,361 w/m2 showing that even clear sky atmosphere absorbs considerable amounts of incoming solar irradiance.

AndyG55

“spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding before realizing that it makes perfect sense — but for reasons no one had clarified and laid down in the literature.

They found the answer by drawing on both computer simulations and a simple energy-balance model.”

Oh…. so computer simulations and simple naive energy balance models.. after many hours of guessing and no doubt drinking merrily !!

Throwing out “guesses” ie , they had no idea what they were doing ..

….. as seems pretty obvious from their conclusion.

AndyG55

These seem like the sort of guys CSIRO might hire. ! Right Nick !

Moderately Cross of East Anglia

The whole thing reads like a desperate attempt to conjure up an excuse for why the climate models don’t mirror reality and so that the alarmists can go on pretending their work is worthy of being regarded as anything remotely scientific. I suggest Andy you just join the rest of us in quietly being contemptuous of this and keep watching real observations over corrupted model inputs and outright deception.

Urederra

In short, climate depends on the balance between two different kinds of radiation: …

… and convection and conduction, and state change, and …

The Earth absorbs incoming visible light from the sun, called “shortwave radiation,” and emits infrared light, or “longwave radiation,” into space.

and when it absorbs shortwave radiation it gets warm, and when it emits longwave radiation it colds down. Last bit is also usually omitted.

why climate models generate this illogical finding
≠==========!
because the theory is wrong. that is the simplest explanation and thus the most likely to be correct.

the human mind can invent a million reasons why it is logical for computer models to be illogical. it is especially helpful if these explanations concern the distant future and thus cannot be tested.

paqyfelyc

+1

So let me get this right.

Are they saying that CO2 doesn’t absorb, then reflect long wave, or short wave radiation back down to the planet? Instead, the planet’s surface is heated directly by short wave radiation, which by passes atmospheric CO2 molecules, which reflects long wave radiation, which also passes by atmospheric CO2 unhindered, straight back out to space?

Something I never really got anyway. How does a CO2 molecule know what direction the earth is so as to reflect back any absorbed radiation. Surely a molecule would radiate any absorbed energy equally from its ‘circumference’? (If a molecule has such a thing).

Please forgive my ignorance.

Patrick MJD

It’s magic.

richard verney

It is claimed that CO2 radiates in all directions, and thus approximately one half of the radiated photons are radiated in a direction that is downwards towards the direction of the surface. The other half is radiated in an upwards direction towards TOA from where it is radiated to the void of space.

rockyredneck

Actually, there are several other directions for the radiation to go. A molecule would have to be very close to earth to radiate even 25% towards it, assuming equal radiation in all directions.

Samuel C Cogar

“Yup”, it is factual science that ……. “one half of the radiated photons” are subject to the “force of gravity” and return to the earth’s surface ………… and ……. the “other half of the radiated photons” are repelled by the “force of gravity” and go flying out into space.

Ya know, kinda like re-emitted photons from atmospheric CO2 molecules being empowered with positive (+) and negative (-) gravitational charges.

Eritas

rockyredneck

That’s kind of what I thought.

Samuel C Cogar

Thanks, that was entirely unhelpful.

richard verney

all directions

All directions means what it says, ie., a full 360 degrees. The geometry of the spherical Earth and its spherical atmosphere means that it is inevitable that slightly less than 50% of the radiated photons will find their way downwards to the surface.

Samuel C Cogar

HotScot – November 13, 2017 at 9:52 am

Samuel C Cogar

Thanks, that was entirely unhelpful.

AW GEEEEZE, …… HotScot, ………….

And all I’za wasa trying ta do was appease the AGW “fence-stragglers” who keep testifying to the fact that they absolutely, positively disbelieve and disagree with the “junk-science” claims of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming ……… while in betwixt the aforementioned testimonials …….. they tout, quote, mimic and/or plagiarize their thoughts, beliefs and agreements that increases in atmospheric CO2 is and/or has been a direct cause of increases in near-surface air temperatures.

Their belief/opinion about CAGW is like the weather, …… it changes at a moment’s notice.

Samuel C Cogar

The geometry of the spherical Earth and its spherical atmosphere means that it is inevitable that slightly less than 50% of the radiated photons will find their way downwards to the surface.

OH MY OH ME, …. I really don’t think I can agree with the above statement, ……. even iffen the earth’s surface was “Biblical flat”. And the reason for that is, …… as the distance from the surface increases (altitude) …… the per se “re-emission window” for directing the CO2 emitted photons toward the surface …….. keeps decreasing exponentially.

Like a Quarterback throwing a pass, ……. the farther away the “receiver” is, ……. the smaller the “football launch window” is.

But the “BIG” question is, that no one has yet accurately calculated, …… how much is 50% of the CO2’s re-radiated photons?

As far as I’m concerned, ……… guessing and estimating just don’t get it.

Paul

“How does a CO2 molecule know what direction the earth is so as to reflect back any absorbed radiation”

Easy, molecular diodes.

Paul

Seems fair. So does it mean the CO2 molecules then direct all the absorbed long and short wave radiation directly back down to the earth’s surface?

george e. smith

Actually somewhat more than half are directed towards space. It’s called atmospheric refraction. radiation that is not emitted directly upwards, will be refracted towards the zenith, because the refractive index of the atmosphere decreases with altitude.
As a result of this refraction when the sun sets it is already geometrically below the horizon before its visual disk touches the horizon.
Also the GHG absorption lines are broadened by Temperature (Doppler effect) and also by collisions (density effect, so a downward directed photon will encounter a greater probability of being re-absorbed by a GHG molecule, than an upward directed photon which will encounter a lower density and temperature which narrows the GHG absorption lines, so it increases the probability of escaping upwards, and re-absorbing downwards.

So more than 50% can escape to space.

And the individual CO2 lines (thousands of them) do NOT overlap the thousands of water lines, so it is incorrect to say that water already bsorbs the radiation that CO2 can absorb.

Those spectrum cartoons smudge the real absorption lines to make it look like it is one big gap. It isn’t.

You need to look up a real measured CO2 or H2O absorption spectrum in the atmosphere. Try … ” The Infra-Red Handbook ” …, published by ERIM for the Department of Naval Research.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-90786
ISBN: 0-9603590-1-X

ANY incoming solar spectrum radiation that is scattered/reflected/absorbed/whatever in the atmosphere, is solar spectrum energy that never makes it to the deep oceans to get stored; so it is a net loss to the earth’s energy budget input.

And the LWIR emitted by the atmosphere, will more likely escape to space, than reach the ocean surface, where it will be absorbed in less than 50 microns of water surface, and cause evaporation rather than propagation to the colder depths.

G

William Astley

What we are observing is ironic science, mixed with fake science. Ironic science occurs when there is a path error.

A path error is an incorrect physical assumption which is in most cases due to ignorance concerning the real physical mechanism(s).

The path error makes the scientific problems in question impossible to solve. Ironic science does not converge on the truth. It goes in circles.

The warming in the last 150 years was caused by a reduction in cloud cover. The reduction in cloud cover was caused by changes in the solar cycle, as opposed to changes in atmospheric CO2.

Observations to support the above assertion is the lack of warming for the last 18 years, fact that the predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot did not occur, and the fact that there are periodic cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar cycle changes.

The above conclusions also explain why there are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa.

CheshireRed
richard verney

This is Occam’s razor.

Until we know clouds, we will never properly understand the planet’s climate and how it is driven.

Sorry, that wasn’t clear at all

This: “Instead, the planet’s surface is heated directly by short wave radiation, which by passes atmospheric CO2 molecules, which reflects long wave radiation, which also passes by atmospheric CO2 unhindered, straight back out to space?”

Should read: Instead, the planet’s surface is heated directly by short wave radiation, which by passes atmospheric CO2 molecules, and the planet reflects long wave radiation back, which also passes by atmospheric CO2 unhindered, straight back out to space?

Richard M

When the planet reflects short wave radiation it is still short wave on the way out. It only becomes long wave after after it is absorbed and then emitted at a different frequency.

Richard M

So does CO2 absorb it all and reflect it, or are their other atmospheric influences like water vapour, methane, clouds and even dust particles that contribute. I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that question.

My understanding is that Tyndall declared that water vapour was the dominant greenhouse gas and that whilst not insignificant, the effect of the other greenhouse gases was minor. Nor could his laboratory possibly include clouds, nor accurately replicate varying amounts of atmospheric particulates caused by volcano’s, fires and weather events like hurricanes and tornado’s.

Sorry to be a pain, but it seems to me there’s to many variables to boil down climate change to just one trace atmospheric gas, and only a small part of that due to mankind. It also seems to me that trying to average anything within climate science is utterly futile.

menicholas

It has been warmer many times.
CO2 has been higher more than many times…it has almost always been higher, including periods were it was also warmer.
No life threatening catastrophes ever happened…instead life prospered.
And it cooled off every time, eventually.
Because natural variability is, always has been, and always will be a far larger effect.

“Out in the real world, aerosols in air pollution act to reflect a lot of sunlight, and so Earth has not experienced as much warming from shortwave solar radiation as it otherwise might have.”

We must start to subsidise aerosols.

Non Nomen

We must start to subsidise aerosols.

Absolutely reasonable. Send your proposal to the EU in Brussels, garnished with the magic key words “global warming, climate change, Al Gore says so” and you won’t have to wait long until they fork out the subsidies requested, and probably a lot more.

My application is already in the post. I have also recommended an Aerosol Conference in St Lucia.

paqyfelyc

Oh no. You also need a friend selling “aerosol anti warming device”, that could also double as energy producing device, while getting rid of an awful GHG (CH4 for instance).
I got a picture.comment image

rckkrgrd

How much would I get for a sneeze?

Jeanparisot

So where is all the water vapor?

Non Nomen

In the depth of the oceans?

With the heat that disappeared, at some stage they are going to reappear and then we will be doomed!

paqyfelyc

It turned into hiroshima bombs, billions of them, hiding in the ocean. We are doomed

Ivor Ward

” “I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen,” Donohoe says. “We would actually see the absorption of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.””

So the greenhouse effect theory is wrong.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

RAH

“The paper is not challenging the physics of climate models…..”

Of course not! To challenge the physics of the models would be blasphemy and subject the authors to a possible inquisition. Never mind that the physics of the climate models in use demands a persistent hot spot in the upper troposphere somewhere along the equatorial band and nobody has ever found it.

RAH

Concerning the graphics depictions. Are any of them accurate depictions of what one would expect from the poles?

gunsmithkat

Seems like a lot of hand waving and mumbling. I don’t buy it.

I cannot say I have read the paper but it seems to me they have discovered something that I and some of us here on wuwt already knew. The climate changes as the sun’s radiation changes over time AND as earth’s inside iron core re-aligns with that of the sun: the magnetic stirrer effect.

FYI, we all know of the following solar cycles (SC’s) :
11(Schwabe) , 22 (Hale), 88 (Gleissberg) , 210 (DeVries), 1000 (Eddy), 2400 (Bray), years, respectively.
{proven data for these cycles exist}
The changes can be seen in my data, for example, you can see the half cycle of the Gleissberg shown in my graph.comment image

GHG’s [also] deflect SW to space,
and what the researchers should do to prove that a GH effect exists is to show us a balance sheet of each GHG as to how much OLR is trapped versus how much SW is back radiated to space, converted to some kind of energy calculation.

My data tell me that there is no man made warming so I would say the net effect of more GHG (CO2 + H2O) is zero or very close to zero and it compares to nothing with the various effects of the SC’s.

tom0mason

“Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding before realizing …
THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!
~~~~~~~~~~~
I spend about the same time and my guess is that you and your guesses are wrong, and the climate models are no match for reality.

Non Nomen

… throwing out guesses …THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!

Still better than Mikey the Mann’s hockeyschtick, that was made up deliberately and conceived with trickery to deceive.

CheshireRed

“However, a darker Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.”
*****************
So the entire theory now hangs on a ‘darker earth absorbing more sunlight’? How much by surface area is now ‘darker’ than before and thus has reduced albedo? 2%? 1%? 0.5%? Less? (and over how many months of the year for that matter?) From there how realistic is it that such a tiny % of earths surface – in already cold areas that receive far less incoming solar than hot areas, holds the balance of power on global temperature surface warming? Sounds like yet more propping up of AGW by confected theory.

Patrick MJD

Clean air acts worked, and resulted in warming. Why can’t we just leave stuff alone?

Stephen Skinner

Patrick MJD November 13, 2017 at 4:33 am
Clean air acts worked.
I think this gets overlooked and if as they say, “aerosols in air pollution act to reflect a lot of sunlight” then we should see warming because of cleaner skies, at least in the ‘developed’ world.

Stephen Skinner

CheshireRed November 13, 2017 at 4:26 am
I think the idea we can measure how things will warm just by measuring albedo is too simplistic. Forests and lakes are darker than deserts / salt lakes, but forests and lakes are cooler than the latter. Of course that will be because of evaporation but either way they will be cooler.

CheshireRed

I agree. Albedo is pitched as another instant explanation to this issue and as a positive feedback that drives warming but it’s just too simplistic and as so often, way too convenient to their cause. Anything to keep AGW on life-support, eh?

CCB

I suppose it’s easier to attribute ‘blame’ to the life giving photosynthesizing CO2 gas & try limit to industrial development of the 3rd world, that has given us in the 1st/2nd world such a deluxe lifestyle from ‘caveman’ days, but the general public don’t really get blasted with info on other GHGs (except the GreenWash) so found this from this article (found from a few clicks from the above):
https://ecometrica.com/assets/GHGs-CO2-CO2e-and-Carbon-What-Do-These-Mean-v2.1.pdf
All of course ignoring other effects of Sun, Clouds, the uneven distribution of solar radiation on this little planet and of course Milankovic cycles etc in this very brief history of time.

These guys have got it backwards too.

The warming of the late 20th century was caused primarily by reduction in cloud cover.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/30/sun-cloud-ocean-update/
Cloud cover decrease was responsible for about 90% of the global warming from 1981 to 2009, increased CO2 was responsible for about 10%. [1981-2009 was the full date range of available cloud data.].

The resulting warmer surface sends more IR radiation out into space, and the extra CO2 intercepts only a part of it. This is the cause behind their observation that “While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise.

So when they say “At the same time, the atmosphere absorbs more and more incoming solar radiation; it’s this enhanced shortwave absorption that ultimately sustains global warming.”, this is where they have got it backwards: The absorption of more SW is the natural result of a decrease in cloud cover. So it isn’t a reaction to CO2’s warming, it is the warming. “Sea ice and snow cover melt” is trivial compared to cloud cover decrease, because it involves a much smaller area placed where there’s a lot less solar radiation.
NB, it’s the ocean that absorbs the SW, not the land or the atmosphere.

Clyde Spencer

Mike,
You said, “The warming of the late 20th century was caused primarily by reduction in cloud cover.” That has always struck me as a better explanation for the retreat of glaciers than the miniscule, claimed increase in average global surface temperatures, with most of the increase at high latitudes, at night, and in the Winter, where it is already cold enough to freeze.

RWturner

Indeed. We know that warming began prior to the industrial revolution and we have anecdotal accounts from history as well as scientific proxy data that cold periods were often associated with literal dimming of the sun. Clouds, especially high level clouds nucleated from sulfate aerosols, is the culprit.

“during this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness… and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear” — Procopius, 6th century

Steve R

If this paper means anything, then we would have seen the authors and MIT cast aside as climate deniers by now.

John B

More speculation about speculation about speculation…

John Bell

Something about that word “impacting” bothers me.

BallBounces

Verbing nouns is an American thing.

DHR

“The atmosphere grows moister…”

But if one believes NOAA data, it has not but is actually getting drier.

Yes, that is my understanding. Could you link to the data?

DHR

I get it from http://www.climate4you.com/ Go to “Climate + Clouds” I am sure you can also get it directly from NOAA.

Stephen Skinner

“The authors demonstrate that the source of the differences lies in the way in which a model represents changes in cloud cover with global warming, another big factor in how well Earth can reflect shortwave solar energy.”
Yes, and cloud cover can be greatly affected by the land over which the air travels and changes in land use can change cloud cover. Have there been any changes in land use in the last 200 years compared to the previous millennia?

tadchem

The entire ‘scientific’ premise of ‘global warming’ is based on the erroneous concept of ‘greenhouse gases’.
If CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared energy from the sun and heats the atmosphere, what would happen to an atmosphere without CO2? The infrared energy would pass through the atmosphere and strike the surface, where it would be absorbed and converted into heat.
Where would this heat go? It would heat the air that is in contact with the warmed surface.
Either way, the infrared energy ends up heating the atmosphere. The presence or absence of a gas that absorbs infrared energy does not affect the total amount of energy transferred to the atmosphere. The source of all that infrared energy is the sun. The gas may, at best, provide a secondary path for some of the energy to get absorbed by the atmosphere.
Conversely, the emission spectrum of a gas is identical to its absorption spectrum. CO2 radiates infrared radiation (in ALL directions!) as well as it absorbs the same radiation. Whether or not a specific molecule of CO2 absorbs or radiates depends on several factors, but mostly the relative total kinetic energy of the molecular vibrations compared to the average total kinetic energy of the molecular vibrations of it’s molecular neighbors – i.e. the ‘temperature” of the surrounding gas. The presence of more CO2 in the atmosphere increases its ability to radiate energy at those same wavelengths.

gregfreemyer

The novelty level within this paper seems to be zero.

It has been said for almost 50 years that the direct effects of GHGs are low; approximately 1C increase for each doubling of CO2 as an example.

If AGW is dangerous, it is due to the feedbacks associated with a warming globe.

This paper is just reiterating common knowledge.

scarletmacaw

“While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2”

This is a ridiculous statement. Longwave radiation leaving the Earth is solely affected by the Earth’s temperature, otherwise you’d get short-term catastrophic warming. CO2 can only delay individual photons from escaping, not change the net energy balance.

Stephen Skinner

“OLR takes centuries to recover”
Why and based on what knowledge?

Bruce Cobb

“we have the global warming physical process backwards”

Agreed. No need to read your paper then.

Jack Langdon

Short version: The models are consistent with the pause. Longer term its worse than we thought. Send mony

kivy10

” I really don’t know clouds at all ” – joni mitchell

richard verney

there is a new paper out that suggests that the CO2 absorption spectra is already fully (or substantially already fully) saturated, such that CO2 at late 20th century levels does little, if anything at all. See:

Abstract
The amount of solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and by the surface respectively, the amount of heat emitted from the surface in the form of thermals and evaporation, and the proportion of infrared radiation emitted from the surface directly into space. The Greenhouse Effect equations are solved by calculating the downwelling flux from the atmosphere and substituting this in the equation for the radiative balance at Earth’s surface. If there were no leakage, the upwelling infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface would be equal to the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere plus twice the solar radiation absorbed by the surface. At current levels of solar absorption, this would result in total upwelling radiation of approximately 398.6 W/m 2 , or a maximum surface temperature of 16.4°C. Allowing for leakage of infrared radiation through the atmospheric window, the resulting emission from the Earth’s surface due to the Greenhouse Effect is reduced to 372.5 or 388.6 W/m 2 , depending on the treatment of thermals, corresponding to surface temperature of 11.6 or 14.6°C. Absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases is determined by the absorption bands for the respective gases and their concentrations. Examination of the absorption of the black body spectrum of terrestrial infrared radiation after passing through the atmosphere indicates that all emitted radiation that can be absorbed by greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, with a small contribution from carbon dioxide and ozone, is already fully absorbed, and the leakage of around 5.5 percent corresponds to the part of the infrared red spectrum that is not absorbed by greenhouse gases. Emissions in the carbon dioxide absorption bands are most likely fully absorbed. In these circumstances, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide in particular, will have no further effect. The surface temperature is probably at the thermodynamic limit for the current luminosity of the sun. Satellite based measurements since 1979 suggest that any recent increase in the surface temperature may be due to an increase in total solar irradiance, which we are still a decade or two from being able to confirm.

Solution of the Greenhouse Effect equations shows no increase in Earth’s surface temperature from increase in carbon dioxide (PDF Download Available).
Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319324166_Solution_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_equations_shows_no_increase_in_Earth's_surface_temperature_from_increase_in_carbon_dioxide [accessed Nov 13 2017].

paqyfelyc

“If there were no leakage, the upwelling infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface would be equal to the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere plus twice the solar radiation absorbed by the surface. ”
Simple, elegant, easy to understand(*). However, you have to consider that convection belongs in the leakage, as a not radiative way for surface to give energy to atmosphere.

Notice that according to the (awful, flat-earth) mainstream Earth energy budget,
A incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere ~67
B solar radiation absorbed by the surface ~168
A+2B = 403. Note this is maximum, no leakage, input to surface
C convection (part of leakage) ~102
D upwelling infrared radiation from surface: ~350 ( to atmosphere ~310, direct to space — leak– ~40)
C+D= 452 total energy loss by the surface
452 > 403, i.e. surface emits/transfers more than it can possibly recieve even in the no leakage case, so something is wrong in this Earth power budget, massively (in the ~50W/m² magnitude, 10x more than supposed anthropo forcing!).

(*) you are looking at a steady state solution where
A (atm in from sun) +B (surface in from sun) = C (global out to space = atmosphere out because no leakage surface to space and no leakage non radiative atmo to space, also backradiation from atm to surface because as much down as up)
D (surface out radiation = surface in because equilibrium and no convective leakage) = B + C = A+2B.
QED

RWturner

Absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases is determined by the absorption bands for the respective gases and their concentrations.

More specifically, the energy that the dipole molecule absorbs must be EXACTLY the energy needed to bump the molecule into the quantized vibrational state. It will never, under any known physical reality, absorb more or less than the exact energy needed, and once it’s already in the quantized vibrational state, it IS transparent to those wavelengths. If all the OLWIR in those bands is already being absorbed and reemitted, any additional molecules will make little difference. The only additional energy will come from the increased probability that when molecules collide in the atmosphere, one of them will be a CO2 molecule that will lose some vibrational energy to translational kinetic energy on collision, so the additional energy will be fractions of the quantized energy level (very little energy).

AndyHce

“If all the OLWIR in those bands is already being absorbed and reemitted” (condition 1)
Then is it not the case that
“any additional molecules” (of the same kind)
will absorb any additional OLWIR that may arise (such as from an increasing surface temperature?

I’m not saying that the first condition of absorption and re-emittance will (or will not) lead to an increased surface temperature, I’m asking by what logic increased OLWIR, from any cause, would not interact with the additional molecules, adding to the total of condition 1.

RWturner

I don’t think an increase in surface temperature increases the amount of each individual band of OLWIR, it slightly shifts the overall radiation to higher frequency/energy bands. If you believe the oft cited data, condition 1 was met before the industrial revolution.
comment image

@Richard Verney

“half” is incorrect.

The molecule acts like a sphere, so 62.5% of radiation going in the direction of the molecule goes back to the direction where the light came from.
You can compare it a bit with putting on your bright lights in misty, moist conditions: the light is returned to you in your face.
{we are talking of light in the wavelength area where the molecule ‘absorbs’}

this reasoning goes for both SW (going back to space) and OLR (going back to earth) where there is absorption.

richard verney

I was just stating the claim, ie., what proponents of AGW and the radiative GHE claim about the workings of their ‘theory’.

I agree that as a matter of geometry, less than half will find their way back to the surface.

Richard Verney

I think you did not get it.

The figure is 62.5% in the direction where the light came from. Not 50% or less than 50%.

Perhaps try and understand exactly how the GH and the anti GH effect works.

Note that on a cold winters night, when clouds come in, the minimum T in the night increases, as the IR radiation from earth hits on the water / water vapor and returns back to earth?

So, heat OLR is trapped by the clouds [at night]

During the day, clouds and GHG return [some] SW back to space.

Perhaps read this paper and understand exactly what is happening in fig 6 and 7: Follow the SW of the lines of H2O and CO2 that was deflected from earth to the moon and measured back on earth and tell me exactly what you see is happening?

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf

Do you see that the CO2 is also cooling the atmosphere?

The wavelength areas of the molecule where absorption takes place, act like a mirror, returning the light, 62.5 % in the direction where it comes from.

Hence, more CO2 is [also] cooling the earth.

Phil.

henryp November 13, 2017 at 5:52 am
@Richard Verney

“half” is incorrect.

The molecule acts like a sphere, so 62.5% of radiation going in the direction of the molecule goes back to the direction where the light came from.

No the atmosphere is so thin that any emitting molecule is very close to the surface (radius ~6500km), the delay time after absorption is so long that the molecule emits randomly wrt the direction the light came from. The angle subtended by the earth at the emitting molecule is very close to 2pi steradians so the proportion of light scattered back to the earth is very close to 0.50. Henry appears to confuse the process with elastic scattering by liquid spheres.

“As longwave radiation gets trapped by CO2, the Earth starts to warm, ”

No it doesnt. CO2 isnt an energy source, hence it can’t heat anything. All CO2 can do is act as a bit of insulation, a poor one at that, hence all CO2 is KEEP the earth a bit warmer, not MAKE the earth warmer.

John Harmsworth

Exactly correct! A tiny few extra molecules basically replicating what many more water molecules are already doing.

richard

longwave emitting up from the earth as longwave emitting down from co2 – really?

10thprezzz

So, where are the computer model results that replicate the historical climate?

If these models were any good, they could replicate the climate from, say, the year 900 up until 1800; a time period before the industrial revolution, thus eliminating the affects of human activity on the climate. Yep, one less variable to mess around with – simplifies things.

The year 900 to 1800 period also includes the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Surely such very pronounced climate periods can easily be modeled by today’s “scientists,”

After all, they claim to have a good understanding of climate science; so good in fact, they are telling us what the climate will be like 100 years into the future
If they can predict the future climate, than surely, replicating the historical climate should be easy.

I find it puzzling that so many are willing to comment on the latest “research” findings of the AGW proponents, yet no body seems to be asking where are the climate “replication” results that can shed light on the validity of the climate models.

Where are they folks ???
Where’s the beef??

Tony

“As longwave radiation gets trapped by CO2, the Earth starts to warm, impacting various parts of the climate system. Sea ice and snow cover melt, turning brilliant white reflectors of sunlight into darker spots. The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation. Both of these feedbacks lessen the amount of shortwave radiation that bounces back into space, and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.

Meanwhile, like any physical body experiencing warming, Earth sheds longwave radiation more effectively, canceling out the longwave-trapping effects of CO2“

Perhaps one of the most painfully stupid explanations I’ve ever read. Any physical body experiencing warming sheds LW radiation more effectively. The same LW radiation that leaves the Earth less effectively, due to the presence of increased CO2. So:

1) There is LESS LW radiation leaving the Earth because of increased CO2.
2) As a consequence, the Earth gets warmer.
3) So there is also MORE LW radiation leaving the Earth because of increased CO2.

Increasing levels of CO2 causes an incredecrease in the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth. It doesdoesn’t increase the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth AND it also doesdoesn’t decrease the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth.

I mean, it ISN’T, and can’t possibly be, observed, that increases in the amount of CO2 cause a decrease in the amount of LW radiation. What IS in fact observed, is the exact opposite. BUT, since we already KNOW that our theory is DEFINITELY CORRECT, then decreases in the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth, with rising CO2, are a given.

But, of course, it’s also a given that the opposite is true. Increasing CO2 means the amount of LW radiation leaving the Earth increases. Like we said all along.

The incredecrease in LW radiation leaving the Earth is what the GHE is all about.

It’s not a disgrace to science. It’s a gooddisgrace to science. It’s an icredecrease to our knowledge as a species about the world around us. It’s a helphindrance to humanity. We arearen’t obviously stupid.

Bruce Cobb

Oh look! Their already – Goldbergian manmade climate contraption has a couple more climate levers added to all the other knobs and gizmos. Shiny!