Ausie Dan: Encircling the Dragon

Posted: February 2, 2012 by tchannon in Astronomy, atmosphere, climate, Energy, solar system dynamics

A Response to Certain Criticisms of the Unified Theory of Climate

By AusieDan,   February 2012

Summary

The Unified Theory of Climate has been developed by Drs. Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller and demonstrates that the surface temperature (Ts) of eight different planets and moons is defined by a combined function of solar irradiance (So) and the atmospheric pressure at the surface (Ps). Willis Eschenbach has made a number of criticisms of this theory and while his attack has been vigorous, it has been easily withstood and has actually strengthened the basic argument. The theory emerges more robust than before. It is indeed a General Theory of MacroClimatology. Incidentally, by using the N&Z methodology, it is shown that annual average near surface temperature is independent of the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Background to the Unified Theory

The theory states that the maximum possible near surface average annual temperature is a function of TOA solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure at the surface. Other factors, such as fluctuations in the amount of cosmic rays coming from space, periodic cycles in the oceans, aerosols in the air, and volcanic eruptions, may indeed cause the temperature to fluctuate downwards from time to time, but play no part in determining the absolute possible maximum level. The theory has been tested on data from the four inner planets, our moon and the moons of three of the outer planets. These have been chosen to provide as large a spread as possible of illumination conditions and atmospheric pressure, given data availability. Data has been taken from various sources including NASA Fact Sheets, augmented by more up to date information from satellite probes, where appropriate. The theory may be envisioned as three interlocking equations:

  1. Calculation of Grey Body Temperature from solar irradiance, based on standard values for albedo and emissivity, using the equation for Tgb, as described in the N&Z paper: Image

  2. Development of the concept of ATE, the Near Surface Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement, which they calculate in terms of Nte, the ratio of a planet’s actual temperature near the surface, to the theoretical Gray Body Value. Put more simply, this is the pro rata boost given by the atmospheric pressure at the surface, in addition to the temperature caused by solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere. The formula for Nte is given by the equation, where Ps is the atmospheric pressure in Pa: Image

  3. Finally the actual near surface temperature may be given by the product of Tgb and Nte, using the simple equality: Ts = Tgb * Nte (N&Z’s Equation 8) where Tgb is given by Equation 2 above.

The theoretical values of Tgb compare well with actual observed satellite values.Image

Chart 1 – Gray Body Temperature vs. Solar Irradiance – Note that this implementation of the Gray Body Equation is a mathematically exactly equivalent to the function of the fourth root of Irradiance, which would be expected from its design (R Squared = 1, to the limit of the graphic system to discriminate). It should also be noted that the values for the Earth, Moon and Venus sit exactly on the curve, unlike the Black Body data from the NASAS Fact Sheets (Refer Chart 3 below).

Criticisms

Willis raises five separate criticisms of the Unified Theory and each will now be examined in turn. The first is a mere quibble which has no impact on the result. The second will be shown to be due to a mistake on his part, where he accuses N&Z of circular reasoning, but falls into that trap himself. The third concerns the use of parameters where he fails to realise that the Theory is not just the result of empty curve fitting, but that each section is solidly based on well established and accepted physics laws. The last criticism concerns the need for model testing, which is also addressed.

Academic Niceties

The authors also express the surface temperature (Ts) in the following manner:

Image

Willis points out that the adjustment of 0.0001325 is so small that it can be left out without significantly altering the result. That is correct. But neither Willis nor I claim to be professional physicists like Doctors Nikolov and Zeller. We come from the practical world of business, where speed is often of the essence and often vies with accuracy in importance. He does not seem to appreciate the scientific need to specify equations exactly, even when the necessary complicating adjustments do not have a significant impact on the outcome. And it is the academic scientific world that N&Z must persuade if progress is to be made in Climate Science and if governments in turn are to be convinced. So Willis is correct on this narrow point from his perspective, but the authors seek to assure their colleges that their equations also correctly describe the temperature, even of outer space, where Willis’ approach would fail.

Misunderstanding the Nature of Circular Reasoning

Willis then returns to equations 7 & 8, but in attempting to criticise N&Z, himself engages in circular reasoning. Here are the essentials of his argument in symbolic form;

  • Assume that there are three variables, such that A = B * C (Equation 101)
  • Then this can be re-arranged as: C = A / B (Equation 102)
  • Now, substituting for C in Equation 101, using its value “established” in Equation 102, we get the result: A = B * A / B which can be simplified as A = A, as all students of mathematics can attest.

However this is mere circular reasoning, devoid of all meaning. But in a similar manner, Willis “proves” that Ts = Tgb * Ts / Tgb = Ts. “TA-DA” as Willis probably correctly points out, but what exactly does that mean? For it is Willis rather than N&Z who has engaged in circular reasoning. What he fails to acknowledge at this point is that Nte is not merely Ts / Tgb, but in reality is a complex function of atmospheric pressure. It is not merely the result of curve fitting, but has been correctly designed to properly reflect the effect of a considerable range of pressures found on the various planets. That point will be further explained in the next section. Willis’ dilemma may be solved with a more precise use of symbols, language and reasoning. Now let Ts be the observed surface temperature, and Tc as the calculated surface temperature, derived from the values for Irradiance and pressure per Equation 8. Thus Tc = Tgb * Nte, where Tgb is a function of irradiance and Nte is a function of surface pressure. This is shown to equate to Ts, the observed temperature, and thus Nikolov and Zeller are correct.

The use of Parameters during Model Construction

Here we return to the issue of the number of parameters used in the three main equations and the criticism that these are the mere result of excessive curve fitting. To further that argument, Willis expresses Equation 7 in symbolic form, to emphasise that it contains four parameters: Nte(Ps) = e^(t1 * Ps ^ t2 + t3 * Ps ^ t4) (7Sym) Where “e” is the base of natural logs and Ps is the surface pressure on the planet or moon. There are four tunable parameters (t1 through t4) that are “fitted” to the data, which he claims can be easily achieved as there are only eight data points. He does acknowledge that the fit is quite good and that their estimate is quite close to the actual value of Nte(Ps). Nevertheless, Willis is concerned about this issue and even goes on to formulate his own model with a much reduced data set. That will be discussed below. But for now it is enough to point out that the relation of pressure to temperature is complex and cannot be fully described by a simple model of the type that he developed. By way of illustration, there are still those with extensive knowledge of the massive sports racing cars of the English, German and Italian teams, which battled it out for supremacy on road and track throughout Europe in the 1920s and the 1930s. These were huge, supercharged beasts; the four and a half litre Bentleys in particular being boosted by Amherst Villiers blowers. These monsters started off with a rush, but when engine revs reached a certain level, in came the boost of the supercharger and acceleration was pushed to another level altogether. By analogy, that is exactly the purpose of the two stage Nte expression. The following chart and table use theoretical data to explain this process in detail. The approximate position of each planet and moon is also shown in the table, as an aid to illustration. It will be seen, that with Nte values from 1 to just on 1.2, the first expression provides all the value and none comes from the second. From then on until about Nte of 1.4, 99.9% of the value comes from the first half of the expression. Then Nte starts rising more rapidly and it is from about 1.5 onwards, that the second expression begins to have an influence. By 2.0 it is important and above 2.5 it predominates. Thus the two halves of the equation provide additional information and accuracy. The so called four parameters are in reality two closely linked pairs of parameters. For practical people like Willis and myself, near enough is very often good enough and being fast rather than super accurate often means the difference between making a sale or missing out to a competitor and having no bread on the table. Professional scientists need to be accurate. The equation 7 is as follows: Nte = EXP((0.233001*Ps^0.0651203)+(0.0015393*Ps^0.385232)) Which is exactly equivalent to: Nte = EXP(0.233001*Ps^0.0651203)*EXP(0.0015393*Ps^0.385232) The first half of the Nte equation is the exponent of (0.233001*Ps^0.0651203) and is labelled as Series 1 in following chart and table. The second half is labelled in a similar manner.

Image

Chart 2 and Table 1 – Nte against Pressure, using theoretical data.

Image

As part of his argument, Willis quoted Fermi who in turn was quoting von Neumann with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” On reading this at WUWT, I put out the challenge “Willis – go ahead – fit an elephant. Please!” I then went on to describe an experiment that I had witnessed on the internet, which clearly demonstrated that energy and pressure raise the temperature and that the presence or absence of green house gases make no difference. In a later comment, Willis repeated my challenge and the first two lines of my following explanation:

Seriously N&Z are only demonstrating in algebra what has been observed in experiments, that heating a gas in a sealed container increases both pressure and temperature.

However, in stopping there, he seriously misrepresented what I had written, for I then went on to make my main point about the effect of experimenting with gases such as carbon dioxide in a sealed containers. I repeat this now in bold:

A gas that expands by a larger amount than air will rise to a higher temperature. When each vessel is allowed to vent to the atmosphere, so pressure is not increased, then they will both rise to the same level, which will be lower than either when fully contained. No Greenhouse effect involved, only the effect of pressure in the presence of incoming heat.

However, to do him justice, Willis then proceeded to create his own elephant. He went on to develop a series of progressively simpler, more concise models, using the same variables but with fewer parameters. These culminated in the following combined equation, using the minimum possible number of free parameters: Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17) He also produced several very attractive charts and claimed that his “equation is not only simpler, it is more accurate”. Now I do not understand how he was able to make such a claim. The following two tables show my calculations using first Willis’ simple equation, followed by my calculations using the N&Z equations 2, 7 and 8. In each I show the errors between the projected (Tc) and observed (Ts) surface temperature values using both formulations. As would be expected, the more complex N&Z equations have a better fit. That in no way criticises the work that Willis has done, it’s just that a more detailed equation better reflects the effect of pressure on temperature. The figures to compare are the final total average Error Squared percentages, which are highlighted in yellow. The first table uses Willis’ equation, the second N&Z.

Image

Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17)

Table 2 – Willis Formulation – Differences between actual and forecast Tc (423.82 / 1,802 = 23.4%)

Image

* If the Mean Surface air Density equals zero, than Nte =1, which yields TC=Tgb

Otherwise, Nte = EXP((0.233001*Ps^0.0651203)+(0.0015393*Ps^0.385232))

Correlation Ts & Tc 0.999998
Correlation squared 0.999997
Proportion of Ts explained by Tc approximately 100.00%

Table 3 – Nikolov & Zeller Formulation – Differences between actual and forecast Tc The simplified Willis’ equation provides quite a good match between calculated and observed near surface temperature. It is just that N&Z’s formulation is much better. Their method conforms to the laws of theoretical physics and most importantly, better describes exactly how pressure augments incoming irradiance. As a final point on this issue, Willis did state at one juncture that he has repeated the calculations and confirmed N&Z’s numbers. (Incidentally I have also done the same). Nikolov & Zeller’s equations do indeed correctly predict the surface temperature of eight solar planets and moons from only two variables, irradiance and surface pressure.

Use of Different Variables

Willis also claimed that it is not even necessary to use atmospheric pressure as a variable and shows that Density can be substituted instead. Again he provides a model which produces respectable results. However, he does not stop to consider that density and pressure, while not identical, are closely related and if fact the two sets of numbers for the eight solar bodies have a correlation of 0.998, which means that 99.6% of the data of one explains the data of the other (correlation squared). Again and again, Willis confirms that near surface maximum annual temperature for a number of the planets and moons of the solar system can be explained by a combined function of the irradiance and surface pressure of each body.

Model Testing

Willis makes one final criticism which is indeed valid, although his suggested tests would themselves be inappropriate. This issue will now be examined in some detail and an alternate test method proposed. Unfortunately, the outcome is inconclusive because of inadequate range and availability of good quality data. Willis correctly notes that N&Z have not provided any evidence of statistical testing. He makes two suggestions:

  • Omit some of the data points and fit it again.
  • Divide the dataset in half and fit one half against the other.

However neither of these methods would provide valid results:

  • Firstly any reduction of data points increases the problem of validity.
  • However, that is not the main problem. As already explained, the effect of pressure on temperature cannot be explained by any simple expression, be it linear, exponential logarithmic or power. That is the reason for the twin exponential expressions in the Ts equation. Dividing the data in two would not replicate the shape of the function. This can be cleanly seen from the second chart and first table above.

The only other alternative is to search for additional data, although satisfactory examples are hard to find. Many of the remaining planets and moons have not yet been surveyed in sufficient detail and much of the work that has been done is very preliminary or questionable at best. After consideration the best additional example is Pluto, although as will be seen, severe questions arise about the accuracy of some of the observational data. The gray body temperature (24.67 degrees K) as calculated by N&Z Equation 2, exactly matches the value derived from a formula of the power function derived from a chart of the eight planets and moons under study (y = 25.397x0.25, R Squared = 1.0). However, the match between the NASA Fact figure for Surface Temperature (50 K) and calculated from Equation Eight (30.6K) is quite bad. Two likely explanations suggest themselves; either the data or the theory is wrong. Now whenever theory and observation conflict, it is normal to expect that the theory is wrong. However as already seen, there are a number of other planets and moons where the N&Z theory and the data do coincide, so what would normally be considered the least likely explanation is examined first. Dr. Nikolov has pointed out that Pluto’s temperature has been recently revised downward by NASA from 50K to 44K (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto) and that even 44K is much higher that the emission temperature calculated from the simple SB law in Eq. 3 of their Reply Part 1. Since that equation has been shown to significantly overestimate the actual mean surface temperature, it is very likely that Pluto’s mean surface temperature is even lower than 44K, and probably around 33K. It is not uncommon for initial data from early NASA explorations to be significantly changed as later, more detailed surveys are made. The current detailed Diviner exploration of our moon is but one prominent example. The following chart has been taken from NASA Fact Sheets and demonstrates quite clearly that the data values for Earth and Venus must be incorrect.

Image

Chart 3 – Black Body Temperatures – Venus & Earth – differences between reported and theoretical values. The actual data (in blue) for Venus and Earth, as well as for Mars and Europa to a lesser extent, differ from the theoretical values calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (red line). It is therefore possible that the NASA figure for the surface temperature on Pluto is far too high and that the theoretically calculated temperature may instead be correct. It is a great pity that there are not dozens of out of sample planets which could be examined. Fortunately however there is another completely different approach which supports the Unified Theory. We therefore leave the critics to examine an aspect of the theory that has not so far received the attention it deserves.

Climate Implications of the Ideal Gas Law

Nikolov and Zeller show that it is also possible to accurately estimate the surface temperature of solar bodies from the Ideal Gas Law, providing there is at least a minimal atmosphere. They express the standard Gas Law as their Equation 5: PV = nRT Where P is pressure, V is gas volume, ‘n’ is the gas amount in moles and R is the universal gas constant, 8.314 J K-1 mol-1. Now ‘n’ may be replaced by m / M, where ‘m’ is the mass of a gas (kg) and M is its molecular weight (kg / Mol). Equation 5 then becomes PV = mRT / M. Dividing each side by V gives P = mRT/ (MV) Equation 5a. Now the density (p) of a gas is its mass divided by its volume, so p = m / V Substituting p for m / V in equation 5a, gives P = pRT / M Rearranging this, we get Equation 6 pT = constant = PM / R Or T = PM / (Rp) This last equation can then be used to calculate the average annual temperature of those planets and moons which have an effective atmosphere. The equation collapses when P ˜ 0 and thus the effective temperature becomes the grey body value. These values were shown on the third last line of N&Z Table 1 and have been re-calculated as follows:

Image

Formula Tc = (Ps * M )/(R * p)

Table 4 – Near Surface Temperature estimated from the Ideal Gas Law As the authors pointed out during an exchange of emails: pT is a constant ONLY for a fixed pressure P, which means that there is an isobaric process on a planetary scale. For a certain pressure, changes in absorbed radiation (due to changes in cloud cover for example) cause change in temperature in a way that temperature increases are associated with decreases in density, while temperature decreases cause increases in density, keeping the product pT constant. Equation 5 can also be arranged as V = nRT/P, when ‘n’ is the fixed number of molecules in the atmosphere, R is the fixed Universal Gas Constant, T is determined by Irradiance and pressure, while pressure itself is the result of gravity acting on the mass of gas, which presses down on the area of the planet (P = gMat/As). The climate circle is then complete.

A Brief Comment on Carbon Dioxide

It has been established that gray body temperature is directly proportionate to the 4throot of the solar irradiance, which in turn is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance. It has also been shown that the additional boost to surface temperature due to the presence of atmosphere (Nte) is explained entirely by near surface pressure. The question arises whether carbon dioxide could also explain this ratio in place of atmospheric pressure? This may be easily answered by charting both carbon dioxide and atmospheric pressure against the Nte Ratio. It will then be seen that it is atmospheric pressure rather than carbon dioxide that determines temperature. The following Charts 4 and 5 show quite decisively that it is not the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, expressed in parts per million, that explains the augmentation (Nte) which increases the gray body temperature (Tgb) to the actual measured near surface temperature (Ts). Rather, it is the atmospheric pressure, regardless of atmospheric content, that does all the work.

Image

Chart 4 – There is no consistent relationship between carbon dioxide level and Nte Ratio

Image

Chart 5 – Rising Nte levels are directly due to Increasing atmospheric pressure

Conclusion

In giving the appearance of attacking Nikolov and Zeller, Willis has in fact confirmed both their calculations and their theory. He has therefore done them a favour, although that possibly may not have been his original intention. Notwithstanding, by providing simpler, slightly less accurate models with the less parameters, he has demonstrated the robustness of the theory. The Greenhouse focus on radiative physics is analogous to an attempt to determine the path of steel balls, solely from the way they ricochet from post to post in a pinball machine. The Ultimate Theory of MacroClimatology in contrast is the study of how the force in using the plunger (solar radiation) and the slope of the playing surface (atmospheric pressure) combine to define the action in the climate machine. Planetary long term equilibrium near-surface temperature is determined by solar irradiance, itself a function of distance from the sun, together with atmospheric pressure at the surface. The good news is that, while the hubbub surrounding the Unified Theory has gone on, nobody has noticed that the carbon dioxide dragon has quietly returned to his deep, dark greenhouse, where he now sleeps peacefully at rest, no more to frighten the children and the innocent with fanciful nightmares of doom and disaster. End of story.


PDF version: Encircling the Dragon – N&Z Unified Theory.pdf

WordPress version produced painfully from supplied doc and pdf, please report any errors:- Tim.

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Beautiful formattiing job, thanks Tim.

  2. AusieDan says:

    Hi everbody.
    In fact if anybody has read right through to the end, I will stick around for a while and will be pleased to answer any questions, to the limit of my ability.
    My answers may be slow as there is large time delay between here and the Uk and the USA, and most other places for that matter.

  3. AusieDan says:

    Yes thanks Rog, Tim, Ned and Karl

  4. B_Happy says:

    I have only read the beginning so far, but I have a couple of questions already. Firstly, what were the values of albedo and emissivity used in equation (2), and secondly, where did satellite measurements of grey-body temperatures of the various planets come from?

    thanks

    [Reply] Read the N&Z papers. Links in the ‘most commented’ list left. In brief, 0.12 albedo, as measured for our moon, and applied as the value for airless terrestrial planets and moons in general.

  5. Anything is possible says:

    Thanks, Dan. I’ll pop that in the old think-tank for a day or two.

    With respect to Pluto, it should be pointed out that it has a highly eccentric orbit, and all measurements have been taken close to perihelion, so it is hardly surprising that measured temperatures are higher than those proposed by N & Z. As it retreats from the Sun, it should be expected to cool so the Methane in its atmosphere actually freezes. Crazy place!

  6. Erinome says:

    What does the N&Z theory predict for the frequency spectrum of outgoing radiation?

    It seems to me it is independent of frequency f, right?

    If so that disagrees with experimental measurements, which show a strong variation with frequency, with significant absorption at the absorption frequencies of water vapor, CO2 and CH4. Moreover, this spectrum is changing with time: “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

    This is a simple observable fact that any theory of the atmosphere must pass. Does N&Z’s?

  7. B_Happy says:

    Having read a bit more I have a question about Europa. This Jupiter moon has hardly any atmosphere, but it has a very high albedo of 0.65 so surely in your model the temperature would be determined more by the albedo than by the atmosphere? However I read (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/europa.html)
    that the mean surface temperature is actually about 100K, as a result of heating by tidal forces from Jupiter. In view of this, is it a good example to include in the model?

  8. wayne says:

    Man… what can I say? That it is one very detailed explanation of both the theory and the history of what happened as the foot dropped in late December. Well done Tim! You are on the top of my list of those to listen to; I guarantee! Last night I was still wondering if anyone really understood it yet, and, wow, you certainly do.

    [Reply] This is a team effort with Dan writing, me on comms, with some input from Ned and Karl before final draft. Tim did the formatting for wordpress – no small task.

  9. Chris M says:

    Yes thanks Dan, top effort mate, and for the most part very clearly explained. But you are much too kind to Willis, who should now step back and let the real scientists slug it out. By real scientists I’m thinking of N&Z and qualified supporters vs GHE committed but rational people like Pielke Sr. and Jr., Roy Spencer, Judith Curry and Richard Betts, who still believe in the scientific method and want to see the truth revealed. At the moment they seem to be laying low, perhaps thinking the N&Z theory is too far from mainstream thought for them to discuss it. What or who could be the icebreaker between the two camps, I wonder?

  10. davidmhoffer says:

    Erinome;
    If so that disagrees with experimental measurements, which show a strong variation with frequency, >>>

    Variation of what?
    N&Z are about energy balance. The frequencies at which energy is absorbed or radiated can vary, but the energy balance is constant. The frequencies can vary all over the place, but total them up in w/m2…and the total remains constant.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Hoff: when averaged over a suitable interval.

    I suspect the quiet Sun is putting a bit less in than usual. This will be compensated for by the resulting el nino events as the oceans shed heat stored while the Sun was more than averagely active in the second half of the C20th. But this energy release is lumpy, and the planetary ‘energy balance’ will be wobbling around by a small percentage above and below the theoretical equilibrium value.

  12. tallbloke says:

    B_Happy: Europa may be a bad example for the reasons you state about tidal squeezing. Having said that it would be interesting to see where it lies in relation to the N&Z curve because it may be that the high albedo is a result of that squeezing producing smooth, highly reflective ice ice and if so that will offset the energy gain from that tidal resonance source.

  13. Hans says:

    I haven´t engaged in the N&Z paper since i have been waiting for their response. First came a 1 version and at the same time a second one was announced which I guess is coming. There is much to say about the N&Z paper which is not favourable but what is favourable outweigh what is missing.
    At this point I will just make some remarks that I believe is pertinent:

    A. The final solution to the “greenhouse gas problem” has to be based on identification of the physical processes that are involved in creating the OBSERVED greenhouse effect (still a very inappropriate name as N&Z has pointed out but the NASA definition will hold with corrections.
    B. The OBSERVED average surface temperature AST on any planet or moon is basically caused by a steady state situation regarding solar irradiation. Absorbed solar irradiation has to equal to emitted IR radiation
    (An interior energy source is dismissed at first approximation but has to be considered regarding gas giant, Io and some other moons)
    C. Assuming B, the OBSERVED AST has to be a function of distance from sun.
    D. Assuming B, the OBSERVED AST has to be a function of the bond albedo (reflectivity over all wave lengths)
    E. Assuming B, the OBSERVED AST has to be a function of the atmospheric mass per unit area that decide its surface pressure.
    F. Assuming B and E the OBSERVED AST has to be a function of surface pressure.
    G. Assuming B and E the fluctuations of AST will be less if the atmospheric mass per unit area is big. It will reduce fluctuations caused by length of day and seasons.
    H. Assuming B and E there will always exist agents that can emit IR radiation from an atmosphere above the surface of the planet/moon. These agent are dust particles, condensation droplets and greenhouse gases which should be seen as catalysts promoting the IR emission that has to occur
    according to B.

    It seems that N&Z have succeeded in finding an approximate formula that catch the most important of the physical processes mentioned above. In my opinion it is possible to sort out what physical processes are at work and dominating at any planet/moon in a quantitative way. The N&Z formula risk to be called “curve fitting” which it actually is in my opinion. Still, it has a great value since good curve fitting can be used for predictions, the ultimate aim of scientific results. Hence, curve fitting often preceded a detailed understanding and that is what should be requested.

    A last point. Venus has the biggest “Greenhouse Effect” on an any planet where AST has been measured. The giant planets very probably have much bigger ones. This strongly point to the existence of ONE dominating process causing a big “Greenhouse Effect” on planets with dense atmospheres. This process is the energetic equalisation of energy per mass unit in the atmospheres of these planets. Dissipation of energy is the prime candidate. The second law of thermodynamics is in action.That is the reason why the adiabatic temperature lapse rate is observed in the upper troposphere in all of these planets. That is why my E&E paper and my TB paper are vital for the understanding of what is causing the AST on ATMOSPHERE BEARING planets. The EXISTENCE of an atmosphere is the clue. To mix data from planets/moons with and without atmospheres is very close to claim that apples and bananas are the same although both are included in the concept of fruits.

    Hans Jelbring

  14. davidmhoffer says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 2, 2012 at 7:57 am
    Hoff: when averaged over a suitable interval.>>>

    But of course!

    I suspect the quiet Sun is putting a bit less in than usual.>>>>

    Hey, that’s cheating. N&Z is predicated upon a constant insolation. You can’t just go pointing out that in reality the sun’s radiance isn’t constant. You know what happens when you do that?

    Averaging…..

  15. wayne says:

    “This is a team effort with Dan writing, me on comms, with some input from Ned and Karl before final draft. Tim did the formatting for wordpress – no small task.”

    Well to all then, great piece you put together, and you all got a boost up to the top!

  16. Stephen Wilde says:

    Excellent work by all concerned and it is nice to see proper science being consolidated as a group effort in the face of so much determined opposition elsewhere.

    In the meantime I’d like to be able to explain to laypersons how the ATE of N & K differs from the Standard Atmosphere concept and the Adiabatic Lapse Rate.

    Any suggestions ?

  17. Geoff Sharp says:

    Hi Stephen, you might be interested in a discussion (off topic from this one) I am having with Svalgaard concerning chemical changes (UV) and climate implications. At present we are discussing Haigh (once my 2 day ban is up). I found a paper from Hood et al (2004) that is extremely enlightening.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/30/new-paper-speculates-on-volcanoes-during-the-little-ice-age/

  18. BenAW says:

    Couple of points:

    – since N&Z include the effect of backgroundradiation in their calculations, why do they disregard “earthshine” in the moons temp. calculation? This results in a temp of ~40K afaik, so at least an order of magnitutude greater than the 2,72K they DO use.

    – looking at the moons temp. graph over one lunar day, it’s obvious that the nighttime temp is still decreasing at the end of the night, suggesting at least some heat storage capacity.
    The moon night lasts 14 earth days, so this is not an effect you can neglect imo.
    Earth has a much better heat storage capacity in it’s oceans and probably something similar is valid for Venus with it’s very dense atmosphere.

    – On page 7 of the original paper on the ATE:
    “At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours.”
    I’m well aware of the classic explanation of the Föhn or Chinook winds.
    Would like to hear the ATE explanation without the use of the raining out on the uphill portion of the effect. The answer on this question would make it possible to evaluate the reality of the ATE.

    Ben Wouters

  19. Stephen Wilde says:

    Thanks Geoff, I’ll have a look but won’t comment on that here.

  20. AusieDan says:

    Thanks all for your comments so far.
    I’ll try to respond to each of you, but it may take some time.
    I’ve been busy all day with an idea that that I woke up with this morning.
    (Yes I so my best thinking fast asleep – anybody else?).

    I’m working on a re-formulation of the N&Z theory which avoids many of the issues that some are raising.
    I’ve already done the calculations and it works.
    It’s just a matter of writing it up, which takes time.

    One issue, I notice that some are worrying about the detailed action that goes on WITHIN the atmosphere, which indeed is very complex.
    However, it does not seem to affect the outcome in a macro sense.
    We have all being too fixated on studying individual trees before we really learn what keeps a forest alive – a forest is a system which acts on a different level to the individual organisms in it.
    Rather like the macro economy, which I know more about.

    I’m now well out of my depth here, but the principle does apply to the atmosphere.
    That’s why N&Z’s theory introduces a new paradigm – a completely new way of thinking about the atmosphere.

  21. davidmhoffer says:

    AusieDan;
    One issue, I notice that some are worrying about the detailed action that goes on WITHIN the atmosphere, which indeed is very complex.
    However, it does not seem to affect the outcome in a macro sense>>>

    It doesn’t, and it shouldn’t. I’ve said before that it is like we are being tasked with determining the weight of gravel in a bucket. Some people want to scoop out a sample of the gravel, sort it by grain size, build some wonderfully complicated computer programs to simulate the distribution of the grains and their average that results from being poured into the bucket adjusted for compaction rate and settling time to arrive at an approximation for the weight of the gravel.

    Others just want to weight the bucket with the gravel in it, then pour out the gravel, and weigh the bucket to subtract its weight from the total.

    The latter is the N&Z approach. The former results in guys like Trenberth insisting that there must be missing gravel, Jones and Mann insisting that some of the gravel stopped responding to gravity properly and had to be replaced with different gravel, and some clown named Briffa insisting that he found 11 grains of sand and 1 rock that were representative of the entire bucket and so there was no need to weigh the rest of it anyway. Not to mention Hanson, who has determined the weight of the gravel in advance, and is insisting that the gravel needs to be adjusted.

  22. Thanks AusieDan (and helpers), your measured approach to both sides has illuminated much. Great read and I look forward to further updates. Get it over to Lucy Skywalker for her wiki.

  23. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @davidmhoffer says:
    February 2, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Excellent summation. pg

  24. tallbloke says:

    BenAW says:
    February 2, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Couple of points:

    – since N&Z include the effect of backgroundradiation in their calculations, why do they disregard “earthshine” in the moons temp. calculation? This results in a temp of ~40K afaik, so at least an order of magnitutude greater than the 2,72K they DO use.

    The incident radiation on the Moon would need dividing by 4 to allow for the fact it affects one hemisphere not two, and the obliquity towards the limbs and poles means half of what’s left is reflected off.

    So to raise the Moon’s temperature by 40K the incident radiation would have to be capable of raising the temperature of a spot on the moon where the Earth is at zenith by a lot more than that.

    I don’t believe the Moon’s share of the 1360W/m^2/3 which the Earth bounces in its direction for half of the lunar month is going to raise it’s average temperature by 40K.

    It doesn’t add up on a rough estimate.
    So can we have your figures and calcs please?

    Thanks

    tb.

  25. Roger Andrews says:

    I’ve been playing with the formula

    Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17)

    I plugged in the numbers for 1900: Solar = 1362 w/m2 (Shapiro et al), Pressure = 101,150 Pa (HadSLP2). This gave Ts = 296.27K, about 9C higher than observed.

    Then I plugged in the numbers for 2010: Solar = 1366 w/m2, Pressure = 101,130 Pa (same sources). This gave Ts = 296.48K, an increase of 0.21C.

    According to these results the formula explains at most a fifth of the 1.0C observed increase in Ts since 1900. But maybe I’ve screwed something up. Wouldn’t be the first time. :-)

    (AusieDan – excellent summary. by the way)

  26. Anything is possible says:

    Roger Andrews says:
    February 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    “Then I plugged in the numbers for 2010: Solar = 1366 w/m2, Pressure = 101,130 Pa (same sources). This gave Ts = 296.48K, an increase of 0.21C.

    According to these results the formula explains at most a fifth of the 1.0C observed increase in Ts since 1900. But maybe I’ve screwed something up.”

    ________________________________________________________________________

    Maybe it’s not you. Maybe it’s Hansen, Jones et al……….

  27. Genghis says:

    Hansen, Jones et al…. Don’t properly weight their anomaly. For them the temperature of a given volume of dry air in the arctic is exactly equivalent to a the temperature of a similar volume of moist air in the tropics, which has a much higher heat content. Averages are tricky.

  28. Erinome says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    N&Z are about energy balance. The frequencies at which energy is absorbed or radiated can vary, but the energy balance is constant. The frequencies can vary all over the place, but total them up in w/m2…and the total remains constant.

    OK, but please be clearer. The TOA outgoing radiation spectrum is a function I_out_TOA(f,t) where f is the frequency of the radiation and t is time. We can make this a function of temperature by specifying T(t), but for simplicity let’s just assume T(t)=constant=Ts

    What does the N&Z theory predict for I_out_TOA, as a function of f and Ts? In particular, what does it predict as a function of the frequency?

    Because I_out_TOA is measured to have a very particular shape as a function of frequency, dominated by absorption at the absorption frequencies of H2O, CO2, CH4, and other atmospheric gases. A change delta(I)/delta(t) has also been measured (that’s what the Harries paper did, and follow-ups). Unless N&Z predicts this shape and its change it cannot be correct.

    To begin, what does N&Z predict for I__out_TOA as a function of I_in_TOA from solar variability, if solar variability is allowed to vary slightly?

    And unless N&Z incorporates absorption by H2O, CO2 and CH4, it cannot possibly predict the observed I_out_TOA(f,t) — or, for that matter, I_in_surface(f).

    And if it does incorporate these absorptions, how can it do so without incorporating the accompanying energy absorptions?

    I’m not trying to be pedantic–just trying to be specific about my questions.

  29. Tenuc says:

    Thanks, Ausie Dan and helpers for an excellent summary of N&Z climate theory – makes atmospheric composition so yesterday!

    Regarding this quote from the post…

    “One issue, I notice that some are worrying about the detailed action that goes on WITHIN the atmosphere, which indeed is very complex.

    However, it does not seem to affect the outcome in a macro sense…”

    This point is born out by Harry Huffman’s work which shows a good fit in comparing the temperature of Earth and Venus at the same atmospheric pressure using just the difference in distance between them and the sun and applying SB equation at the boundary between top of atmosphere and space, producing a scaling factor of 1.176…

    At 1000mb T_venus = 288K (T_earth) * 1.176 = 339K (observed temperature of Venus)

    Table of results at different pressures…

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_99K-sArn07w/TPedH4f2BlI/AAAAAAAAADg/QvonOeJ4w0o/s1600/venus%2Bblog%2B112210%2Bb.JPG

    Full info is available on blog here…
    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    I’m sure Harry will welcome any comments on his blog.

  30. In support of N&Z and as they point out: there is a *difference between the illumination and received energies. Received includes albedo but the albedo is affected by the presence of CO2 which reflects 50% of the Sun’s irradiance back to space at its absorption frequencies. Increasing CO2 will therefore increase albedo. This would suggest that CO2 cools but in fact the effect is net neutral because it similarly reduces emissivity in those same bands.

    Consider an addition of two molecules of CO2, one on the day side and one on the night side (for simplicity). Each would have an equal chance of passing a photon on or back (as CO2 re-radiates omni-directionally). The four possible outcomes are;

    1. Sun >[~>( 0 )~>]> Space. = Sun radiated photon in. Earth radiated photon out.
    2. Sun >[~>(+1)<~] Space. = Sun radiated photon in. Earth radiated photon in.
    3. Sun ^[<~( 0 )<~] Space. = Sun radiated photon out. Earth radiated photon in.
    4. Sun ^[<~(-1)~>]> Space.= Sun radiated photon out. Earth radiated photon out.

    Key;
    > Photon and direction.
    ~> Absorbing & radiating carbon dioxide molecule.
    [Earth-atmosphere system]
    (System energy change)

    Where, over time, the average will be a zero addition to system energy. By the same logic reversing the process by removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, albedo will reduce and emissivity increase but again, system energy will remain static.
    The conclusion is that ‘GHG’ concentrations in the atmosphere do not change system energy. Any energy level is therefore a function of the planet-atmosphere itself and supports the N&Z finding that annual average near surface temperature is independent of the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    * Illumination 343W, received 240W and radiated out 240W. 103W is albedo loss of illumination which includes CO2 reflection.

  31. BenAW says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm
    So can we have your figures and calcs please?
    See:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/#comment-14691
    Second page, second graph. Minimum temp during each night is ~35K.

    Graph at the top of http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/
    Shows the night temp during winter at 89N as ~35K, steady, no fluctuations.

    So when 2,77K is deemed worth including, to me this earthshine effect is at least worth a mention.

  32. Graeme M says:

    Tenuc says:
    “I’m sure Harry will welcome any comments on his blog.”

    I must say that as an interested bystander with little physics background, I do rather like HDH’s responses, and his findings. It seems to accord with the principle of Occam’s razor and Harry’s explanations are similarly simple and tight. of course I may miss the complexity due to my ignorance, but he does a better job than most at explaining his views.

    I am also fascinated by the discussion here at Tallbloke’s, it’ll be interesting to see where it all leads.

  33. Ausie Dan, thanks a lot for this excellent work.

    I too was thinking, this is in the direction of what I would like to see at the wiki. But all in good time. The wiki is still baby and still needs the maths configurations and more structural and policy clarifications and I cannot always see the way forward… but like others here I wake up with the ideas…

    One awful admission… I struggle with elements of the science, and when I don’t understand I cut out, or start skipping and still can’t tell exactly where Willis or Joel are wrong… though often I can sniff it… but I might be wrong…

    But the reverse side of that is, I’m damn sure I’m not the only person to have this problem. So this is a big reason for me why a Climate Science wiki is so important: in concentrating efforts in one place, it’s possible to explain the science to dummies and outsiders – replacing the stranglehold of tiny corrupt groups and dogmas, with scientific literacy.

    Sooooooo… clarifications here please for this dummy. What is “exp”? What are the units in Chart 2 and Table 1? I’m afraid I don’t really understand that part at all and that’s where my mind turns to Huffman whose demonstration of temperature being determined solely by atmospheric pressure and insolation is so simple and easy to understand. But I appreciate that you seem to have produced a very high level of fit even if I cannot replicate your proof.

    Once again, I feel it would help convince people if those brilliant fits of planets to curves could be redrawn to scales that allow the fit to be shown as a straight line. Exponential scaling?

    Thanks again.

  34. Graeme M says:

    Like Lucy, I often have to skip bits or race off to Wikipedia. However, I do like the bit in this post about the circular reasoning in Willis’ exposition of Ts=Ts. My gut feel when I read that, although it was way over my head, is that it was missing the whole point. I can’t express this in the right words, but all he’s doing is playing with the symbols. Of course if A=B*C then A=A. The whole meaning however is wrapped up in what B and C represent and how they are derived. I couldn’t work out why nobody observed that in the comments I read at WUWT before I lost interest. I cannot confidently say if what has been said here in this post is the correct refutation of Willis’ point, but it sure sits right with me, for whatever that’s worth…

  35. adolfogiurfa says:

    BTW: About the Dragon: The year of…The 60-year cycle was introduced during the Hàn Dynasty ((汉朝 [漢朝]) and is related to the orbital period of Jupiter
    Does Climate repeats after 60 years?

  36. kuhnkat says:

    It seemed that the only real complaint, from Willis and others, is that there does not appear to be a derivation from physics that shows how the equations relate to physical aspects of the real environment. As that was supposed to be coming in their next presentation I thought he was somewhat over the top until that is available.

    That is on the way isn’t it? Or did you just present it and I am too ignorant to recognize it!! 8>)

  37. gbaikie says:

    “The only other alternative is to search for additional data, although satisfactory examples are hard to find. Many of the remaining planets and moons have not yet been surveyed in sufficient detail and much of the work that has been done is very preliminary or questionable at best. After consideration the best additional example is Pluto, although as will be seen, severe questions arise about the accuracy of some of the observational data. ”

    What about Vesta currently being explored by Dawn:
    http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/vesta_dawn_gallery.asp
    That link show temperature profile of dwarf planet Vesta, which ranging from
    124 K at winter pole [south pole] to 150 K at equator.

    Water evaporate in vacuum above 150 K. Can’t find reference for that number, ref talking sublimation of water in vacuum:
    “robots or humans who collect in situ samples of regolith near the lunar
    poles to test for the presence of water ice will not lose
    much of the water through sublimation if the excavating and
    testing are done quickly and the sample is not heated above,
    say, 150 K. ” And:
    “By surveying available data for the saturation vapor pressure
    of ice and on invoking a new expression for the vapor pressure
    as a function of temperature, I have made the first estimates for
    the sublimation rate of water ice in a vacuum down to 40 K. My
    estimates thus extend to temperatures 60 K lower than previous
    estimates by Watson et al.”
    http://www.nwra.com/resumes/andreas/publications/Icarus_Moon.pdf
    Anyhow at first link they seem to think ice would remain at lower than 150 K
    and evaporate- say pole wouldn’t keep ice, but pole could. But I think it takes colder temperatures to form ice in vacuum- as indicated in second given ref.

    So, in summary it seems there could an undetected weak atmosphere around Vesta, but suppose
    in the past, it impacted by icy space and delivered a ton water which vapored and generally remained near surface, and created a amosphere say order 1/1000th of earth or 1/10 of Mars.
    So first how does Unified Theory do in terms comparing the measured temperature and what temperature difference be if it had a very thin atmosphere?

    Oh Dawn goes to Ceres just after New horizon gets to Pluto- so there be another planet in addition to Pluto by 2015. And many think Ceres could have a thin atmosphere.

  38. davidmhoffer says:

    Graeme M;
    I can’t express this in the right words, but all he’s doing is playing with the symbols. Of course if A=B*C then A=A. The whole meaning however is wrapped up in what B and C represent and how they are derived. I couldn’t work out why nobody observed that in the comments I read at WUWT before I lost interest. I cannot confidently say if what has been said here in this post is the correct refutation of Willis’ point, but it sure sits right with me, for whatever that’s worth…>>>

    I’m in agreement with AussieDan’s explanation, I spotted the exact same issues and even commented on some of them in that thread on WUWT. Willis ignored some points altogether and was downright rude on others. But there were two things he said that to me demonstrated that he was out to discredit N&Z at all costs and I said so on that thread:

    1. Ts=Ts.

    He got to this in part by substituting E8 back into E7. But E8 was derived from E7 in the first place! Even if there was a sound mathematical reason for doing this (there isn’t) the bottom line is that he came up with Ts=Ts and trumpeted that fact like it was some kind of proof of something. All he proved was that the equation was properly balanced. If the equation had resolved to Ts=1.5Ts, well THAT would have been a problem.

    2. SB Law “hidden” in their equations.

    Willis devolved one of their equations to show that it had the SB Law equation buried within it, and then crowed about that too as if it was proof of something. He has consistantly tried to paint their results as defying SB Law and the laws of thermodynamics, then crows about the SB Law “hidden” in their equations. It isn’t “hiding” at all, it is the basis of their claim! A big part of what N&Z have done is simply apply SB Law in a manner that makes it usefull for a rotating sphere exposed to insolation from only one direction. Of course its there! If he’d devolved their equations to show that it WASN’T there, then THAT would be a problem.

  39. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    BenAW @ February 2, 9:12 pm

    …So when 2,77K is deemed worth including, to me this earthshine effect is at least worth a mention.

    Well really, the 2.77K is only included because it is universal, and for scientific correctness, despite that it could arguably be ignored. When it comes to earthshine, (and moonshine), it is different for every planetary system, so it would be messy to express mathematically. However, again, it can arguably be ignored. The rate of cooling once T is down to very cold levels is very much less because of T^4. Also, Earthshine/Moonshine is omnidirectional, and field of view and cosine law considerations must surely make it all miniscule?

  40. Erinome says:

    Insisting that a new idea be consistent with observations is not crap, it is an essential aspect of science.

    The theorist doesn’t get to pick and choose what he will explain and what he will ignore. His theories have to be consistent with past ideas while extending in a new domain. The observed outgoing TOA spectrum — and its change with time — is a fundamental feature of the energy of the Earth’s atmosphere. (So is the observed incoming spectrum measured at the surface.) An energy approach has to be consistent with it.

    [Reply] They are consistent. The observed outgoing TOA spectrum is accounted for in the N&Z theory. It just turns out to be not fundamental to energy balance. Instead, it turns out to be a minor detail in a bigger picture. The radiative greenhouse theory has been shown to be pretty much irrelevant to the overall long term energy balance, which is governed by distance from the Sun, and atmospheric pressure at the surface of a given area. So far as surface temperature is concerned, atmospheric mass, not composition is key. The radiative effects of ‘greenhouse gases’ on temperature are at best second order according to the new Unified Theory of Climate, since the troposphere is dominated by convection and the latent heat of the phase changes of water governed by pressure. Whatever the co2 and ozone gets up to in the stratosphere is a result of the primary factors, and of little concern to us down on the surface so far as temperature is concerned, minor fluctuations aside. However, I think it may turn out that the radiative properties of water vapour and clouds (and to a small extent co2) are very important in terms of the transfer of energy laterally in the atmosphere, and may help explain why Earth isn’t such a windy place as Venus and the Jovian planets.

    If you want to argue the case for changes in the ratio of strongly radiative gases having an important effect, you’ll need to show that the radiative theory can generate a fairly simple equation using a minimal number of variables which can generate a non-linear smooth curve regression which has the surface temperatures of eight solar system bodies lying along it.

    Good luck with that. As you said:
    “The theorist doesn’t get to pick and choose what he will explain and what he will ignore.”
    So stop ignoring the effect of pressure on surface temperature and start trying to address this new and more complete theory of climate which encompasses several other solar system bodies which have atmospheres.

  41. AusieDan says:

    First some general comments, then I may try to address a few of the individual comments, criticisms and questions.
    But before that, thanks to Ned & Karl too, for their time and patience – I’ve had a whirl wind post-graduate physics lesson in the last few weeks. (When I was young, physics was my thing, but my career deviated away from science almost 60 years ago, so now I really battle, as most do). Oh and thanks Roger too, for giving me this opportunity.
    I’ve come to some understanding of the Unified Theory, only by battling through to an understanding of the equations and verifying the numbers in Table 1 of their first paper on this topic. Oh and charting as well. I’m an old stock market chartist, amongst many other things, and I find that trends and relations jump out at you when expressed visually.
    OK – the Unified Theory is an over arching theory of the forces that determine the surface temperature on the planets and moons of our solar system and I suspect of all others in far space as well (other unknown factors aside).
    I’m talking here about the average long term near surface temperature, which N&Z have shown does not vary while the present geological situation remains the same. This is caused by the interaction of the incoming solar irradiance with the atmospheric pressure at the surface. This does not change on a human scale and therefore temperature also does not change, which is implied by the Ideal Gas Las.
    The Unified Theory is the MacroClimatology of the atmosphere. It is the Umbrella under which all the various Microclimatological aspects and forces interact in a chaotic fashion, strictly in the mathematical sense of that term. Day and night and seasonal changes, Le Nino / La Nina cycles, 60 odd year ocean cycles, volcanoes, aerosols, even the longer 1,000 year cycles that brought us the Roman and the Medieval Warm periods and the present warm epoch as well. All of these are mere fluctuations – they are undoubtedly important to us, but what comes around goes around and there is no long term direction in the temperature – only minor and major fluctuations around a never changing mean value.
    Clouds, water vapour, carbon dioxide and so forth no doubt impact on these cycles, but do not give direction. Those still chained to the AGW theory should contemplate the data. Venus, Moon, Earth for example, do not support AGW.
    I thought that this introduction could be covered in two lines. I’ll stop there now and address your comments separately. But first read comment 20 from davidmhoffer, who eloquently explains N&Z in terms of different methods of weighing gravel. Simply brilliant.

  42. Brian H says:

    In the N&Z system, is there ANY on-planet condition which would alter the basic calculation? Internal heat, e.g., is temporary; apparently Kelvin’s estimate of 40 million years for dissipation of the heat of initial condensation of planet Earth was about right. Radioactivity is too small; intense sources have short half-lives, and long-lived ones are proportionately weaker. GHGs cool at least as much as they warm.

    Etc.

  43. AusieDan says:

    1. Tom Harley February 2, 2012 at 4:00 am
    Reblogged this on pindanpost. [Thanks – I’ll look when I have time]

    2. B_Happy says: February 2, 2012 at 4:18 am
    Firstly, what were the values of albedo and emissivity used in equation (2)?
    [Refer N&Z original paper page3]
    Secondly, where did satellite measurements of grey-body temperatures come from?
    [NASA and as updated from other sources – refer N&Z]

    3. Anything is possible says: February 2, 2012 at 4:20 am
    Pluto, has a highly eccentric orbit, and all measurements have been taken close to perihelion, so it is hardly surprising that measured temperatures are higher than those proposed by N & Z. [Thanks]

    4. Erinome says: February 2, 2012 at 4:55 am
    What does the N&Z theory predict for the frequency spectrum of outgoing radiation?
    It seems to me it is independent of frequency f, right?
    [Their theory is independent of frequency. If that trouble you, I suggest that you take it up with N&Z. My impression is that too much attention has been made to the frequency of radiation and too little to its quantum. However I have not studied that at all- ask N&Z please].

    5. B_Happy says: February 2, 2012 at 4:57 am
    I have a question about Europa. This Jupiter moon has hardly any atmosphere, but it has a very high albedo of 0.65 so surely in your model the temperature would be determined more by the albedo than by the atmosphere? [Please look at the data – it does not seem to behave as you suggest].
    The mean surface temperature is actually about 100K, as a result of heating by tidal forces from Jupiter. In view of this, is it a good example to include in the model? [Jupiter fits well into their model and behaves just as the Ideal Gas Law says it should. I suggest that you think more about the assumptions behind your questions. It may be that they are wrong]

    6. Chris M says: February 2, 2012 at 6:21 am
    Yes thanks Dan, top effort mate, and for the most part very clearly explained.
    [Thanks Chris]
    [I am usually a fan of Willis, but this time I feel that he is on the wrong track, Time will tell.]
    [But I must give credit when credit is due. I challanged Willis when he complained that there were too many free paramaters in N&Z theory and wrote about building an elephant with so many. He rose to that challenge and built three simple models to demonstrate it could be done (albeit wit some loss of accuracy). His models confirmed the N&Z theory!]

    [You also ask “What or who could be the icebreaker between the two camps”?
    My hope is that the N&Z theory will slowly spread through the skeptic community and become so powerful that honest brokers on the other side will come around.
    To me it is inevitable.
    I would not like to be in the shoes of the editors of AR5. It will be in danger of being a complete laughing stock, by the time it finally sees the light of day, if they still keep harping on about that poor old dead horse, CO2.]

    I’ll come back later when I have had a breather. This is interesting, but tiring.

  44. AusieDan says:

    Sorry folks,
    Iv’e made detailed replies to the first few comments and tried to post these quite a few times.
    They keep getting lost.

  45. AusieDan says:

    My problem seems to be that my posts are too long.
    so I’ll just reply to Brian H above.
    Hi Brian – From the data I’ve seen, it is not necessary to account for any internal heat sources to explain observed planetary temperatures.

    As my detailed responses to a number of your posts boil down to one simple comment.
    It is not necessary to account for the issues that many have raised in order to account for the macro climate.

    In order to understand what N&Z are saying, it is necessary to understanding the underlying physics that they have used in formulating their equations.
    That is number one.
    Number two, you need to personally work throught the equations, use the data, chart it and see how it all locks together to reflect reality.

    Then, if you belief that additional theories are necessary, build them in as well and see if the validity of the data is preserved.
    But do remember Occams’ Razor – keep it as simple as reality demands.

  46. wayne says:

    “In the N&Z system, is there ANY on-planet condition which would alter the basic calculation?”

    Technically yes.

    One would be the mass of the planet itself, therefore the radius also. Each planet is constantly sprinkled by meteors and meteorite dust day in and day out that adds to the planets mass. That factor should be a very long-term though very tiny skew that was at a higher rate early in the development of the solar system.

    In addition, changes to the albedo and emissivity of the atmosphere-less solar radiation at the surface have a direct effect.

    Another would of course be changes to the mass of the atmosphere itself.

    Those are all I see internally, solar irradiance being the only external. That is if I read your “on-planet conditions” correctly.

  47. AusieDan says:

    The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2005 was jointly awarded to two Australians, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren, for their discovery of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. It was previously thought that peptic ulcers were caused by too much emotional stress.

    For many years, this discovery had been bitterly opposed by the scientific community. It was not possible to conceive the true cause of the disease until the previous paradigm had been abandoned. Similarly, it is not possible to understand what N&Z are explaining until old, now discredited ways of thinking are abandoned.

  48. AusieDan says:

    Brian H

    As simpleseekeraftertruth has said above: “Increasing CO2 will therefore increase albedo. This would suggest that CO2 cools but in fact the effect is net neutral because it similarly reduces emissivity in those same bands.”

    From my observation of the data, differing percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no impact on the average near surface temperature. Irradiance and pressure are sufficient to explain temperature.

  49. AusieDan says:

    I’ll respond at random to a few comments and questions:

    B_Happy says: February 2, 2012 at 4:57 am
    I have a question about Europa. This Jupiter moon has hardly any atmosphere, but it has a very high albedo of 0.65 so surely in your model the temperature would be determined more by the albedo than by the atmosphere? [Please look at the data – it does not seem to behave as you suggest].

    The mean surface temperature is actually about 100K, as a result of heating by tidal forces from Jupiter. In view of this, is it a good example to include in the model? [Jupiter fits well into their model and behaves just as the Ideal Gas Law says it should. I suggest that you think more about the assumptions behind your questions. It may be that some of these are wrong]

  50. AusieDan says:

    Chris M says: February 2, 2012 at 6:21 am “What or who could be the icebreaker between the two camps”?

    My hope is that the N&Z theory will slowly spread through the skeptic community and become so powerful that honest brokers on the other side will come around and then it will all be over. To me it is inevitable.

    I would not like to be in the shoes of the editors of AR5. It will be in danger of being a complete laughing stock by the time it finally sees the light of day, should they still keep harping on about that poor old dead horse, CO2.

  51. AusieDan says:

    Hans Jelbring – you speak of curve fitting.
    I suggest that you read through the N&Z paper again, in total.
    The curve fitting locks into the theory and the data.

    Willis has demonstrated that the theory works with several completely different curve fitting methods.

  52. AusieDan says:

    Stephen wilde, you asked on February 2, 2012 at 10:21 am:
    “In the meantime I’d like to be able to explain to laypersons how the ATE of N & K differs from the Standard Atmosphere concept and the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. Any suggestions ?”

    This seems to be a good question to ask N&Z directly.

  53. AusieDan says:

    Erinome you speak of frequency response and the need to take it into account in the N&Z calculations.

    I see that nobody has taken you up on that as yet, so I thought that I would make some comment although this is not my particular area. You seem particluarly concerned with greenhouse gases and in particluar, towards the end of your comment, you say:

    “And unless N&Z incorporates absorption by H2O, CO2 and CH4, it cannot possibly predict the observed I_out_TOA(f,t) — or, for that matter, I_in_surface(f).
    And if it does incorporate these absorptions, how can it do so without incorporating the accompanying energy absorptions? ”

    The embarasing thing is that N&Z ARE able to predict surface temperature without reference to greenhouse gases, moreover, not just for the earth but for other bodies such as Venus and our moon.

    To me it seems that it is you, rather than N&Z, who need to once more contemplate the assumptions ob which your questions are based.
    somewhere amongst all that, there just may be an error of some sort lurking, unnoticed and unknown.

    Hint – start reevaluating greenhouse theory.

  54. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    Good on ya, AusieDan.

    Job well done. Now all we need is some money to progress the hypothesis.
    I get on the gob Downunder.

    Seems all is going well with science Rog, great effort by all.

  55. Roy Martin says:

    AusieDan said:
    February 3, 2012 at 6:52 am

    “Rog – my comments seem to be going into that vast unknown graveyard that is the black internet hole.

    I’ve said too much already – I’m off.
    See you soon again, I hope.”

    We hope to see you too. This summary was a necessity in view of the messy discussions that evolved at WUWT and elsewhere, and your responses followed on the sound work in the original post. My personal thanks for doing it. IMHO your are on the right path all the way.

    The whole of the N & Z presentation and the it’s consequences deserve a lot more notice from a lot more people, but one does need to know physics and mathematics to a certain level to really grasp how persuasive their proposition is, otherwise the discussion can meander quite a long way from the point.

    Your final statement in the section on Climate Implications: “Equation 5 can also be arranged as V = nRT/P, when ‘n’ is the fixed number of molecules in the atmosphere, …., while pressure itself is the result of gravity acting on the mass of gas, which presses down on the area of the planet (P = gMat/As).”, is extremely important, because Ps that is used as a parameter is itself directly proportional to the mass of gas on a planet of given area As. It is at that point that N & Z appear to have caused much misunderstanding and confusion by putting so much emphasis on pressure alone.

  56. tallbloke says:

    Apologies to Dan for overnight problems with comments getting lost. Now resolved and comments restored above.

  57. tallbloke says:

    kuhnkat says:
    February 3, 2012 at 12:23 am

    It seemed that the only real complaint, from Willis and others, is that there does not appear to be a derivation from physics that shows how the equations relate to physical aspects of the real environment. As that was supposed to be coming in their next presentation I thought he was somewhat over the top until that is available.

    That is on the way isn’t it? Or did you just present it and I am too ignorant to recognize it!! 8>)

    The whole theory is covered in brief form in the original extended conference paper originally published here at the Talkshop on Dec 28th 2011, and put up the next day at WUWT.

    This was followed up by a ‘Reply to comments part 1′ originally published here at the Talkshop on Jan 17th and republished a week later at WUWT. This covered primarily the discovery and quantification of the much lower than previously thought average surface temperature of the Moon, along with the implications for our understanding of the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) (formerly known as the ‘greenhouse effect’) here on Earth.

    We eagerly await the ‘Reply to comments on the UTC part 2′ which Ned tells me will be published exclusively here at the Talkshop, unless Anthony Watts changes his mind and decides to publish it at WUWT afterwards. This will cover the other aspects of the theory not expanded on in the ‘Reply to comments on the UTC part 1.

    Before that is published, we expect to see Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller’s own reply to Willis Eschenbach’s atttack on the theory and it’s authors in his ‘Mystery of Equation 8′ post at WUWT. Since Ausie Dan’s excellent post covers the same ground and has engendered good clean discourse here, I will not re-publish their reply to Willis on WUWT, since Willis himself does not have the opportunity to respond here following the personal attacks he made on Ned, Karl and myself. I will of course link it so people can go over to WUWT to have their say.

  58. Dan, thanks again. Understanding is seeping through, together with wiki ideas… still percolating. Some more questions / issues.

    (1) BenAW, February 2, 2012 at 9:12 pm asks about the effect of earthshine on lunar temperature. Looking at the graph referenced on p2 of his referenced pdf (forget its theoretical stuff!) impressed on me that N&Z might need a correction for earthshine to their lunar grey-body temperature.

    (2) Albedo. Musing about this, we have, as the primary “gravel bucket” situation, that energy in must equal energy out, otherwise the planet is going to terminally overheat. Therefore, does albedo signify this: high albedo means shorter wavelengths reflected on average, low albedo means longer wavelengths and a bit more heat buildup at the reflective interface. HOWEVER, N&Z show that with serious-size atmospheres, the warmth effect of atmospheric pressure simply dwarfs the effects of albedo on surface temperature. Still, this factor is important for us, in the micro-regulation of our climate, as cloudy skies bring more cooling overall than sunny skies – except at the poles. Correct?

  59. BenAW says:

    Bob Fernley-Jones says:
    February 3, 2012 at 2:00 am

    “Also, Earthshine/Moonshine is omnidirectional, and field of view and cosine law considerations must surely make it all miniscule?”
    The effect on the moon seems to be around 35-40K. Earthshine appears to be used to measure earths albedo. The effect appears to be an order of magnitude larger than the 2,77K.
    What N&Z should have done imo is roughly calculate the greybody (GB) temp of the earth in the same fashion as the GHE folks do:
    earth intercepts ~1364W/m^2 on a disk with radius R, same as earhts radius.
    Apply albedo > 955W/m^2.
    GHE spreads this around the whole globe: divide by 4, SB > 255K
    N&Z spread over a hemisphere: divide by 2, SB > 303K
    Since the other hemisphere on a blackbody has temp 0K, average again: 151,5K.
    In a supplement you can do the fancy integrals and conclude that the simple calc is ~3K off.
    End of story. But they went the other way, so now you can’t ignore a ~40K effect imo.

    But imo both the GHE and ATE are wrong in using a greybody approach to calculate a planets temp.
    A GB has zero heat storage capacity. No radiation > temp = 0K.
    Even the moon has some heat storage capacity, but it is a reasonable imitation of a GB.
    Earth has some 1,3 billion km^3 of ocean water at a temp ~275K. Doesn’t cool to 0K after the sun sets in the evening.

  60. I knew another question was lurking.

    (3) it still puzzles me why a kilometre down, mines are hot but oceans are cold. I get the feeling that here we have to do with profound implication of the Gas Laws ie that whereas pressure alone causes substantial heat rise in GASES (as also seen in space, in brown and black dwarves and Jupiter), this property does not transfer to LIQUIDS.

  61. adolfogiurfa says: February 2, 2012 at 11:15 pm Does climate repeat after 60 years?

    As Akasofu and others show, yes there is a 60-year cycle. I’d hyperlink this but am failing to get Akasofu’s links up.

  62. BenAW says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 3, 2012 at 11:19 am
    I knew another question was lurking.

    (3) it still puzzles me why a kilometre down, mines are hot but oceans are cold.

    Mines are hot because the crust gets warmer the deeper you dig.
    Oceans are cold only in relation to the human body temp.
    They are ~275K, which is ~20K above the GHE’s 255K (which is after the temp rise of solar radiation)
    They are ~125K above the ATE GB temp. making a farce of the whole GB idea imo.
    If you take the 275K temp of the oceans as the base for your climate setup both the GHE and ATE theory have only a very minor influence imo. (approaching zero)

    You may find a book by Salomon Kroonenberg enlightening, it’s called “De menselijke maat”.
    Insufficiently translating into “The human measure”.
    See http://citg.tudelft.nl/index.php?id=21281&L=1
    First chapter of the book: http://www.salomonkroonenberg.nl/doc/TheHumanMeasure.pdf

  63. wayne says:

    I keep hearing moonshine. Before too many think moonshine deserves inclusion, here it is calculated using 321K as mean lunar temp between 250K and 393K. At its ultimate maximum, it is just ~0.007 K difference at full moon. Surely no one also wants earth-shine on the moon?? (but… can also get it in a snap if anyone insists :-))

    (via old IPCC style mean radiation computation for a quik & dirty estimate, very rough)

    ————————————————
    moonshine = ‹kSB›•321‹K›²²•(6371‹km›/384400‹km›)² ‹W/m²›;
    0.16538
    ————————————————
    no_moonshine_T = √√(1362‹W/m²›•0.70/‹4•kSB› ) ‹K›
    254.625
    ————————————————
    with_moonshine_T = √√((1362‹W/m²›+moonshine‹W/m²›)•0.70/‹4•kSB›) ‹K›
    254.632
    ————————————————

    Also wanted to check the formatting of raw output from my calculator under WordPress if needed. Fingers crossed. Substitute other values if deemed any as not proper.

  64. BenAW says:

    wayne says:
    February 3, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    I keep hearing moonshine

    It’s eartshine I introduced, and it’s caused by the 30% REFLECTED solar that ao lightens the moon.
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetshine#Earthshine

  65. BenAW says: February 3, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Oceans are… ~125K above the ATE GB temp. making a farce of the whole GB idea imo.

    sorry, don’t buy. TheGB evidence and the pressure evidence, as in N&K, Huffman, and the dark dwarf stars, makes overwhelming evidence for N&K being at least in the right direction.

    It’s a big rethink. Live with it.

    There has to be another reason for the oceans. I think there is a hint in their exact temperature, 275 K, two degrees above freezing, the temperature at which cold water sinks. I think we have evidence of huge insulation at work, in the oceans, seen as horizontal layers, as much as in the rocks (remember boreholes taken to measure distant past temperatures) and an incredible slow redistribution of polar cold and CO2 to the tropics, a thermal inertia system that has prevented huge icecaps forming and has kept the tropics more temperate.

    And I think that we have evidence that liquid temperatures are not responsive to pressure, as gas temperatures are.

    But I could be wrong.

  66. wayne says:

    And yes, I should have used 1737 km instead of 6371 km in top equation but that just makes it’s influence even smaller. I guess I’m asking why are we picking on such very tiny variances at this point in the discussion?

  67. Wayne Job says:

    The more simple the theory the closer it gets to the truth, let those that can try to unmake this one.

    The main factors that control our climate will be universal in nature, predictable for all planets in the entire universe, without such life could never evolve.

    It would seem that real science will prevail, thanks Dan et al. Maybe this year will see a rather large change in fortune for some people riding the gravy train.

    On another note it is noted that the Gore effect has seriously affected the Bramson love boat with temps in the area 25C below normal, I hope his rigging does not freeze. It would be so much fun if an ice breaker was needed.

  68. tallbloke says:

    BenAW says:
    February 3, 2012 at 10:30 am

    The effect on the moon seems to be around 35-40K. Earthshine appears to be used to measure earths albedo. The effect appears to be an order of magnitude larger than the 2,77K.
    What N&Z should have done imo is roughly calculate the greybody (GB) temp of the earth in the same fashion as the GHE folks do:
    earth intercepts ~1364W/m^2 on a disk with radius R, same as earhts radius.
    Apply albedo > 955W/m^2.
    GHE spreads this around the whole globe: divide by 4, SB > 255K
    N&Z spread over a hemisphere: divide by 2, SB > 303K
    Since the other hemisphere on a blackbody has temp 0K, average again: 151,5K.
    In a supplement you can do the fancy integrals and conclude that the simple calc is ~3K off.
    End of story. But they went the other way, so now you can’t ignore a ~40K effect imo.

    You keep saying it’s a ~40K effect, and then ignoring all requests for you to substantiate your claim by showing any meaningful figures.

    Due to the curvature of Earth’s surface and the distance between it and the Moon, only a small amount of the Sunlight incident on the Earth is going to get reflected in the Moon’s direction. Even then it’s only going to illuminate half the Moon for half the time, due to the Moon’s phases. It doesn’t get any Earthshine when it is on the far side of Earth from the Sun, because that is the earth’s night side.

    At new Moon, when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, you can just very very faintly see the moon illuminated by Earthlight. It’s magnitudes less bright than the Sunlit Moon. If the Moon is only warmed to somewhere around 165K by direct Sunlight, the Earthlight isn’t going to make much difference. Nowhere near ~40K anyway.

  69. BenAW says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 3, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    sorry, don’t buy.
    It’s a big rethink. Live with it.

    There has to be another reason for the oceans.

    Not sure what you mean with this. The deep oceans just sit there, not gaining any heat from the hot core (probably) and not losing any to space, because the sun keeps a very thin layer of the oceans warm (thermocline). This layer in my view warms for the most part the atmosphere, and the total of this small ocean layer + the atmosphere is in radiative balance with the sun.
    The thermocline moves north and south with the seasons, causing polar sea ice growth and melt.
    Less solar? Thermocline layer shrinks towards the equator, enabling polar sea ice at both poles.

    Since the atmosphere in my view is heated from below, the standard Environmental Lapse Rate is caused by conduction, causing a temp. setup where at every altitude the sum of potential and kinetic energy is the same, giving this nice lapse rate in a gravitation field. Convection, radiation etc. etc disturb this basic setup.

    Iso worrying about other planets, lets first get rid of the CO2 nonsense that’s costing us dearly.
    If the ATE does it, fine, but I doubt any politician or journalist will get it, if confirmed true.

    Explaining that those stupid IPCC scientist forgot to take the temperature of the oceans into account,
    might just about convince a politician or journalist.

    If I’m wrong, fine. But pse explain where I go of the rails (if I do ;-)

  70. tallbloke says:

    BenAW says:
    February 3, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    Explaining that those stupid IPCC scientist forgot to take the temperature of the oceans into account,
    might just about convince a politician or journalist.

    If I’m wrong, fine. But pse explain where I go of the rails (if I do)

    Ben, the gray body temp of Earth calculated by N&Z correctly assumes that without an atmosphere, there isn’t going to be an ocean either. As Stephen Wilde is fond of telling us, the ocean is part of the atmosphere for all practical purposes of understanding the system. And he’s right.

  71. Hans says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 3, 2012 at 11:19 am
    I knew another question was lurking.

    ” it still puzzles me why a kilometre down, mines are hot but oceans are cold. I get the feeling that here we have to do with profound implication of the Gas Laws ie that whereas pressure alone causes substantial heat rise in GASES (as also seen in space, in brown and black dwarves).

    Lucy, Water has very special properties. Gases, liquids and solids are different aggregation forms. no-one actually know why an element is one or the other form except that all elements will be gaseous at very high temperatures and solids at very low temperatures.

    So water freezes at 0C and has its highest density at +4C. Salt water freezes at about -2C and has (as far as I remember) the highest density at that temperature. There are few places where sea water can cool to -2C. The prime place is the GIN sea in northern Atlantic. The second place is underneath the Antarctica shelf.

    The Atlantic cold water is the heaviest and hence sink the the deepest places in the oceans and is carried over the equator line on its 1000 year journey around the world. The physical properties of water decides what happens.

    The laws governing the behaviour of gases (approximately ideal) is quite another history. You can notice the impact at the bottom of Grand Canyon during summer. It is about 15C warmer than the surface above, meaning a temperature of +50C. Energy dissipation at work depending on surface pressure.

    In mines it is the properties of solids that decide. It is not really understood why the temperature gradient is as high as it is. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole.
    Aggregation forms of matter matters. unexpected observations is the rule, not an exception, which is very interesting.

    Best Hans

    “The initial target depth was set at 15,000 m (49,000 ft). On 6 June 1979, the world depth record held by the Bertha Rogers hole in Washita County, Oklahoma, at 9,583 m (31,440 ft)[3] was broken. In 1983, the drill passed 12,000 m (39,000 ft), and drilling was stopped for about a year to celebrate the event.[4] This idle period may have contributed to a break-down on 27 September 1984: after drilling to 12,066 m (39,587 ft), a 5,000 m (16,000 ft) section of the drill string twisted off and was left in the hole. Drilling was later restarted from 7,000 m (23,000 ft).[4] The hole reached 12,262 m (40,230 ft) in 1989. In that year the hole depth was expected to reach 13,500 m (44,300 ft) by the end of 1990 and 15,000 m (49,000 ft) by 1993.[5][6] However, due to higher than expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 °C (356 °F) instead of expected 100 °C (212 °F), drilling deeper was deemed infeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992.[4] With the expected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a projected 300 °C (570 °F), at which the drill bit would no longer work.

    The Kola borehole penetrated about a third of the way through the Baltic continental crust, estimated to be around 35 kilometres (22 mi) deep, reaching rocks of Archaean age (greater than 2.5 billion years old) at the bottom.[7] The project has been a site of extensive geophysical studies. The stated areas of study were the deep structure of the Baltic Shield; seismic discontinuities and the thermal regime in the Earth’s crust; the physical and chemical composition of the deep crust and the transition from upper to lower crust; lithospheric geophysics; and to create and develop technologies for deep geophysical study.

    To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that the change in seismic velocities was not found at a boundary marking Harold Jeffreys’s hypothetical transition from granite to basalt; it was at the bottom of a layer of metamorphic rock that extended from about 5 to 10 kilometers beneath the surface. The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.[8]

    Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as “boiling” with hydrogen.[9]“

  72. BenAW says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    You keep saying it’s a ~40K effect, and then ignoring all requests for you to substantiate your claim by showing any meaningful figures

    I think I linked now 3 or 4 times to this pdf:
    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
    Page 2 graph2, see also text.

    I linked to this: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/
    Their own graph, Latitude 89 Winter. With the 1,5 degree tilt of the moons axis this means this lattitude does not receive solar radiation in the winter. Compare with Lattitude 89 summer.
    So the 40K temp that is shown has to come from somewhere other than solar.
    Hot core, earthshine ??

    This is not my theory. I just pointed out that N&Z may be overlooking something, that probably is larger than the 2,77K they DO account for. They seem to have connections with NASA scientists,
    Try there, or ignore the whole thing. It’s their choice.

  73. tchannon says:

    The barometer here is showing 1038mb which is extremely high (assume +-5 of absolute, altitude compensated, sometimes disagrees with Met Office, mostly not)

    It is dry, calm and cold. For the same barometer reading the weather can also be dry, calm and hot.

    If pressure does things, why so?

    This is a question which is going to be asked often.

  74. Tallbloke & BenAW:

    Where I agree with TB is wrt the basic thesis, whereby the Gas Laws supplant the going ghg theories. Where I agree with BenAW is wrt an effect of earthshine on the moon, eg, as Ben suggests, lifting the lunar polar temperatures considerably above the 2K level.N&Z themselves, in their Answer Part One show that 89° lunar latitude has a flat-level winter temperature of some 40K. I think this is only a detail in comparison with the overall N&Z thesis, but I think it is a significant detail worth addressing. Admittedly the lunar poles are only small parts of the whole lunar surface, so the mean earthshine effect might be – I’m having a guess now – some 3K.

    Easy to talk past one another. When my mind gets boggled with this stuff I do it too :)

  75. Roger Andrews says:

    Talking of barometric pressure.

    According to Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17), the +/1C increase in Ts since 1900 should have been accompanied by a pressure increase of about 25mb. But it wasn’t. Pressure stayed constant over this period.

    Anyone have an explanation?

  76. anon says:

    re Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 3, 2012 at 11:19 am
    I knew another question was lurking.

    (3) it still puzzles me why a kilometre down, mines are hot but oceans are cold. I get the feeling that here we have to do with profound implication of the Gas Laws ie that whereas pressure alone causes substantial heat rise in GASES (as also seen in space, in brown and black dwarves and Jupiter), this property does not transfer to LIQUIDS.

    Not really an answer but some pieces of information that may help to find an answer.

    Liquid water is virtually incompressible while air is compressible. Temperature changes in liquid water have a negligeable effect on its pressure while the same is not true of air.

    Density * Heat capacity : rho * c_p (J/m^3.K)
    Quartzite (a rock upper estimate) approx 2.6 x 10^6
    Water approx 4.2 x 10^6
    Air approx 1 x 10^3
    (approximate values from Incropera, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass transfer)

    So we could reasonably expect 1m^3 of Water to contain the same energy as nearly 2m^3 of rock or 4000m^3 of air

  77. Hans
    thank you for that interesting long answer whose details I’ve noted.

    However, I think you may have missed the very “obvious” point I was trying to make, to reinforce, because I think it is another potential tripping-up-point. People can say, why should gas temperature increase with depth? Oceans don’t – and then they literally forget to look at the snowline on the distant mountains, or the level underside of the clouds, or Jericho’s raised temperatures compared with nearby Jerusalem. We have already seen how much “obvious” science is overlooked in Climate Science.

    Your Grand Canyon example seems to be in between the special restrictions of a mine, and the openness of Jericho. Perhaps I should have said “Jericho” rather than “mines” in my comparison.

  78. tallbloke says:

    Tim: a 0.3% change in pressure wouldn’t be expected to change temperature much. So the big variation of actual conditions at the same pressure is due to turbulent convection and other forces which perturb the weather. The UTC isn’t about day to day weather, it’s an overarching theory of the bigger picture solar system wide.

    I know you know this, so I appreciate you are ‘testing for answers’.

  79. tchannon says:
    February 3, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    It is dry, calm and cold. For the same [extremely high] barometer reading the weather can also be dry, calm and hot.

    If pressure does things, why so?

    This is a question which is going to be asked often.

    Indeed!

    Pressure highs, with no wind or clouds, amplify the local effect, winter gets colder, summer gets warmer. The levelling-out effect of wind generally on the greybody basics, is not happening; nor the local modulations of cloud that warm at night / in winter and cool by day / in summer.

    But what causes the local highs? and why do clouds warm by night?

    My intuitive guess is that N&Z rightly name their thesis “Unified Theory of Climate” because theirs comes in right at the starting-point. And my guess is that, when this shift has been taken on and settled down, a lot of the former Climate Science stuff (bar ghg) will still be found to apply. Just like using Newton’s physics locally and Einstein’s sidereally.

  80. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Why do you think pressure would have increased with rising temperature rather than volume? What constrains the atmospheric volume? Not your imaginary ‘lid on the troposphere’ that’s for sure. ;)

  81. Roger Andrews says: February 3, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Talking of barometric pressure.

    According to Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17), the +/1C increase in Ts since 1900 should have been accompanied by a pressure increase of about 25mb. But it wasn’t. Pressure stayed constant over this period.

    Anyone have an explanation?

    Why yes, Roger. I think you’ve just caught the suspected missing, unaccounted-for UHI redhanded. Well done.

  82. Hans says:

    anon says:
    February 3, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    “Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 3, 2012 at 11:19 am
    I knew another question was lurking.

    It still puzzles me why a kilometre down, mines are hot but oceans are cold. I get the feeling that here we have to do with profound implication of the Gas Laws ie that whereas pressure alone causes substantial heat rise in GASES (as also seen in space, in brown and black dwarves and Jupiter), this property does not transfer to LIQUIDS.

    Liquid water is virtually incompressible while air is compressible. Temperature changes in liquid water have a negligeable effect on its pressure while the same is not Density”

    What a dull and correct answer.

    Hans

  83. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    If that’s a UHI impact then we need a SUHI (submarine urban heat island) impact to explain why the sea surface has also warmed by about 1C.

    Atlantis must be one hell of a big city.

    Back with more later.

  84. Hans says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 3, 2012 at 3:02 pm
    “Hans
    thank you for that interesting long answer whose details I’ve noted.”
    (Are you sure you did?/HJ)

    “However, I think you may have missed the very “obvious” point I was trying to make, to reinforce, because I think it is another potential tripping-up-point. People can say, why should gas temperature increase with depth? Oceans don’t – and then they literally forget to look at the snowline on the distant mountains, or the level underside of the clouds, or Jericho’s raised temperatures compared with nearby Jerusalem. We have already seen how much “obvious” science is overlooked in Climate Science.”

    In my mind poetry dosen´t beat science however beautiful. Your name is just an inspiration that might lead to pleasure and disaster inviting the thrill of excitment with unknown consequenses.”

    “Your Grand Canyon example seems to be in between the special restrictions of a mine, and the openness of Jericho. Perhaps I should have said “Jericho” rather than “mines” in my comparison.”

    If you had said Jericho I would have been dumbfounded not knowing what is up or down. As it is
    I will suffer in the darkness ot the mines until the answer will be told by the divene lords of skywakers.

    Hans

  85. tallbloke says:

    Heh, “skywaker”. I think Lucy should like that typo.

    It’s definitely time to waken the skies, and the people who have been hiding pies in them. Of the pork variety.

  86. tallbloke says:

    Roy Martin says:
    February 3, 2012 at 7:51 am
    Your final statement in the section on Climate Implications: “Equation 5 can also be arranged as V = nRT/P, when ‘n’ is the fixed number of molecules in the atmosphere, …., while pressure itself is the result of gravity acting on the mass of gas, which presses down on the area of the planet (P = gMat/As).”, is extremely important, because Ps that is used as a parameter is itself directly proportional to the mass of gas on a planet of given area As. It is at that point that N & Z appear to have caused much misunderstanding and confusion by putting so much emphasis on pressure alone.

    Ned Nikolov says:
    What we state is that the GH effect, when measured as a dimensionless number (Ts/Tgb), i.e. the relative thermal enhancement, is completely explainable by pressure. Is pressure a gravity? No! Pressure is a FORCE resulting from the atmospheric mass per unit area AND gravity!

    No confusion there so far as I can see.

  87. wayne says:

    “So the 40K temp that is shown has to come from somewhere other than solar.
    Hot core, earthshine ?? ”

    Ben, you explained that better. I do see your point you keep making. Look at my top figure above, it was supposed to be the moonshine but actually by mistake, it is the earthshine: 0.165 W/m2. Now you are right on the figure 40K if you just figure the radiative temperature from that small flux. TB’s right to point out that this would only be ½ of the time each 27 days. However, that is also only applicable to about 1.5% of the total area of the moon. When near absolute zero just tiny amounts as 0.1 W/m2 can cause temperatures of 20K, but that does not mean you add 20K to the planet or moons overall mean temperature. Agree? If there is any correction Ned & Karl might need to do is to allow the addition of any additional solar + reflections off nearby bodies.

    Seeing what that would do, take ½ of the 0.165 to get ~0.083 and add to 1362 it should be 1362.085 W/m2. Now just calculate the moon again:

    ————————————————
    Without = 2/5•√√((1362.000+0.0001325)•(1-.11)/(0.955•‹kSB›))
    154.7204
    ————————————————
    With    = 2/5•√√((1362.085+0.0001325)•(1-.11)/(0.955•‹kSB›))
    154.7228
    ————————————————
    

    Still any difference is in the hundredths of a Kelvin even after averaging over the entire moon, which is why I suggested we address that much later once the major aspects are covered.

  88. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    At some point theories must be shown to be capable of hindcasting observations. The IPCC is very hot on this. So how does ATE stack up against the IPCC’s AGW models over the period of observational record?

    http://oi42.tinypic.com/21o1vmd.jpg

    Score so far: AGW 1, ATE 0.

  89. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Wayne. I think the biggest effect on the avg lunar surface temp will be from heat retention in the subsoil

  90. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: How well does radiative theory stack up against the surface T of other solar system bodies?

    ATE 8
    AGW 1

  91. Hans
    Jericho temperatures was in my wake-up message here, delivered by Tim just before N&K flew in from the stars. Jericho is below sea level.

    Tallbloke
    Skywaker. Haha. Don’t get me started. I’ve just got Huffman’s book. It’s not complete rubbish but I’m not, not, not going to discuss it here. I’m going to behave. :)

  92. BenAW says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 3, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Ben, the gray body temp of Earth calculated by N&Z correctly assumes that without an atmosphere, there isn’t going to be an ocean either. As Stephen Wilde is fond of telling us, the ocean is part of the atmosphere for all practical purposes of understanding the system. And he’s right

    Ok, where does this contradict with my “theory”?

    For all I know the oceans have been much warmer in the past (geological timescale),
    so assuming more or less constant TSI earth has been radiating away more than we received from the sun. Since 30 yrs or so we measure outgoing radiation, and we seem to be in radiative balance with the sun. (give or take some missing heat of ~0,9W/m^2)
    The whole idea of a black or greybody doesn’t make sense with regard to waterplanet earth imo.
    The nightside of a BB or GB is at 0K (or 2,77K), this temp is nowhere to be found on earth.
    This is due to heat storage during daytime, which a BB or GB can’t do.

  93. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    Your point is acknowledged. ATE does seem to do a much better job of explaining planetary surface temperatures than radiative theory (I say “seem” because I don’t know enough about it to be more definite).

    My point, however, is that AGW is based almost entirely on the surface air temperature record of the last 40 years. I think we can confidently assume that if SATs were still the same now as they were back in the 1970s, i.e. about 0.8C lower than they are, there wouldn’t be carbon credits, climate conferences, the IPCC and a multi-billion-dollar AGW industry. And wouldn’t that be nice :-)

    So the question becomes, why have SATs risen over the last 40 years? According to the IPCC it was because of AGW, and the IPCC presents models to support this claim. But we can’t model the warming as an ATE effect, the data are all against us. So claiming that ATE disproves AGW is, I think, a little premature.

    However, that doesn’t mean that AGW can’t be disproved. We just have to use something other than ATE to do it, and along these lines I think I can now make a strong case that the SAT warming over the last 40 years was mostly caused by heat released from the oceans during El Niño events (maybe some of your stored heat resurfacing). You can have what’s left as UHI if you like, but best of luck proving it.

    . So claiming that ATE disproves AGW is going a little overboard. I think we can prove that the recent warming was caused by something other than AGW, but

  94. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: If you look back up the comments, you will see that Lucy raised the UHI issue, not me. I’m in agreement with you that oceanic heat release can easily account for air temps rising more than sst’s while the Sun was more active.

  95. BenAW says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 3, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    “Where I agree with TB is wrt the basic thesis, whereby the Gas Laws supplant the going ghg theories.”
    The Gas Laws never went away. DALR and WALR are still alive and kicking. It’s just some ecoterrorists that got carried away with radiation as the main driver of climate.

    N&Z have this in their main paper (page 7):
    “At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours.”

    I asked several times for their explanation, to be able to compare with the classical explanation I’m pretty familiar with. This classical explanation definitely uses the Gas Laws as they have been known for quite some time.

  96. Tenuc says:

    tchannon says:
    February 3, 2012 at 2:40 pm
    “The barometer here is showing 1038mb which is extremely high (assume +-5 of absolute, altitude compensated, sometimes disagrees with Met Office, mostly not)…

    Well, Tim, I can beat that just further east from you in Sunny Sussex… :-)

    Record high (last 11 yr 1040.1mb (altitude adjusted) at 9.45pm – 24hr graph here…

    http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg15/scaled.php?server=15&filename=sussexbarometer.jpg&res=medium

    Cold clear night with peak pressure when moon and Jupiter were overhead.

    Interestingly, temperature rose by 4C as the air pressure climbed – graph here…

    http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg46/scaled.php?server=46&filename=sussextemp.jpg&res=medium

    Hans Also observed the same effect regarding very high pressure with moon/Jupiter/Venus overhead – any ideas of why this happened???

  97. Anything is possible says:

    The bottom-line for me (my elevator speech, if you please.) :

    Greenhouse theory insists that the planetary bodies emit radiation as a sphere and absorb it as a flat disk.

    On this basis, Greenhouse theory calculates that the effective surface temperature of the Earth-Moon system is 255K. Subtract this from the actual observed surface temperature of the Earth (288K), and you quantify the “greenhouse effect” (33C)

    N & Z have re-calculated effective surface temperature by proposing that planetary bodies emit radiation as a sphere and absorb it as a sphere.

    On this basis, N & Z calculate that the effective surface temperature of the Earth-Moon system is 155K.

    Empirical data (actual observations!) from Lunar diviner show that the true average surface temperature of the Moon is close to 170K.

    Which method do you prefer? The one that is out by 85 degrees, or the one that is out by 15 degrees. That simple.

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Two matters arising (I’m sure TB & Tim have already considered these) which may, in the fullness of time, be worthy of further discussion :

    1) What is the true value of the TSI? Surely the widely quoted figure (c.1360W/m2) only applies to the point at the TOA where the Sun is directly overhead?

    2) What happens when we apply N & Z’s method of calculating solar insolation to the Milankovitch Cycles? Will they now provide a more coherent explanation for the solar contribution to glacial/inter-glacial cycles?

    Fascinating stuff……….

  98. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    Whoops. A bit of superfluous text got left in there.

    The UHI comment was made in jest. I just forgot the smiley face.

    But I really would appreciate your or someone’s comments as to why the ATE “model” doesn’t match the observational record. I think this is something that needs to be looked into.

  99. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: consider that the atmosphere expands when the Sun is more active. NASA says the thermosphere contracted 30% after the Sun went quiet in 2004.

    That implies everything below it contracted too. This will affect surface T.

    N&Z don’t deal with solar variation in the prelim UTC study, but it will be interesting to get the calculator warm…

  100. Hans says:

    tchannon says:
    February 3, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    “The barometer here is showing 1038mb which is extremely high (assume +-5 of absolute, altitude compensated, sometimes disagrees with Met Office, mostly not)
    It is dry, calm and cold. For the same barometer reading the weather can also be dry, calm and hot.
    If pressure does things, why so?
    This is a question which is going to be asked often.”

    The physical situation depends on season. High pressur means cold in the winter and warm in the summer.It takes some pondering to understand why.

  101. Hans says:

    BenAW says:
    February 3, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    “At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours.”

    “I asked several times for their explanation, to be able to compare with the classical explanation I’m pretty familiar with. This classical explanation definitely uses the Gas Laws as they have been known for quite some time.”

    Since you don´t tell what the 2classical explanation is it is hard to answer you. I f you want to know the true answet it is that atmospheric air is succed down east of the Rochy mountains and as a consequence the air temoerature is rising at (clsoe to) the adiabatic rate of g/Cp (9.8 k/km) which tells that the air is coming from 2 km altitude if the temperature increase is approximately +20C. It often happens close to Denver.

  102. Hans says:

    Tenuc says:
    February 3, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    The temperature in Stockholm has now sunk to 1033 mbar which is 8 mbar below the 40 year maximum some days ago.

  103. Genghis says:

    Here is my answer to Willis E. Using Willis’s reasoning;

    E = MC^2

    Substituting E for MC^2 we get

    E = E

    Did Willis just prove Einstein wrong?

  104. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    tallbloke @ February 3, 8:45 am

    We eagerly await the ‘Reply to comments on the UTC part 2′ which Ned tells me will be published exclusively here at the Talkshop, unless Anthony Watts changes his mind and decides to publish it at WUWT afterwards. This will cover the other aspects of the theory not expanded on in the ‘Reply to comments on the UTC part 1.

    TB, Are you implying that Anthony Watts is currently not interested in Part 2? Strange! Perhaps he has been brainwashed by Willis, who seems to be over-represented in authorship/traffic at WUWT?

  105. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Andrews;
    But I really would appreciate your or someone’s comments as to why the ATE “model” doesn’t match the observational record. I think this is something that needs to be looked into.>>>

    I’d really like to know how it is that you published a graph showing that the models hindcast the observational record when in fact one of the most glaring problems that the IPCC has is to exaplin why the models neither hindcast nor forecast with ANY degree of skill? You’d think that if they had any models nearly as accurate as your graph suggests that they would trot them out instead of giving lame excuses?

  106. davidmhoffer says:

    You’d think that if they had any models nearly as accurate as your graph suggests that they would trot them out instead of giving lame excuses?>>>>

    Not to mention coming up with the most ridiculous reasons to “adjust” the tempersasture record to match the models! Plus Wolfgang Wagner was forced to resign as the Editor of Remote Sensing because he allowed an article to be published that presented observatiobal data that conflicted with the models. Go back to the climategate emails and consider the email exchanges in which the climate modelers, unable to get their models to hindcast the medieval warming period, decide that the best way to deal with it is to get rid of it.

    The climate models do not have a shred of credibility left, they are a total joke.

  107. davidmhoffer says:

    And one last thing Roger Andrews.

    If you understand the physics behind N&Z, then you should understand also that the temperature record is constructed from the average of all the temperature readings in the observational record. As has been explained many times in this discussion, determining if a change has occurred in earth’s energy balance by averaging the temperatures of cold areas of earth with warm areas of earth is a mathematical blunder of gigantic proportions that yields a meaningless result. It is very possible to have an increase in “average” temperature that is accompanied by a decrease in “w/m2″. Trying to determine the effect of increased CO2 in w/m2 by comparing to average temperature is complete and total nonsense.

  108. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    wayne @ February 3, 4:29 pm
    CC: TB, BenAW, Lucy,
    Wayne, Re Earthshine/moonshine:

    …Still any difference is in the hundredths of a Kelvin even after averaging over the entire moon, which is why I suggested we address that much later once the major aspects are covered.

    We could nitpick and guess what trivial effects there are, and I think too, that it should be kept simple.
    • For instance there is a proven geothermal energy source on Earth, but it is believed to be trivial, even below the ocean thin crust.
    • We really can’t know a great deal about the thermal characteristics of the Moon’s regolith and rocks, but I think I read somewhere that its dusty surface is a good insulator. This might encourage lateral conduction further down, and help explain Ben’s phantom 40K @ 89 degrees?
    Before my retirement, I would sometimes get stuff from my younger engineers that did not meet what I called a test for reasonableness, and they would subsequently make corrections. I feel that Ben’s assumptions and conclusions although interesting, are definitely in that category.

  109. Genghis says:

    Roger Andrew said – “However, that doesn’t mean that AGW can’t be disproved. We just have to use something other than ATE to do it, and along these lines I think I can now make a strong case that the SAT warming over the last 40 years was mostly caused by heat released from the oceans during El Niño events (maybe some of your stored heat resurfacing). You can have what’s left as UHI if you like, but best of luck proving it.”

    What ATE says is that the total energy in the system is constant at all times (as constant as the Suns emissions anyway). The earth radiates exactly same energy it absorbs, changing albedo does not change the total energy in the system. A higher albedo just means less absorbed and less emitted or vice versa.

    Therefore any increase in the energy in the atmosphere has to be matched with a corresponding loss of energy in the ocean or the other way around.

    Trenberth and Hansen searching for the missing heat in the ocean is evidence that that ATE theory is correct.

  110. tallbloke says:

    Bob Fernley-Jones says:
    February 3, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    Bob,
    Anthony is a good guy, it’s just a combination of overly hurried assessment and a rational choice which maintains an approach to controversial science which doesn’t jeopardize WUWT’s standing as promoting the ‘acceptable face’ of climate scepticism wrt the radiative gas theory.

    A small blog like this one can afford to push the boat out a bit further and let the chips fall where they may. I’m fully confident that we will be vindicated by a proper appraisal of the science in the long run. It’s likely to be a time consuming struggle though, because the entrenched views of a lot of vested interests will resist the forward march of science on the issue.

  111. tchannon says:

    Since the subject of earth temperature records being incorrectly averaged has been mentioned again, what is the correct method for surface measurements? I don’t follow the argument, this is not about irradiation.

  112. davidmhoffer says:

    tallbloke;
    Anthony is a good guy, it’s just a combination of overly hurried assessment and a rational choice which maintains an approach to controversial science which doesn’t jeopardize WUWT’s standing as promoting the ‘acceptable face’ of climate scepticism wrt the radiative gas theory>>>>

    I became a devotee of WUWT for the simple reason that Anthony was willing to challenge accepted science and propose that we evaluate climate issues on the basis of the facts. If the “acceptable face” of climate theory can only be challenged at WUWT by the “acceptable face” of climate scepticism, then WUWT has lost its value and has done as great a disservice to our quest for the facts as the AGW alarmists themselves, and hence my abondonment of that forum as a place to discuss, search, and learn, the facts.

  113. Roger Andrews says:

    davidmhoffer:

    The models really are those the IPCC trotted out in the AR4. I showed them only to demonstrate that AGW models broadly fit observations while the ATE model didn’t. I said nothing about whether I thought the IPCC models were any good.

    And as it happens I don’t think they’re any good. All they model is CO2. Nothing else gets a look-in. I recently found that I could in fact replicate model temperatures between 1900 and 2100 almost exactly (R squared = 0.998) using only CO2 forcings, assuming of course that there are any.

    And I did say that I thought that the recent warming was caused by El Niños, not greenhouse gases.

  114. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Andrews says:
    February 3, 2012 at 11:21 pm
    davidmhoffer:
    The models really are those the IPCC trotted out in the AR4. I showed them only to demonstrate that AGW models broadly fit observations while the ATE model didn’t>>>>

    And I attempted to point out to you that the observational record, when expressed as an average, is meaningless, and has no value in comparing to AGW models or ATE alike.

  115. Chris M says:

    dmh, I tend to agree but WUWT is still a useful starting point for the day’s climate bunfight overview. Anthony’s acerbic posts are generally still good value and there are many worthwhile guest posters, excluding of course WE. What I do now is ignore Eschenbach’s posts completely – simple to do and works for me.

  116. tallbloke says:

    Hoff: Anthony is still a good guy and still wants the facts to speak. I hold some measure of responsibility for the way things have gone. Barring Joel got up Willis’ nose, and he already had a predisposition against Hans’ 2003 paper (which he hadn’t read carefully), and which he mistakenly conflated with N&Z’s theory, along with Harry Dale Huffman’s “atmospheric sponges and bowls”, which he misattributed to N&Z. So then Willis ‘went off on one’ about N&Z and me, Anthony made a swift judgement agreeing with him, and Robert Brown as the WUWT rising star (originally promoted here on the Talkshop by me elevating his WUWT comment on energy flow to a guest post) convinced them both of the isothermal argument. In the middle of all of that I did something regrettable which annoyed Anthony enough that he revoked my WUWT moderation login and hardened his position wrt N&Z posts.

    Robert is now appealing to a ‘consensus’ of the Phd’s on his thread (!) and doing what consensus always does – ignoring validly conflicting interpretation.

    SNAFU.

  117. davidmhoffer says:

    tallbloke
    Anthony’s introductory remarks in the very first N&Z post were very negative, and the attack on N&Z was in full flight long before your banning of Joel Shore. I haven’t been following WUWT at all for some time now, but if you say that the forum has descended into a call by Robert Brown for a consensus, I have no reason to disbelieve you. But does that not raise the obvious question in your mind?

    We were aghast at the wagon circling mentality exposed in the climategate emails. Confronted with facts that put the elite AGW proponents in a bad light, they circled the wagons and defended shoddy and fraudulent work. Maintaining their status as an elite group was more important to them than objectivity. We were sickened, angry, outraged.

    What is the difference between the wagon circing to protect the “science” of Mann, Briffa and Jones and the wagon circling to protect the “science” of Willis Eschenbach? I’ll forgive the AGW elite if, and only if, they come clean and admit their folly. My standard for Anthony and Willis cannot be any different.

  118. tallbloke says:

    Hoff: I’m a dog-tired historian and philosopher of science. I understand why the various actors in this drama hold the views they do. That doesn’t mean I condone them or the methods by which they try to convince others of their correctness. It does mean I won’t sit in judgement on them though. I’m just trying to do what I believe is right, which is to make sure N&Z and Hans and Harry and everyone here get their ideas properly considered and assessed in a forum which holds firmly to the principles of courteous and considered debate in order to prevent hasty, noisy and ill tempered argument clouding the issues we are trying to resolve. What everyone else does is up to them. Let the chips fall where they may.

  119. davidmhoffer says:

    tallbloke
    I’m just trying to do what I believe is right, which is to make sure N&Z and Hans and Harry and everyone here get their ideas properly considered and assessed in a forum which holds firmly to the principles of courteous and considered debate >>>>

    For which I applaud you.

  120. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    Lucy Skywalker; Re: your several posts above concerning T gradients in mineshafts etc

    Lucy,
    Somewhere around the place, I posted a comment, probably identical to my word processor draft quoted below….. does it help?

    …whilst the “ocean conveyor” concept from tchannon @ January 19, 3:27 am is part of the story of advective ocean depths cooling, a more interesting aspect to me [Bob] is the relative thinness of the oceanic crust compared to the continental crust, where your “hot mines” are found. So why isn’t the typical ocean bottom hot like in the mines, even at greater depths?
    I’m only an engineer, [not a geologist], but I do know that water has a thermal conductivity far in excess of rock, and it is greatly enhanced by convection and advection, to rapidly transport heat away. What is more, because the water bottom is cold, it is a huge heat sink to any geothermal activity, although climatologists, amongst others, claim it is negligible. (You know; this heat transfer is proportional to: T1 – T2). What puzzles me though is that those assertions are made on over 70% of the earth’s surface area and depth, that they know little about. Oh, and another thing, there are strong arguments suggesting that oceanic crust is a better thermal conductor than the continental more layered rocks, including those naughty sandstones and limestones, and conductive interfaces.
    BTW, I think the depicted “ocean conveyor” is more of an artistic concept than in the probable real-world dynamics, and ENSO etc is not included.

    Some afterthoughts:

    • Someone claimed that any such geothermal input would show-up at the ocean surface. However, the heat capacity of the ocean depths is massive compared to the air, so what would the T change resulting from that heat content look like in those waters compared with less than a degree increase over 150 years in the reported average surface T? And, is it not agreed that ocean surface T has been dropping lately? Oh so many questions!
    • Presumably, solar energy input at the surface is not an N&Z consideration in the mineshafts, but the geothermal energy very much must be…. =Two entirely different energy input enhancements. (that I don’t think are contradictory to N&Z, concerning the air temperature in those mines, which presumably have higher atmospheric pressure)
    • It strikes me that N&Z might contemplate exploring the point immediately above, to extend their theory for that different graded-to-depth energy input, and I’ll draw it to their attention shortly, perhaps after any responses to this suggestion.

  121. Roger Andrews says:

    davidmhoffer

    “And I attempted to point out to you that the observational record, when expressed as an average, is meaningless, and has no value in comparing to AGW models or ATE alike.”

    Nikolov and Zeller support their ATE argument with averages. Their text contains numerous references to “global”, “global average” or “earth” temperatures, pressures etc. The terms in their equations are global averages. Their Figures show global averages. Their Figures 7 and 8 even show observational records expressed as global averages.

  122. Roger Andrews says:

    Bob Fernley-Jones & Lucy Skywalker

    and others interested in geothermal heat flow (I was once in the geothermal business myself).

    You might find the following paper interesting:

    http://anquetil.colorado.edu/EPP3/readings/Pollack_etal_1993_Rev_Geophys.pdf

  123. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Andrews;
    Their Figures show global averages. Their Figures 7 and 8 even show observational records expressed as global averages.>>>

    Derived from proper application of SB Law. “average” doesn’t mean the same thing in all contexts.

    The “average” insolation that the earth receives is 240 w/m2 which results in an “average” black body temperature of 255K. N&Z showed that this number is accurate only for an earth of uniform shape subject to uniform insolation. Taking into account the day/night cycle, and the curvature of the earth, N&Z showed that the “average” blackbody temperature of earth is about 100K less than that. Two ways to calculate “average” and two very different numbers.

    Similarly, taking the gridded temperature data of the earth and “averaging” it comes up with a value of 288K. As N&Z showed, this value is also incorrect. The gridded data must be raised to the power of 4, THEN averaged, and then the 4th root of that value taken, which results in an “average” temperature higher than 288K.

    While N&Z may well have referred to “average” temperatures, they clearly were talking about “average” calculated properly, which results in a different numerical value than what the “averages” of the IPCC are.

  124. AusieDan says:

    Roger Andrews you said on February 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm
    I’ve been playing with the formula Ts = 25.394 * Solar^0.25 * e^(0.092 * Pressure ^ 0.17)

    Hi – I don’t think that it works that way.
    It’s not meant to be a short term weather forecasting device.
    Rather it is an estimate of the long term equilibrium value of the temperature around which short term fluctions vibrate (day & night, 60 year cycles etc).

  125. AusieDan says:

    Hi Lucy Skywalker you asked two questions on February 3, 2012 at 10:11 am

    (1) effect of earthshine on lunar temperature.
    I dunno is my short answer.
    I’ll take a quick look and see if I have anything more useful to say.

    (2) Albedo and emissivity had me doing a lot of pondering when I first encontered N&Z. As you know, they use fixed values for all the bodies, not the individual ones that you would expect.
    I worried about that a lot and corresponded with N&Z, but still do not fully understand, although I now know why they use a standard value – they place a standard grey planet in place of the real one and measure the effect of irradiance and atmospheric pressure and vola ( again) they get the actual average surface temperature of the real planet.
    If you can’t understand what I have just writtn, then watch this space for my next post – it should all come quite clear..
    Somebody, I think it was David Moffer, suggests that these two are recroprical and when one changes, the other moves in the opposite direction just enough to completely negate any effect on temperature.
    Very strange if that is correct – why should it be – what is the physics?
    I have a second much shorter paper in the pipeline which accounts for this, but in another way.
    It was hinted by Ned and I just followed it up and vola (excuse VVVVV poor French).
    I expect N&Z have looked into this – every question I throw at them, they have been there before me – their work is very thorough, much more so that the general run of climate googliologists to coin a phrase – original spelling all mine – I’m an expert at least in that field.

  126. Roy Martin says:

    Tallbloke says:
    February 3, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    “Ned Nikolov says:
    What we state is that the GH effect, when measured as a dimensionless number (Ts/Tgb), i.e. the relative thermal enhancement, is completely explainable by pressure. Is pressure a gravity? No! Pressure is a FORCE resulting from the atmospheric mass per unit area AND gravity!
    No confusion there so far as I can see.”
    I see several potential sources of confusion in this paragraph.

    The first is that by definition, the statement: “Pressure is a FORCE” is incorrect. Pressure is defined and correctly denoted as force per unit area.

    Then taking the full sentence: “Pressure is a FORCE resulting from the atmospheric mass per unit area AND gravity! ” becomes further confusing because of the “AND gravity!” at the end. I suggest that this sentence would be much more in keeping with the relationships of cause and effect by saying: ”The effect of the force of gravity acting on the mass of gas in the atmosphere is to create a pressure, measured as force per unit area.”

    Which brings me back to my comment about the importance of the expression for surface pressure: Ps=(g*Mat)/As. In this, where Mat is the mass of the atmosphere in kg, and As is in m^2, the top line (g*Mat) becomes a force in Newtons, thus Ps is in N/m^2, or Pascals. Note that on a planet with a given value of g and a fixed surface area, we can say: Ps=(Mat*C), where the constant C=g/As.

    The N & Z Eq.7 says that: Nte=EXP((0.233001*Ps^0.0651203)+(0.0015393*Ps^0.385232)),
    but we can now substitute to get:
    Nte=EXP((0.233001*(Mat*C)^0.0651203)+(0.0015393*(Mat*C)^0.385232))

    The implication is simply that on any given planet, Nte is a function of the mass of the atmosphere alone, and nothing but the mass. Ps is really a derived parameter.

    That result is another way of emphasising N & Z’s conclusion that the surface temperature is completely independent of the composition of the gases in the mass of the atmosphere, and all the energy exchanges that occur within it.

  127. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    Roger Andrews @ February 4, 3:39 am

    Thank you for your link to a geothermal flow paper of 1993:
    http://anquetil.colorado.edu/EPP3/readings/Pollack_etal_1993_Rev_Geophys.pdf

    I’ve not had time to study it other than a flick-through to Fig. 3 wherein they show that according to my eyeballs, the centroid of the histogram for the heat flow into the vast oceanic thermal sink from a thinner more conductive oceanic crust is only slightly right of that for the thicker more insulative layered continents leaking to a much lesser heat sink.
    At the moment, it does not pass my “test for reasonableness” but I should study the whole thing, despite my pessimism…… groan!

  128. AusieDan says:

    Lucy,
    I don’t think that the earthshine on the moon is an issue.
    As Tallbloke said, the earth shines out 360 drgrees in all three dimensions.
    I don’t think much lands on the moon.

    And the bit of heat left in the bottom of the deep recesses is just that.
    In the dark, it takes a very long time for temperature to fall to the underlying outer space 2.72 K.

    Any effect of the earth on the moon would probablely be lost in the uncertainty of the error of measurement.

  129. tallbloke says:

    Roy,
    I do agree with you that some of N&Z’s phraseology has contributed to misinterpretation. With goodwill it’s not difficult to see what they are saying, but it seems there are those who will gleefully use it as a convenient distraction and source of misdirection. In this respect the climate debate frequently resembles clever-lawyer courtroom wordplay more than scientific discourse.

  130. tallbloke says:

    AusieDan says:
    February 4, 2012 at 8:29 am

    Lucy,
    I don’t think that the earthshine on the moon is an issue.
    As Tallbloke said, the earth shines out 360 drgrees in all three dimensions.

    Actually, part of my argument was that since only half the Earth is illuminated, the Moon only receives Earthshine half the month anyway. I think Dan was picking up on my point about the Earth’s curvature compared to the Sun’s. This greater curvature means the Moon will only receive normally reflected rays from a small area of Earth’s surface directly beneath the Moon, and lower angle rays from the rest of Earth’s apparent disc.

    What difference this makes to Palle et al’s Earthshine project results I don’t know, but it would be interesting to find out if it makes a difference over the course of the Moon’s ~18.6 year declination cycle.

  131. BenAW says:

    Hans says:
    February 3, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    ” If you want to know the true answer it is that atmospheric air is sucked down east of the Rocky mountains and as a consequence the air temperature is rising at (close to) the adiabatic rate of g/Cp (9.8 k/km) which tells that the air is coming from 2 km altitude if the temperature increase is approximately +20C. It often happens close to Denver”

    Since I already gave the explanation here:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/back-to-basics-2-lapse-rates-and-atmospheric-stability/#comment-16143
    I’m really surprised that you still come up with the nonsense I quoted above.

    The Föhn wind (or any similar effect like Chinook winds etc.) are a very elegant demonstration of the Gas Laws, specifically the Dry and Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rates. This is basic meteorology, as taught when I was studying meteo.

    Consider the European Alps and a NW wind forcing air up and over the mountains.
    If the air is dry, the up and down wind part of the flow both follow the DALR, so the temp at eg. sealevel in front and behind the mountains is the same.

    Moist air: uphill DALR untill clouds form, then WALR to the heighest alt. the air reaches, WALR down also untill the clouds disappear (at the same altitude as in front of the mountains) and then DALR to sealevel again. Also here the temp. in front and behind the mountain is the same at eg. sealevel, still no Föhn effect.

    Now very moist air, clouds form very low, so the air cools according the WALR. During the climb the air looses most of it’s moisture by raining out. This is ESSENTIAL for a Föhneffect to develop.
    Assume just over the top the descending air clears, and all the way down follows the DALR.
    Climbing air cools with ~5K/km, descending air warms with ~9,8K/km.
    This is the classical and well understood explanation of the Föhn effect.

    I’m still curious where N&Z see a role for the ATE in this.

    [Reply] N&Z are celestial mechanics, not weather-guessers. Their parameters set basic temperature levels which weather causes fluctuations in. Consult fig.10 of their original paper

  132. BenAW says:

    Before going to fig. 10, pse read page 7 of their original paper:

    “At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours.”

    So if you think this is weather-guessing, ask N&Z why they brought up the subject in the first place.

    If this is what the ATE is about on planet earth level, they have just re-invented the Adiabatic Lapse Rates.

  133. Bob Fernley-Jones says: February 4, 2012 at 2:50 am

    Hiya, had a “ping!” moment. Of course the ocean floor currents are MASSIVE defrosters for polar regions, I just need to think of their opposite, the Gulf Stream’s MASSIVE warming power. Now conduction may be better for water than for rock but it’s still not that high AFAIK, and of course is not helped by vertical convection because the cold is at the bottom – HENCE the 800-year lag between temperature and CO2, which is the estimated time of the complete thermohaline cycle.

    That’s why the depths are cold. It’s that simple, the strange property of water at 4°C (277K).

    This too is why I am still convinced that the still-rising CO2 has its origin 800 years ago.
    ********************************

    Lapse rates. Doug Hoyt called in here a while back with a list of different lapse rates, here and here.

  134. davidmhoffer says:

    BenAW;
    “At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours.”

    So if you think this is weather-guessing, ask N&Z why they brought up the subject in the first place.>>>

    I took it as an example of the physical process that they were trying to describe from a big picture perspective, not as any assertion on their part that what they were describing weather as a component of their theory.

  135. davidmhoffer says:

    tallbloke;
    Actually, part of my argument was that since only half the Earth is illuminated, the Moon only receives Earthshine half the month anyway.>>>>

    I’ve only been half following the earthshine discussion. Has there been any thought given to earth radiance? That would be a 24 x 7 x 365 effect. Even though earth’s radiance is only a few hundred w/m2, and would be much diminished by the time it got to the moon, my impression is we’re only looking for a few w/m2 in the first place?

  136. tallbloke says:
    February 4, 2012 at 12:28 am

    Hoff: I’m a dog-tired historian and philosopher of science. I understand why the various actors in this drama hold the views they do. That doesn’t mean I condone them or the methods by which they try to convince others of their correctness. It does mean I won’t sit in judgement on them though. I’m just trying to do what I believe is right, which is to make sure N&Z and Hans and Harry and everyone here get their ideas properly considered and assessed in a forum which holds firmly to the principles of courteous and considered debate in order to prevent hasty, noisy and ill tempered argument clouding the issues we are trying to resolve. What everyone else does is up to them. Let the chips fall where they may.

    That’s a classic and beautiful statement. Plus your rueful SNAFU earlier, it all figures.

    I’d like to add: I think Anthony Watts is a gift from the gods to us skeptics, he works so hard, is so committed, allows so much good discussion. However, there is a reverse side to that. His very speed precludes him from taking in new stuff at depth and pondering, I suspect. Hence he values Leif over Geoff. Hence he has declared certain areas of discussion out of bounds, even though I know they rank as important areas of development in scientific understanding, that deserve and need proper discussion.

    Interestingly, I sense a British / American difference here, not totally but significantly.

    Horses for courses, I say. Value people for where they shine, and while staying aware, leave their shadow sides alone (generally). There are many levels of openness. Anthony does superbly on challenging the corruption of already-well-established science and scientific principles. He does not do so well on handling new areas. Thank you Tallbloke for doing that. I know what hard work it is.

  137. Roger Andrews says:

    AusieDan

    “(ATE is) not meant to be a short term weather forecasting device.
    Rather it is an estimate of the long term equilibrium value of the temperature around which short term fluctions vibrate (day & night, 60 year cycles etc).”

    Thanks for the explanation. It’s the sort of feedback I’ve been looking for.

    But for it to work you need to demonstrate that ATE has an equilibration time of centuries or longer. I don’t think this has been done.

  138. Ben, you need to read more carefully. N&Z:

    The thermal effect of pressure is vividly demonstrated on a cosmic scale in the process of star formation, where gravity-induced rise of gas pressure boosts the temperature of an interstellar cloud to the threshold of nuclear fusion. At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds…

    I appreciate you have good meteo qualifications that likely most here lack.This gives you an edge on details sometimes. But to appreciate N&Z, you need to absorb the whole paradigm shift, and then see if old details still re-apply, or need modifying.

    N&Z are not talking about weather here. They are using Chinook as an example, so that people can easily see and “feel” the effect of pressure through the example of chinook, fohn, etc. – so that they can apply that “local” effect understanding to the “whole-planet” understanding.

    It might help you get the difference between the big planetary paradigm shift, and the local weather science (which is, as you note, still largely valid and ruled by the gas laws), if you check Huffman’s figures for Venus, which show clearly that if insolation is adjusted for, planetary temperature is determined – OVERALL – by pressure and nothing else. It is into this OVERALL planetary understanding that the LOCAL understanding of WEATHER has to be re-integrated.

    It might also help you to think about Jericho. Nobody has ever said of Jericho that the sky is hotter there. It just *is* hotter – but nobody perceives this increased heat as coming from the sky, radiatively. It’s the raw effect of higher pressure at below-sea level.

    This global heating effect of pressure, rather than “greenhouse gases”, is the “Unified” foundation on which weather science has to be built or rebuilt.

  139. tallbloke says:

    Hoff: yes, I pointed out the fact that the faint earthlight seen reflecting from the new Moon is magnitudes dimmer than the sunlit full moon.

  140. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Andrews;
    But for it to work you need to demonstrate that ATE has an equilibration time of centuries or longer. I don’t think this has been done.>>>

    You mean predicting the surface temperature of 8 celestial bodies based on just two variables doesn’t count?

  141. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: the boiling point of water is still what it was at sea level centuries ago. Therefore atmospheric mass and surface pressure haven’t changed.

  142. davidmhoffer says:

    Lucy Skywalker;
    Anthony does superbly on challenging the corruption of already-well-established science and scientific principles. He does not do so well on handling new areas.>>>

    At the same time, N&Z is possibly the most important “new thing” that has been added to the debate since it began. How does one get the message through to Anthony that the credibility his site has built up over the years has now been co-opted into the effort to crush actual science instead of expand it?

  143. Michael Hart says:

    tchannon says:
    February 3, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    “Since the subject of earth temperature records being incorrectly averaged has been mentioned again, what is the correct method for surface measurements? I don’t follow the argument, this is not about irradiation.”
    ____________

    Yes, Tim, it’s about more than just fourth powers of temperatures. As I understand it, the averaging of intensive properties of matter is physically invalid. The most obvious example would be taking a kilogram of water at, say, 20 degrees C and a kilogram of ice at 0 degrees C. You cannot say they have an average temperature of 10 degrees C. Changes of state and and/or heat capacity render that calculation meaningless. The same would be true for mixing salt water with fresh water, or soil with water etc. The numbers would be different, but the principle about intensive and extensive properties remains the same. The main question in my mind is just how wrong the calculations turn out to be in practice.

    If you’re not already aware of it, Essex, McKitrick and Andresen published a paper about this, and more:
    “Does a Global Temperature Exist ?”
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

    It’s got a good explanation with examples. [The mathematics gets a bit too industrial for me towards the end, but the physical explanation is articulated fairly early in the paper.]

  144. Roger Andrews says:

    Bob Fernley-Jones

    The continental and ocean heat flow distributions look pretty much the same to me except for the longer tail on the right side of the ocean distribution, which is presumably caused by anomalously high heat flow over the mid-ocean ridges. So I think we are looking at just two separate heat flow populations – 1) mid-ocean ridges and 2) everywhere else.

    We see this, kind of, in http://www.geophysik.rwth-aachen.de/IHFC/images/q12.gif

    As to why heat flow should be the same over the continents as it is in ocean basins outside ocean ridges, this may be a result of sample location. Areas of high heat flow are much more interesting than areas of low heat flow, so land readings tend to be concentrated in areas of higher heat flow, such as the Western US, Indonesia and Japan, while very few are taken in areas of lower heat flow such as Central Africa.

    However, if heat flow from the earth’s interior is only on the order of 0.09 w/m2 it clearly isn’t going to have much influence on climate. I also don’t know of any reason why it would change significantly with time.

  145. davidmhoffer says:

    Michael Hart to tchannon;
    Yes, Tim, it’s about more than just fourth powers of temperatures. As I understand it, the averaging of intensive properties of matter is physically invalid. >>>

    Yes, that is true as well. But one doesn’t have to get into the ultimate details that McKitrick and Co go into to demonstrate the problem. Here is a quick example that is pretty easy to follow. Suppose we have a very simple “earth” with only two grid points. We measure the temperature of them and one (GP1) is at +30C or 303K. The other (GP2) is at 0C or 273K.

    That would give us an “average” T of 15C or 288K.

    Or would it?

    Let’s convert to w/m2 via SB Law, which is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4

    GP1 = 303K = 478 w/m2
    GP2 = 273K = 315 w/m2

    Now we have an “average” radiance of (478 + 315)/2 = 396.5 w/m2

    So let’s take our “average” radiance of 396.5 w/m2 and convert it back into degrees K via SB Law. We would get:

    289.2K

    Uh oh. So what is the “average” temperature of earth? Averaging those two data points says 288K, but averaging the radiance via SB Law and converting to temperature yields 289.2, a difference of 1.2 degrees.

    This gets even trickier when we are trying to understand energy balance, and when it comes to the AGW debate, energy balance is THE issue. Does CO2 increase the number of w/m2 at earth surface and is this reflected in the “average” temperature record? I submit to you that it is impossible to draw any conclusion about energy balance from the average temperature record and here is why. Suppose in our two grid point model above that GP1 decreased in temperature by 10 degrees and GP2 increased by 11 degrees to 288K. Based on “average” temperature, we would have a decrease of 0.5 degrees. Based on energy balance, we would have a COOLER earth, not a warmer one!

    GP1 = 293K = 418 w/m2
    GP2 = 274K = 320 w/m2

    (418+320)/2 = 369 w/m2

    Yup, the temperature “on average” went up, but the w/m2 “on average” went DOWN.

    How can we possibly determine if CO2 is changing the energy balance of the earth by measuring an average parameter that can easily move in the opposite direction of the actual effect we are trying to measure?

    Answer: We can’t.

  146. davidmhoffer says:

    Based on “average” temperature, we would have a decrease of 0.5 degrees.>>>

    Should have read “increase” obviously, not decrease!

  147. Tenuc says:

    Good animated chart here showing how surface atmospheric pressure varies across the globe throughout the year, courtesy Paul Vaughn…

    http://i54.tinypic.com/swg11c.png

    The difference in the proportion of ocean to land at 60N and 60S seems to cause a large change to the variation in pressure.

    HT to Erl Happ on this WUWT post…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/

  148. davidmhoffer says:

    Wow. I knew I wasn’t fully awake yet when I put together that quick energy balance model, but it was “worse than I thought”.

    273 + 11 = 284 (not 274).

    So…

    GP1 = 293K = 418 w/m2
    GP2 = 284K = 369 w.m2

    “average” temperature has gone UP by 0.5 degrees

    “average” radiance = (418+369)/2= 393.5 w/m2

    Which would be a DECREASE of 3 w/m2.

    If you look at the various temperature records broken down by latitude, one of the first things that stands out is that there is tremendous variability in the north temperate and arctic zones. By doing a straight average, we are attributing to the temperate and arctic zones a larger change in energy balance than is actually occuring compared to…. dare I say it? the “average”.

  149. Roger Andrews says:
    February 3, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    My point, however, is that AGW is based almost entirely on the surface air temperature record of the last 40 years. I think we can confidently assume that if SATs were still the same now as they were back in the 1970s, i.e. about 0.8C lower than they are, there wouldn’t be carbon credits, climate conferences, the IPCC and a multi-billion-dollar AGW industry. And wouldn’t that be nice.

    I refer you to this from the 70s
    http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/01/31/the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-end-of-the-global-warming-era/?singlepage=true
    Where you can find this: “In order to stave off the next ice age, we must “add an ecology tax to each ton [of coal] extracted…to repair the damage done.” This is the precursor to today’s “carbon tax,” which as we all know is necessary to stave off global warming.”
    Sounds like carbon tax in the 70s to me.

    In other news, I am another that has loved WUWT for years but am getting tired of the vitriol and the recent TB/WE spat was unbecoming to WE. I have always enjoyed his posts in the past and his writing style.

    Thanks, TB [and other posters here] for what you are doing for the education of the rest of us and the generally more civilised way you are doing it.

  150. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    “the boiling point of water is still what it was at sea level centuries ago. Therefore atmospheric mass and surface pressure haven’t changed.”

    I think I’m finally getting to the bottom of all this.

    The N&Z “Unified Theory” actually consists of two separate theories. First is ATE, which explains why the earth is as warm as it is and why the “greenhouse effect” is invalid. It’s also backed up by observational data, which I like. And its basic premise is that the earth’s temperature is controlled by atmospheric mass, which changes only very slowly, so the fact that there has been no change in atmospheric mass since 1900 explains why the ATE model I showed earlier doesn’t match observations. It wasn’t a valid comparison. So far so good.

    But the flip side is that ATE has no predictive or hindcast value over periods of less than thousands, maybe millions, of years. Atmospheric mass in 2100 will be same as it is now and within a whisker of what it was back in the Stone Age, so there will be no ATE-induced temperature change.

    The second theory is the one giving me problems. It makes its appearance when N&Z begin to discuss the “Implications of (ATE) for predicting future climate trends”. But what they discuss isn’t ATE at all, it’s Svensmark:

    “According to our new theory, the climate change over the past 100-300 years is due to variations in global cloud albedo that are not related to ATE/GHE” and which “are most likely driven by solar magnetic activity.”

    “The Planet is unlikely to become any warmer over the next 100 years, because the cloud cover appears to have reached a minimum for the present level of solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure, while the solar magnetic activity began declining, which will likely lead to more clouds, higher planetary albedo, and cooler surface temperatures.”

    It’s not clear to me why N&Z even bring the Svensmark theory up. It isn’t “new”, they admit that it’s unrelated to ATE, and unless there’s something in their text that I missed it doesn’t “unify” anything. All it does is muddy their ATE argument, which I think would be much better presented on a stand-alone basis..

    Anyway, you’ll be relieved to hear that I’m now going to give up on any further attempts to match ATE to observations, unless of course I come across a set of surface temperature and pressure records going back 50 million years. :-)

  151. dadgervais says:

    For the non-scientists (and I am among you) I offer the following Thought Experiment.

    In an otherwise empty universe (no external energy sources) we postulate a sphere with a magic lantern constant internal heat source. One hemisphere (L) is coated with unobtanium, a perfect insulator/reflector which permits no heat energy to escape the hemisphere. The other hemisphere (H) emits all the energy that escapes into empty space. We measure the energy emission of hemisphere H and determine that it radiates as a body at 350K. Likewise we measure the energy escaping from L and see that it is at 0K. Applying the tried-and-true (much beloved by climate scientologists) formula Tavg = (Tmax + Tmin)/2 we see that the imaginary sphere has an average temperature of 175K.

    Unfortunately, the supplier of unobtanium sent the manufacturer a defective batch which begins decaying in a linear fashion. After one hour it only blocks/reflects 90% of the arriving energy and lets 10% escape; in two hours 20% escapes; and so on, until after 10 hours it is completely ineffective.

    We repeat the previous measurements and find that H now radiates at 294K (equal to 350K divided by the fourth root of 2); i.e. only ½ as much energy is leaving through H. But the other half of the energy is now leaving through L which is also at 294K. Tmin = Tmax = Tavg = 294K.

    Without adding energy (total rate of energy production/loss is unchanged), and without adding insulation (in fact insulation removed itself) we observe the average temperature has increased by 119K, and the entire surface is at a balmy 21degreesC.

    This demonstrates the physical unreality of arithmetic “Average Temperature”. The arithmetic mean of an intensive property of matter is a meaningless metric.

    To belabor the point, consider instead a sphere (say surface area 4 square meters) is found and its surface temperature is measured with the following results.

    1 square meter is radiating at 416K; the other 3 square meters are at 0K. We compute the arithmetic average temperature as (416 + 0 + 0 + 0)/4 = 104K.

    We later observe 2 square meters radiating at 350K; the other 2 at 0K. We compute the new “average”
    temperature as (350 + 350 + 0 + 0)/4 = 175K

    Still later we have 1 square meter at 350K; 2 square meters at 294K; 1 square meter still at 0K. The “average” is now (350 + 294 + 294 + 0)/4 = 234K.

    Finally, we observe the body with all four square meters at 294K. Our final “average” temperature is (294 + 294 + 294 + 294)/4 = 294K.

    Looking at the sequence 104K, 175K, 234K, 294K, we jump in our spaceship and get the hell outta there ’cause this thing is obviously over-heating and we don’t wanna be there when it blows.

    Of course, had we known what we were doing, we would have known the real answer was 294K all the time. The rate at which it was releasing energy was constant. Only the distribution of the heat released was changing. The more uniform the distribution, the higher the (incorrectly calculated) arithmetic average value.

    I didn’t invent Tavg = (Tmax + Tmin)/2. I found it in CRU code that was released with the so-called Climate-gate 1 emails. At that point, I lost any interest in looking at the code further. If we begin by creating a phantom quantity with no physical meaning, then, no matter how sophisticated the subsequent analysis, the result is a fantasy, not a reality. i.e. who cares if the number of imagined unicorns are increasing or decreasing.

    For those who object that my illustration is a straw-man argument because I didn’t provide an atmosphere, I point to PV = nRT and any high-school level (or above) physics text from the 1960s or prior. Again, average Temperature of a gas (disregarding volume and pressure) is a meaningless metric. One may construct two different systems with identical equilibrium-temperatures but very different average temperatures, and also, two different systems with different equilibrium-temperatures but identical average temperatures. In either case, the equilibrium temperature has, at least, some physical reality and meaning; the average temperature has none!

    Lastly (anyone who read this far sighs with relief), water vapor in the atmosphere contains much latent heat. When liquid water evaporates it removes heat which was (or perhaps, may have been) sensible, and when it condenses it releases that heat which again becomes sensible. In this context “sensible” means detectable with sensors (thermometers), but the heat did not disappear from the system and then get added back, it only became invisible in the thermometer readings for a while and then reappeared. Ask any HVAC engineer what that is all about and the idea of arithmetic averages of temperature causes a “palm meet forehead” moment.

    This is why, even though I am not a climate scientist (just an old retired computer engineer), I reject the CO2 causes CAGW, AGW, and yes even GW theories. I don’t dispute any real physics, I just don’t believe anyone (i.e. their models) can yet correctly compute an “average” temperature of the earth from which any valid scientific conclusion may be drawn. I even accept the argument that Global Atmospheric Temperature (GAT) is increasing, but I infer from that “the global population of unicorns is increasing” which proves nothing. It certainly does not prove that the earth is heating-up, only that a meaningless metric is increasing. It may in fact mean the heat energy of the earth is being more evenly distributed and will continue to be until some future real disturbance upsets the current balance.

  152. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Since Venus and Earth have the same temp/pressure profile allowing for the solar distance, but very different albedos, albedo is a function of pressure and distance from the Sun. When the Sun varies, albedo varies, QED.

    No appeal to Svensmark required, and albedo change is understood instead as an intrinsic feature of the pressure/distance relationship when modulateed by solar variation.

  153. davidmhoffer says: February 4, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    Lucy Skywalker;
    Anthony does superbly on challenging the corruption of already-well-established science and scientific principles. He does not do so well on handling new areas.>>>

    At the same time, N&Z is possibly the most important “new thing” that has been added to the debate since it began. How does one get the message through to Anthony that the credibility his site has built up over the years has now been co-opted into the effort to crush actual science instead of expand it?

    It still stings me. But life is a mystery and a beautiful mystery at that. If Willis had not gone berserk, I would not have had the head of pressure I needed to take my Climate Science wiki off the shelf again. That is important for the future. My best hope is that Anthony will become aware of the similarity of his and Willis’ reactions to those of the warmists he rightly criticizes.

    People have different cutoff points. I’ve seen many here who are open at one level and closed, even abusive, at another level – often thinking, because they’ve read Randi or whoever, that they are informed about the subject and have every right to dismiss it, when they do not because they have only heard one side of a very polarized argument, the side that orthodoxy supports. This is, technically, hypocritical – but it’s not just Anthony. Maybe we all do this sometimes. It’s difficult, cracking open new ideas. N&Z is a huge challenge, to rethink the paradigm shift – “goddam, right under our noses and we missed it”.

  154. tallbloke says:

    Lucy: I think I might approach the problem by analysing what Anthony has said about his objections to the UTC and trying to formulate a clear, concise response which might make a difference to his viewpoint. Previous experience with Willis tells me not to wasre time there. However, I noticed his most recent formulation of the greenhouse effect contradicts his earlier position on back radiation directly warming the ocean, so there’s hope yet.

  155. tchannon says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 4, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    I don’t follow.
    If we take two thermal flux into a two thermal resistances we get two temperatures.

    A mean of those is valid.

    Taking a temperature _without knowing the thermal resistances_ and computing a flux has omitted something. I suggest an incomplete SB formula has been used.

  156. TB, there’s a new post up by Anthony in which I warm to him once again: defending Michael Mann’s right to speak. I couldn’t quite give praise without remembering recent events, so I said:

    Thank you Anthony.
    This softens my discomfort over recent handling of/by Willis.

    Freedom of speech is a difficult issue, not nearly as simple as it looks at first sight. Gag one, and another is freed to speak. Free one, and another is gagged from speaking. Make rules, and some are treated unfairly. Make no rules, and one is treated unfairly oneself…

  157. davidmhoffer says:

    tchannon;
    Taking a temperature _without knowing the thermal resistances_ and computing a flux has omitted something. I suggest an incomplete SB formula has been used.>>>

    SB Law formula is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4

    Where:

    P is in w/m2
    and
    T is in degrees Kelvin

    If you can find a text book that quotes a different forumala… good luck trying.

    The math is all there (even my idiot mistakes). There’s no error, just a demonstration of why you cannot average T and get a meaningfull number. The hotter something gets, the more w/m2 it takes to increase the temperature by yet one more degree.

    The IPCC constantly quotes CO2 doubling as causing +3.7 w/m2 (on average) which translates to +1 degree (on average). This is misleading. 3.7 w.m2 might cause under 1/2 degree in the tropics and over 2 degrees in the antarctic. Treating anything to do with power and temperature as an “average” just clouds the issue.

  158. Erinome says:

    Tenuc says:
    This point is born out by Harry Huffman’s work which shows a good fit in comparing the temperature of Earth and Venus at the same atmospheric pressure using just the difference in distance between them and the sun and applying SB equation at the boundary between top of atmosphere and space, producing a scaling factor of 1.176

    There are serious problems with Huffman’s theory.

    His theory does not predict the correct temperatures over a wide range of Venus’s atmosphere. Worst, it violated conservation of energy, since it relies on reflected energy being absorbed.

    His idea works on Venus at 1000 mb, but fails at other pressure levels. For example, at 500 mb his theory predicts a Venus temperature of 296 K, but it’s actually 283 K.

    One can do the same calculations for Mars, which receives a power per unit area of 0.43 that of Earth, so Huffman’s theory predicts it has a radiating temperature of 0.81 that of Earth. But at a pressure of 100 Pa (1 mb), his theory predicts a Martian temperature of 160 K, but it’s actually 201 K. And so on.

    As he notes on his blog post, his predictions for Venus fail at many pressure levels (300-600 mb) — a failure too large to remain unexplained while he continuously disparages the work of others.

    [Reply] The errors for Venus are small in percentage terms. Does the other work he disparages provide more accurate predictions from theory? References please. Mars’ atmosphere is at too low a pressure for the relationship to hold. This was known by Hans Jelbring back in 2003 or earlier. It is stated by Nikolov and Zeller too. Huffman is also aware of this.

  159. tallbloke says:

    When quoting the S-B equation, it’s always worth remembering what the conditions it applies under are.

    Wiki says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
    this proof started out only considering a small flat surface. However, any differentiable surface can be approximated by a bunch of small flat surfaces. So long as the geometry of the surface does not cause the blackbody to reabsorb its own radiation, the total energy radiated is just the sum of the energies radiated by each surface; and the total surface area is just the sum of the areas of each surface—so this law holds for all convex blackbodies, too, so long as the surface has the same temperature throughout.

    Clearly, planetary bodies and moons fail the test, which is why Nikolov and Zeller do a more complex integration which accounts for the equator-pole gradient in their ‘Reply to comments part 1′, in order to estimate the average temperature of the surface.

    Hoff’s earlier demonstration is a neat summary of the ‘Holder Inequality’ which will always mean a higher average surface temperature for celestial bodies with atmospheres, because energy is spread more evenly around the entire globe than can be achieved through conduction by the solid surface. This would apply equally to atmosphere bearing bodies whether or not their constituent atmospheric gases contained GHG’s or not.

    Earth is particularly good at spreading energy because its global ocean absorbs, retains, and transports energy particularly well. This greatly reduces the differential between day and night side as well as making higher latitudes warmer than they would otherwise be. Having said that, the atmosphere takes over from the oceans as the principle energy shifter above around 50 degrees of latitude. But the ocean is what absorbs, retains, mixes, spreads and releases energy more evenly over longer terms such as seasons and inter-annual periods, smoothing the blips in temperature which would other wise be caused by other changes such as those in albedo, atmospheric angular momentum and the consequent alteration of vertical atmospheric profile and water content.

  160. Chris M says:

    It always bothers me when it is said (including as I recall many(?) times on WUWT by various people) that for practical radiative purposes the sunward face of the earth can be treated as a flat disc. Grossly fails the commonsense test imo. (And no I can’t provide examples of such statements – would have to wade through mountains of blog material – but this error seems to have gained acceptance by some.)

  161. Erinome says:

    Not only the above, but Huffman assumes the ideal gas law is valid in Venus’s lower atmosphere. It does not.

    [Reply] Evidence? References? Argument by assertion doesn’t work here.

  162. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    “No appeal to Svensmark required”

    Well, I dunno. What N&Z say still reads just like Svensmark to me.

    “and albedo change is understood instead as an intrinsic feature of the pressure/distance relationship when modulated by solar variation.”

    Dunno about that either. The pressure/distance relationship doesn’t change over the 10-100 year time scales that N&Z are dealing with, and the limited amount of evidence I’ve been able to accumulate suggests that albedo change is more closely linked to El Niños than to solar variations.

  163. Erinome says:

    [Reply] The errors for Venus are small in percentage terms. Does the other work he disparages provide more accurate predictions from theory? References please.

    “A Discrete Ordinate, Multiple Scattering, Radiative Transfer Model of the Venus
    Atmosphere from 0.1 to 260 mm,” C. Lee and M.I. Richardson, J Atm Sci (June 2011) 1323-1339.
    http://ashimaresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/LeeAndRichardson11.pdf

    [Reply] Thanks for the reference. I note that to get around the same problem Huffman’s profile runs into around 500mb they suggest the following fudge factors in the conclusion:
    “We suggest that the lower atmosphere con-
    vective adjustment may be better parameterized sepa-
    rately from the radiative forcing and that an additional
    IR cooling term be included in the parameterization.”

    And who can blame them? They have to get it to work somehow…

  164. Erinome says:

    Chris M says:
    It always bothers me when it is said (including as I recall many(?) times on WUWT by various people) that for practical radiative purposes the sunward face of the earth can be treated as a flat disc. Grossly fails the commonsense test imo.

    Did you also make this comment on Roy Spencer’s site? It got me thinking about it and I spent about 4 hours doing the calculation (thanks a lot). And now I can’t find it! But if I recall correctly the difference in total energy received was only about 0.25% (larger, of course) at the Earth’s orbit and for its radius. BUT, what difference does it make? It just makes the net incident energy about 0.25% larger that it would be if there Earth were a flat disk, but that doesn’t change with time. It’s equivalent to a slightly brighter (+0.25%) Sun. Or do you have something else in mind?

    [Reply] You have failed to take account of the reasons for the ‘divide by four’ approximation for the increasing obliquity from equator to poles and zenith-point to limbs (East-West edges) of the Solar facing hemisphere of Earth. But there are further problems, including the increasing apparent opaqueness of the cloud deck as solar incident angles become more oblique. Playing fast and loose with insolation values while claiming certainty about the effect of tiny variations in trace gases doesn’t cut it.

  165. Erinome says:

    You have also glossed over Huffman’s main flaw: he calculates T(1000 mb) based on the total irradiance received by Venus. That is, he ignores the planet’s albedo. Without this assumption, his calculation fails — in effect he is assuming that solar energy is both reflected and absorbed, a violation of conservation of energy. He tries to explain this with a hand-waving argument that the incidence radiation streams down through the atmosphere and then back out, but of course that is nonsense from the point-of-view of energy.

    All he has found is a numerical coincidence that holds at one particular pressure level for the particular orbital parameters of Earth and Venus.

    [Reply] In the way that Huffman rationalises it, there is no violation of conservation. However, I agree that he has a problem with albedo and absorption. This difficulty doesn’t apply to N&Z because they see albedo as a function of their main parameters.

    I disagree with your second point. He has found close agreement (within 5% at worst and much better in most cases) at pressures from ~200mb to ~1000mb between Earth and Venus allowing for their different distances from the Sun. Either you can’t read simple tables, or you are deliberately misrepresenting his results.

  166. Chris M says:

    A question – and I’m quite happy to be told I’m missing the obvious here. The SB effective temperature of the earth is derived from the formula for the sun’s emissivity of E=4{pi}]r^2{sigma}T^4,incorporating the surface area of a sphere, and the earth’s cross-sectional area of {pi}r^2 (as per the comment above, why the cross-sectional area?). But the earth only “sees” the sun’s disc which has a surface area of {pi}r^2. So why is this formula correct for an albedo-corrected effective black body temperature of 255K??

  167. tchannon says:

    ChrisM,

    Assuming you mean: why apply different rules to the source, the sun, and the planets.

    We do not care about the details of the source, is essentially a point source and the radiation is whatever value is measured. Doesn’t matter how the radiation intensity might vary across the sun’s disc.

  168. dadgervais says:

    re: dadgervais says: February 4, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    Sorry but meant to say Tavg = (Tmax + Tmin)/2 (plus vice minus). Spellcheck just can’t catch blunders like that.

    [Reply] I’ve corrected your earlier comment. Thanks for the due diligence, and your comment.

  169. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    Lucy Skywalker @ February 4, 1:36 pm

    [1]…Now conduction may be better for water than for rock but it’s still not that high AFAIK, and of course is not helped by vertical convection because the cold is at the bottom – [2] HENCE the 800-year lag between temperature and CO2, which is the estimated time of the complete thermohaline cycle.

    Lucy,
    [1] You may be aware that car engines are generally water cooled, and that they rely on good airflow through the radiator via an inlet grille and a substantial air fan which is especially essential when the vehicle is stationary. This is the analogous equivalent of advection of water current flow on the ocean bottoms. Additionally, since there must be some geothermal heat flow from the sea bed into the water, there must be a temperature gradient locally and thus some (vertical) convection. The two dynamics combine with simple conduction to transport heat away. However, to quantify it seems to me to be phenomenally difficult. (impossible).

    [2] You could well have something of significance there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  170. Chris M says:

    Ah thanks tchannon, so if I understand correctly the derived value for the sun’s emissivity quantifies the level of energy emitted in all directions, including towards the earth, and from our planet’s perspective the sun’s total radiance? The Wikipedia formula doesn’t give units for E[sun],which would have been helpful. Still, the formula doesn’t seem to accurately describe the moon’s (and therefore Earth’s) observed grey body temperature, which in itself should make other scientists take N&Z seriously. Cilmatologists in general don’t seem to be the sharpest tools in the shed, as the emails suggest. Oh for someone like Richard Feynman to cut through the cr@p and shine a harsh light onto the whole mess!

  171. tallbloke says:

    Roger Andrews says:
    February 5, 2012 at 1:01 am
    Well, I dunno. What N&Z say still reads just like Svensmark to me.

    In Fig 10 of the original extended conference paper there are two boxes relating to the 10-100 year time scale.

    The top one containing the reference to “Changes in solar and Earth magnetic flux and cosmic ray flux” is linked laterally to a box referring to long term stellar evolution over millions to billions of years. It is vertically linked tothe second 10-100 year box referring to “Quasi periodic fluctuations in planetary cloud albedo.

    “What N&Z say” is 95% about the main thrust of their theory and only a little about possible causes of internal and external fluctuations around the long term situation dictated by atmospheric mass and orbital distance.

    Anyway, there undoubtedly are multi-decadal fluctuations in cloud albedo as recorded by ISCCP and the Earthshine project of Palle et al. Notably the ENSO record shows quasi periodic 60 year cycles of ~thirty years el nino dominated fluctuations followed by ~thirty years of la nina dominated fluctuations over the last centtury. Concomitantly, the Sun’s 11 year sunspot cycle and 22 year Hale magnetic cycle combine to produce ~33year triplets of two magnetic south plus one magnetic north cycles followed by two magnetic north plus one magnetic south cycles. Coupled with the unchanging (on the time-scale we are discussing) North-south magnetic orientation of Earth, this is important.

    The pressure/distance relationship doesn’t change over the 10-100 year time scales that N&Z are dealing with,

    See above. N&Z are principally dealing with much longer timescales.

    and the limited amount of evidence I’ve been able to accumulate suggests that albedo change is more closely linked to El Niños than to solar variations.

    See above. El Niños are linked to solar variations at timescales ranging from decadal (as we have discussed on this blog many times) to centennial and beyond. N&Z’s theory has given me fresh insight into this issue and I will write about it when I get a spare evening.

  172. tallbloke says:

    Chris M says:
    February 5, 2012 at 6:10 am

    Ah thanks tchannon, so if I understand correctly the derived value for the sun’s emissivity quantifies the level of energy emitted in all directions, including towards the earth, and from our planet’s perspective the sun’s total radiance?

    Almost. If we lived on a planet high above the Sun’s north pole we’d see a slightly different emissivity (for several reasons including sunspots being predominantly low latitude phenomena).
    Since the Sun is assumed to be a perfect black body, this doesn’t matter much in the minds of the oversimplyfying estimators. But the varying total area of Sunspots, in conjunction with the slightly changing apparent area of the solar disc over the solar cycle does cause fluctuation in the TSI received at Earth.

    Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is not a measure of the radiation leaving the Sun, but a measure of its level of Irradiance at our orbital distance.

  173. Chris M says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 4, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    “TB, there’s a new post up by Anthony in which I warm to him once again: defending Michael Mann’s right to speak.”

    I’m afraid I must disagree with you Lucy. No one, including the organization referred to, is denying anyone’s right to speak, unlike a large number of the CAGW elites. (“The science is settled” over and over again ad nauseum, remember?) This moist-eyed self-deluded nobility suggests that Anthony, and with him WUWT, is in serious jeopardy of jumping the shark. It is in stark contrast to Anthony’s and WE’s treatment of N&Z and tallbloke. N&Z are beyond the pale and “compromise” must be reached with the alarmists. Yep well that’s really going to work, not!

  174. tallbloke says:

    Chris M: Heh, I told Willis he was a serial shark jumper in my first reply to his EQ8 post:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/23/the-mystery-of-equation-8/#comment-874097 :)

  175. Chris M says:

    LOL xD

  176. Chris M says: I’m afraid I must disagree with you Lucy

    I largely agree with you Chris. My finger-feet are telling, they now come here rather than WUWT. But I have to recognize that while Anthony has blinders, and allowed appalling behaviour IMHO from Willis, I’ve seen exactly such cutoff-points, such reversals of behaviour, discourtesy, and sheer bad science, in the whole climate skeptics’ world with regard to certain subjects that I will not mention here this time. Last time was bad enough. I’m saving proper scientific examination and defence of these unmentionables until we’ve got the wiki on the road.

    There is what one might call an Erratic Bad Behaviour syndrome at work. I first saw it in my own gentle, cultured father, who horrified me by his completely uncharacteristic attitude of abuse towards certain topics, topics I knew nothing about, but my father’s attitude shocked me and alerted me to enquire. On careful enquiry, I found that they didn’t and don’t deserve such abusive responses, if anything they deserved the opposite.

    I would say that EBB has corrupted, not just Climate Science but the whole of Science, and we have a paradigm shift far bigger than that of N&Z to negotiate. But all in good time. Truth is important, but there are times when rigour for truth has to be leavened with compassion as well as courtesy, if real integrity is to be maintained. IMHO.

  177. tallbloke says:

    Hi Lucy: Seems to me that the problem is that the only people who are going to devote themselves to science are those with a passion for it. But passion is exactly what clouds scientific judgement.

    I don’t see this conundrum being resolved anytime soon.

    By doing a three year degree course in the history and philosophy of science, I was able to look at case studies of historical events around disgreements that sprang up when paradigm shift was in the air. I learned how to evaluate both scientific theory which involved maths beyond my direct apprehension, and the extent to which the non-scientific influences which affected those who were actively developing theory led to biases in the conceptual processes which underly the factual analysis in their work.

    It’s a discipline all would be scientists should be taught as a pre-requisite to undertaking research, but who is going to find the resources to do it?

    We non-scientist would-be science communicators are also in constant danger of being biased by our prejudices and assumptions, and through circumstance are occasionally subjected to armtwisting of less and more subtle degrees. Feynman warned against over-attachment to personal pet theory and the self delusion it can engender. He didn’t have enough to say about the mass delusion engendered by consensus IMO, but biting the feeding hand has never been a good way to advance a scientific career.

    The blogosphere also has hazards to contend with. Trolls of various kinds who misdirect, threadbomb, browbeat and bully are protected by anonymityy or at least sufficient remoteness that discovery of what influences their activity is difficult if not impossible. It’s a brave new wild west we are moving in. Quacks tricksters and charlatans abound, along with the genuine but misguided souls who are locked into the game in support of those they believe and trust.

  178. davidmhoffer says:

    I think the issue transcends science, it is one of organizational dynamics. Organizations (and WUWT is, in fact, an informal organization) are founded by a small group of individuals with a clear and common vision. As the organization grows, that vision becomes subordinate to the goals and desires of the leadership group that steadily expands around the original founders.

    This can be seen every day in the technology industry. Companies founded upon bringing major innovation to the marketplace, find themselves, ten years later, unable to innovate. The fiefdoms that spring up within organizations evaluate new ideas not on the basis of their value to the company as a whole, but on the basis of their impact to that individual’s carreer aspirations and position in the organization. So fierce does the competition between fiefdoms become, that new ideas are destined for the trash heap almost as a matter of course. To continue to being innovation to the market, large technology companies become nearly 100% reliant on OEM agreements or buyouts of start up companies.

    I’ll not name names as I have to do business with these companies on a daily basis, but I will give an excellent example or two. At one time, Switzerland absolutely dominated the watch business world wide, and had done so for decades. In a matter of a few years they were blown out of that position by the hitherto unheard of (in the watch business at any rate) Seiko with their far less expensive and far more accurate “quartz movement”.

    Question: Where was the quartz movement invented?

    Answer: Switzerland.

    A Swiss engineer took his invention to every watch maker in the country. Each and every company rejected his invention as useless. The technical decision makers had predicated their carreers on their knowledge of mechanical movements. The quartz movement would make them and the teams of engineers that worked for them, redundant. Did some of them genuinely believe that the quartz movement was destined to failure? Probably. But all of them? Not likely. Most of them? Not likely? They lied to protect their positions in the company, and the founders of those companies, who had long since traded in their watch making skills for business skills, relied on their recommendations because they had become “trusted advisors”.

    The Swiss engineer wound up in Japan, got himself a meeting with Seiko, and a few years later the majority of Swiss watch makers were out of business.

    I’ve got dozens of anecdotal stories like this. WUWT is not a formal organization by any means, but the same principles apply.

    Anthony is the founder.

    He has a trusted advisor in Willis.

    Willis makes a big deal about admitting his mistakes, but the truth is that the mistakes he has owened up to in the past have been minor. This is a major blunder, both in terms of his position on N&Z (which has become entrenched) and in terms of his advice on the matter as a trusted advisor to Anthony.

    Willis is incapable (it seems) of the loss of prestige amongst the WUWT community he would suffer were he to back down at this point. Anthony’s day 1 negativity toward N&Z was no doubt formed in part due to his reliance behind the scenes on the advice of one or more trusted advisors. Now Anthony is faced with a bigger problem in that even if he comes to the conclusion that Willis is in error, to reign him in would be to betray a long time friend and ally. That is an issue as hard to deal with as concluding that your trusted advisor has led you astray in the first place.

  179. BenAW says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    February 4, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    “Ben, you need to read more carefully. N&Z:

    The thermal effect of pressure is vividly demonstrated on a cosmic scale in the process of star formation, where gravity-induced rise of gas pressure boosts the temperature of an interstellar cloud to the threshold of nuclear fusion. At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds…”

    Lucy, I think I read this carefully. Knowing nothing about star formation, I had a quick google on “Cloud collapse”. The overall impression is that the process involves the exchange of potential energy into kinetic. Same happens with the downslope part of the Föhn effect, potential energy is traded for kinetic. Unless N&Z claim that the atmosphere is collapsing onto the earth there won’t be much effect of the “weight” of it imho.
    Hence my interest in the ATE explanation of the Chinook winds. If there is nothing new from my explanation it seems they have just re-discovered the existence of the Adiabatic Lapse Rates.
    Calling a claimed manifestation of ATE just weather when the actual explanation doesn’t fit the theory doesn’t win any points in my book.

    I do agree with you that a paradigm change is needed. To me that paradigm change is to get rid of the idee that the calculation of the greybody (GB) temp. for a planet like earth has any value.
    The GHE’s 255K and the N&Z’s 154K have no significance imo.
    Have a look at the graph here:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/
    The max temps look a little too high if you eyeball the Diviner values. Lattitude 0 looks more like 360K. The GB graph would have higher max temp, and stay at 0K for the whole night.
    Daytime temps are below GB, and nighttime temps are higher.
    Main reason is heat storage during the day imo.
    The night time temps are slowly decreasing from ~120K to ~80K during lunar night (14 earth days).
    Now lets show earths GB graph. 28 peaks and 0K’s like the moons.
    Actual temps is a different story. See:
    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/ocean_temp_big_jpg_image.html
    Lattitude 0: ~300K
    Lattitude 30: ~290K
    Lattitude 60: ~275K
    There isn’t much difference in day and nighttime temps, so on the scale of the original graph we can draw more or less straight lines, perhaps a very small wobble for every day/night is visible.

    Point being that the better the heat storage capacity of a planet, the more the irrelevance of the GB temp becomes.

    Totally unrelated, but the effect of “global warming” on two of our guests yesterday:

    ;-) Ben Wouters

  180. Terry says:

    Hello, I’m a long time follower and have been fascinated and educated by the recent discussions on N&z. My background is in “geomechanics” (the mechanical behavior of geologic materials) and I claim to have extensive experience in model building and applications, and the assessment of complex (though not as complex as the issues under discussion) concepts, etc. I have been eager to enter some of your discussions but have felt incapable of adding value to the discussion.

    Finally, Lucy’s questions about deepsea and subsurface temperatures gave me the courage to put my oar in. So here it goes… The reason the earth gets hotter with depth is due to heat generated by radio-active decay. How that heat “travels” to the surface is governed by the conductivity and pore structures of various geologic materials and the presence of water to name only a few factors. Anyway, the heat generated internally wants to go to outer space but the solid earth is not as efficient in transferring heat to the surface as the atmosphere is in transferring heat to space. So, in general, it gets hotter the deeper you go. The (deep) seafloor is colder because of the thermal expansion and compressibility (yes, ALL geologic materials are compressible though much less so than gases) of seawater and its much more efficient surface (the seafloor in this case) heat transfer. The heat that escapes is more readily moved away from the seafloor by water than by an insulating blanket of sediments, so that interface’s temperature is governed by the water’s temperature.

    A further comment/question. I too read the n&z paper with disbelief at first, but after my lessons on this blog am becoming convinced of its merits. It seems to me what is missing in the arguments that troubles many is that it is implicit in this “model” that the atmosphere’s convective heat transfer capacity is greater than that from (net) radiation processes at the surface. Thus one can lump the latter into a “black box” and ignore many details. The match of “predictions” of surface temp as a function of solar irradiance and pressure seems to confirm that basic assumption.

  181. tallbloke says:

    Terry: thanks for breaking cover and welcome. Even Kev Trenberth accepts that radiation is a minority player in the troposphere. Tot up the figures. Net 60w/m2 radiative cooling. More than that in various forms of convection/latent heat.

    The black box needs illuminating, but the net inputs and outputs are covered in the N&Z theory. Their ‘outside in’ approach holds much promise for solar system wide understanding.

  182. David and Tallbloke

    I could keep going off-topic even further… :)

    suffice it to say, I think we want the WUWT readership for crowdsourcing the wiki when it is ready to release. Barnraising. I hope the wiki will have the “feel” of the best of WUWT eventually, with the best of citizens science, but raising the bar to properly protect emerging research. Need to do more work on policy pages, structure, etc.

    ps any MediaWiki nerd around, willing to help with configs at this point? if so please email me.

  183. Erinome says:

    Here are early radiative models that derive the correct lapse rate:

    “Early Developments in the Study of Greenhouse Warming: The Emergence of Climate Models,” Syukuro Manabe, Ambio v26 n1 Feb 1997
    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9701.pdf

    See especially Figure 2.

    [Reply] Thanks for the reference.

    But I am suspicious of N&Z’s small constant c_s, since I don’t see why it would add linearly to S_0, but instead should initially add like S_0^4 + T_space^4 where T_space is that of empty space ~ 2.72 K.

    [Reply] Sounds like a nitpick, but we’ll check it out, thanks.

    Also, doesn’t their equation 2 for T_gb still diverge for no atmosphere (emissivity=0)?

    [Reply] Emissivity for an airless planet is ~0.88

    [Reply] In the way that Huffman rationalises it, there is no violation of conservation. However, I agree that he has a problem with albedo and absorption.
    If you agree that he has a “problem” with albedo and absorption, then you agree that Huffman’s theory is incorrect, right? Why can’t you just come out and say it? I realize that N&Z do get albedo right.

    [Reply] Because I conduct courteous debate. Thank you for acknowledging N&Z’s correct treatment of albedo, this is a big step forward.

    And what do you call curve-fitting, such as N&Z’s equation 7, if not “getting it to work somehow”?

    [Reply]Well, they get eight planets to fit on a smooth non-linear regresssion curve. Something which can’t be achieved by a radiative theory which ignores atmospheric mass as a key parameter.

  184. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    Re your February 5, 7.01 a.m. comment.

    Let me try and clarify with a specific example.

    I go through N&Z’s elegant discussion of ATE, and then I get to section 4, “Implications of the new ATE Concept”. I read that these implications are “numerous and paradigm-altering”, and that I’m going to be shown a few examples. Great.

    The first is N&Z’s Figure 7, reproduced below.

    It plots cloud cover changes against TLT since 1983. The conclusion is that “cloud changes appear to have been the cause for temperature variations during the last 30 years”. I peer at the Figure to see how N&Z arrived at this conclusion, but after much peering I can still see no clear relationship between TLT and clouds. TLT correlates much better with ENSO than with N&Z’s cloud data.

    Then I did a quick test to see if I could replicate N&Z’s results. I couldn’t easily access the ISCCP data for individual cloud types that they had used, so I pulled the ISCCP “low” “high” “medium” and “all” cloud indices off KNMI and plotted them against UAH TLT, taking care to replicate the N&Z graphics as closely as possible, including plotting the cloud data upside down, so as not to introduce any visual bias. Here’s what I got:

    Now things look quite different. The only clear connection between TLT and clouds is the stair-step decrease in low clouds and (arguably) the increase in medium-level clouds during and after the 1998 El Niño – features which suggest, incidentally, that the temperature changes caused the cloud changes, not the other way round. (The peak of the 1998 El Niño leads the TLT peak by about 6 months, so the cloud changes lag the El Niño by about a year.)

    So I’ve gone through one of N&Z’s paradigm-altering examples, and the only one that shows instrumental data, and it falls far short of altering my paradigm. So far short, in fact, that it makes me wonder whether their ATE analysis – which I’m a lot less qualified to judge – is any better reasoned. That’s why I think they would greatly improve their credibility by getting rid of Section 4, along with the tendentious comments about carbon taxes etc. in the Introduction, and presenting ATE in a stand-alone scientific paper. If they want to publish the Unified Theory they should do it separately.

    And if they want to do this they might also want to reconsider the wording in the boxes on the left of Figure 10. If temperature changes indeed lead cloud changes by up to a year it’s difficult to assert that clouds control temperatures and that cosmic rays control clouds. Yes, I know this comment is based on a population of one, but this population is all the data we have, and it indicates that clouds are controlled by heat release from the ocean.

  185. J. Snow says:

    Has anyone with the necessary skills looked at the Vesta data from the Dawn Probe. It should be pretty easy to run Vesta through the N&Z model. If there is sufficent data to make a comparison between N&Z predictions and actuals that could be the “proof” needed.

    [Reply] Thanks and welcome. Do you have a link for the data?

  186. davidmhoffer says:

    Roger Andrews;
    You’ve raised many issues about the minutia of N&Z but you haven’t touched the core issues which are their treatment of SB Law and their use of the Ideal Gas Law to arrive at the temperature of 8 celestial bodies. It is these two things that are paradigm shifting. Their explanations of cloud cover etc are explorations of generalities that illustrate cause and effect. You can take them at face value or not, but challenging those things is quite aside from their main thesis, it is supporting evidence at best, and in the case of some of the comments on their part that you complain about, simply a diversion from their main tenets. Do these things clutter up their explanation? Yes. do they change their main points? No.

    On calculation of constants: I’ve seen much to do about the way the calculate constants to which tallbloke has consistantly pointed out that the planets do in fact lie upon a smooth curve, regardless of how the constant was calculated. I’ll take that one step further. How did the SB Law constant get calculated? From observations. How did the “G” in F=(G*m1*m2)/r^2 get calculated? From observations. The fact that those planets lie upon a smooth curve provides the basis for one way of calculating the constant, observation. My observation is that N&Z derived the constant and got pretty close to the oberved constant, and there is nothing wrong with arriving at a constant from observed data.

    BenAW: I’m uncertain as to why you reject N&Z treatment of SB Law as it doesn’t arrive at the “right” temperature for the moon at the poles. That suggests to me three possibilities. Either SB Law is wrong, the treatement of SB Law as it applies to the moon is wrong, or there are physical processes that we do not understand or are not taking into account that explain the temperature of the moon at the poles. I am inclined to consider the latter.

  187. I’ve thought further about the “anomalous” lunar polar temperatures. This is still minutiae because the main N&Z fit (“treatment of SB Law and their use of the Ideal Gas Law to arrive at the temperature of 8 celestial bodies” as David says) is still hugely better than previous.

    The Moon’s equator is tilted at 1 1/2 degrees to the ecliptic. The Sun is 1/2 a degree wide. This means that even at 89 degrees winter, there could be a small solar influence, depending on exactitude of location.

    As for getting a guesstimate of earthshine effect on the moon, I think of the difference between the radiance of the lunar disc at fullmoon, and its faint radiance from earthshine at the new moon. There is a discernible radiance at the new moon, caused only by earthshine, and I am sure this could be responsible for several Kelvins when the temperature is really low.

    It would be nice to see the calculations. But this is still minutiae, it does not overthrow the core thesis.

  188. Roger Andrews says:

    davidmhoffer

    “You’ve raised many issues about the minutia of N&Z but you haven’t touched the core issues which are their treatment of SB Law and their use of the Ideal Gas Law to arrive at the temperature of 8 celestial bodies.”

    Yes I have. I said I liked the way they did it.

    “It is these two things that are paradigm shifting.”

    Agreed.

    “Their explanations of cloud cover etc are explorations of generalities that illustrate cause and effect.”

    No they’re not. The cloud cover graph isn’t presented as a generality; it’s specifically presented as ‘paradigm altering’. And it doesn’t illustrate cause and effect either, or at least not the cause and effect that N&Z want to illustrate.

    “You can take them at face value or not, but challenging those things is quite aside from their main thesis”.

    No it isn’t. The explanations are presented as an integral part of the main thesis, which according to the title of the paper is the Unified Theory.

    “it is supporting evidence at best”

    The evidence isn’t even that, because it doesn’t support N&Z’s conclusions.

    “and in the case of some of the comments on their part that you complain about, simply a diversion from their main tenets.”

    If you’re referring to the supporting evidence, well, that’s what I was saying.

    “Do these things clutter up their explanation? Yes. do they change their main points? No.”

    I thought that’s what I was saying too. Keep the main points and get rid of the clutter..

  189. davidmhoffer says:

    Uhm… I just ran SB Law for 40K and we’re only looking for 0.15 w/m2?
    Did I mess something up? Or is 40K not the number we’re looking for? ‘Cuz .15 w/m2 ought not to be hard to justify from any number of sources?

  190. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    There are several references to the applicability of the S-B law above which was the main topic of an article of mine at WUWT. It mainly concerns the consequences of hemispherical isotropic radiation when it is intercepted by GHG’s. The prime conclusion was that a major proportion of Trenberth’s 396W/m^2 comprises horizontal vectors of EMR, (which is not heat), and that this continuous horizontal portion never goes vertical and does not result in heat transfer anywhere Thus it cannot be part of the 396 which is treated as vertical. (unless the planet is airless or with transparent air)

    The WUWT article attracted 669 comments, but the usual suspects, Willis, (who had a vested interest, and was specially invited), and Joel Shore, kept away. R. Gates kept away after pointing out a minor issue, and Tim Folkerts was unable to dismantle it despite some silly analogies etc.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-%e2%80%9cearth%e2%80%99s-energy-budget-diagram%e2%80%9d-contain-a-paradox/

    A quicker to use later version without comments but with a minor correction is here at my drafting website:
    http://bobfjones.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/studying-the-trenberth-et-al-earths-energy-budget-diagram/

  191. davidmhoffer says:

    Well written Bob. I’ve tried to promote discussion about upward bound LW not originating from a single point, but from a range of points in other threads, to no avail. Seems counter intuitive, but the upward bound LW has a very low chance of escaping at bottom of atmosphere, and an increasingly higher chance of escaping as one approaches TOA. As a consequence, the colder high altitudes must represent a dispraportionately high percentage of the escaping LW. As seen from space, the total flux escaping has no choice (it seems to me) but to represent a far lower “average” temperature than exists at the surface.

    No suprise that Willis and Joel didn’t show up. I noticed that whenever there is a quality analysis of SB Law they are not interested in engaging.

  192. J. Snow says:

    Sorry for the slow reply… SuperSunday here in the States… too much food and too many adult beverages.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/dawn/news/dawn20120125.html This article discusses temperatures of 145K at the poles and 150K at the equator.

    I don’t know how much data is available on the NASA website but if anyone has a contact at JPL…

  193. tallbloke says:

    Hard to keep up with the excellent discussion here, so just a few points about some of the comments.

    Roger A: N&Z ‘forward shift’ their cloud curves by one year. You said you replicated their graph as closely as possible, but didn’t do the same. Cause and effect arguments from cloud data are tricky, because global values don’t tell you enough about the processes which occur at regional level which are intimately involved with ENSO. E.g. the big raft of cloud over the Pacific to the west of South America which forms between the alternation of ENSO events. I agree with you that they need to tighten up their analysis or drop it from a submitted paper. I appreciate your constructive criticism, so don’t feel you are under attack for pushing at N&Z’s weaknesses.

    Bob FJ, we have an article on S-B application and a paper on S-B misapplication form Hans in the pipeline. I’d be happy to republish your analysis too if you are willing.

    Hoff: good work on the magnitude of radiation required for the Moon’s anomalously ‘warm’ (heh) poles.

    J Snow: Thanks, I’ll alert Gerry Pease, who may be able to help.

    Lucy: Big constructs are hard. Maybe consider ‘sub wikis’ and allow things to float free with appropriate links between them. Think about it from the POV of the user, rather than the creator.

    Dan: Great articles beget great comments sections. This thread has made it onto the all-time ‘most commented thread’ list – Well done!

  194. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    tallbloke @ February 6, 7:37 am
    You wrote in part:

    …Bob FJ, we have an article on S-B application and a paper on S-B misapplication form Hans in the pipeline. I’d be happy to republish your analysis too if you are willing…

    Please do!

    BTW, I could expand on it a bit to preempt some of the stuff that some commenters at WUWT argued, but I’m in hesitating mind about it:

    • It might become too long.
    • If it is too preemptive, it could reduce debate.

    But anyway, IF you would like me to submit an expanded draft, what timing are you contemplating?

    You could Email me of course.

  195. Tenuc says:

    Some more interesting stuff about the temperature of the moon –

    A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon? – Martin Hertzberg et al – May 2010
    “…Not only do solid surfaces challenge the blackbody premise, however, but gases too. The atmosphere of every planet in our solar system is also ‘warmer than predicted’…”

    P.S. I think Herzberg is a great name for a physicist… 8-)

  196. Tenuc says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 5, 2012 at 11:37 pm
    “Uhm… I just ran SB Law for 40K and we’re only looking for 0.15 w/m2?…”

    Looks about the right order of magnitude to me from SB law. However, not sure how well the SB law performs at low temperature?

    Assuming 0.15w/m^2 is correct, then perhaps it’s the combined effect of a bunch of different mechanisms that provide the heat.

    Top of the head speculative list of candidates contributing to lunar polar warming…

    Conduction through crust.

    Solar wind.

    CME’s / X-ray flares / gamma rays / Birkland currents / solar proton evens.

    Ion wind (plasma) as moon passes through Earth magnetotail.
    (Perhaps above three source produce a thin (nono-dust / hydrogen plasma) atmosphere trapped at poles?)

    Earth shine (+other planets)

    Please add to list if you can think of any more ‘possibles’ and you think this is a valid approach.

    [Reply] How about the friction caused by invisible tourist aliens with their cheesegraters? :)

  197. BenAW says:

    Tenuc says:
    February 6, 2012 at 11:48 am

    Another one:

    Calculations assume a perfect sphere, where radiation at the poles is zero.
    (cosinus TSI).
    If you have eg. a large crater at the poles, with steep slopes they catch allmost the total incoming solar.

  198. BenAW says:

    Tenuc says:
    February 6, 2012 at 9:33 am

    A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon? – Martin Hertzberg et al – May 2010
    “…Not only do solid surfaces challenge the blackbody premise, however, but gases too. The atmosphere of every planet in our solar system is also ‘warmer than predicted’…”

    I’m totally convinced now that the use of a blackbody calculation to arrive at the “base” temp for a planet with a substantial heat storage is absolutely incorrect.
    So both the GHE and the N&Z theory have to rethink their basic premise imo.
    The bulk of our oceans are at ~275k, (that’s BEFORE direct solar influence).
    So 20K above GHE temp, 120K above N&Z theory.

  199. davidmhoffer says:

    Tenuc;
    Assuming 0.15w/m^2 is correct, then perhaps it’s the combined effect of a bunch of different mechanisms that provide the heat>>>

    When you are looking for 0.15 w/m2 does it really matter? The number is so low as to be inconsequential. The criticism of N&Z was in regard to the poles at the moon not reaching the 2.7 K that SB Law says they should given there is no atmosphere and they receive (in theory) no insolation. In practice however, 0.15 w/m2 could come from any number of plausible sources. Do we need to know exactly which one is the right one, or combination of right ones, to say that N&Z remains plausible and that 40K at the moon’s poles in now way negates their theory?

    I think N&Z, once more, remains intact.

    If I were to engage in conjecture however, I would discard tallbloke’s theory out of hand as there is no evidence I am aware of that aliens use cheesegraters. There is considerable evidence however that their spaceships spin and the friction caused by the spinning motion as they land could well explain the elevated temps at the moon’s poles. There is ample evidence to suggest that alien spacecraft do in fact spin, and that they use friction with the landing surface to stop the spinning motion, just take a look at any crop circle to see what I mean.

  200. BenAW says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 5, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    BenAW: I’m uncertain as to why you reject N&Z treatment of SB Law as it doesn’t arrive at the “right” temperature for the moon at the poles.

    I think you misunderstood me. Wish I could draw and publish a graph here.
    My point is about this graph:http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/

    The graph appears to represent ACTUAL temps.

    The latt.0 graph reaches almost 400K at noon. This is the SB temp.for a blackbody. After albedo the GB temp should be lower, and the actual temps do not reach this GB temp due some heat storage in the surface. The max. temp. is reached slightly past noon, same as on earth.
    Highest temps around 13.00 – 14.00, warmest month not june, but july or august.

    The BB or GB temps during night go straight to 0K and stay there as long as there is no radiation.
    See the graph on p2 of this pdf :
    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

  201. tallbloke says:

    BenAW says:
    February 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    I’m totally convinced now that the use of a blackbody calculation to arrive at the “base” temp for a planet with a substantial heat storage is absolutely incorrect.
    So both the GHE and the N&Z theory have to rethink their basic premise imo.
    The bulk of our oceans are at ~275k, (that’s BEFORE direct solar influence).
    So 20K above GHE temp, 120K above N&Z theory.

    The ocean surface loses heat to space far more readily than the Earth’s core passes heat into the ocean. Therefore there is no way that:

    “The bulk of our oceans are at ~275k, (that’s BEFORE direct solar influence).”

    Not possible from basic thermodynamics as I see it. Sorry to have to disagree, and please come back with your reasoning so we can try to find the cause of the problem here.

  202. tallbloke says:

    BenAW says:
    February 6, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    The latt.0 graph reaches almost 400K at noon. This is the SB temp.for a blackbody. After albedo the GB temp should be lower, and the actual temps do not reach this GB temp due some heat storage in the surface. The max. temp. is reached slightly past noon, same as on earth.
    Highest temps around 13.00 – 14.00, warmest month not june, but july or august.

    The BB or GB temps during night go straight to 0K and stay there as long as there is no radiation.

    N& are well aware that heat retention in the regolith smooths the temperature extremes. the question is, how much effect does that have on average surface temperature? Your graph in fig2 of the greenhouse on the moon pdf shows a peak temp 20K below theoretical and a baseline temp 40K above theoretical.

    This isn’t going to raise the average surface temp by more than 10K or so above N&Z’s gray body calculation is it?. As I remember, Ned already conceded that it may be nearer 165K than 155K.

    What is your problem with that? It’s a magnitude smaller error than the previous misapplication of S-B was giving. Please acknowledge that.

  203. BenAW says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 6, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    The ocean surface loses heat to space far more readily than the Earth’s core passes heat into the ocean. Therefore there is no way that:

    “The bulk of our oceans are at ~275k, (that’s BEFORE direct solar influence).”

    Not possible from basic thermodynamics as I see it. Sorry to have to disagree, and please come back with your reasoning so we can try to find the cause of the problem here.

    No, problem, I’ll explain again. My “theory” requires some outside the box thinking and that appearently takes time ;-)

    I do NOT assume any heat exchange from the core to the oceans. The oceans just are at their present ~275K, whatever way they arrived there.
    Solar warms just the small upper layer of the oceans and that layer stays on top, well, because it’s warm.
    At night this upper layer looses heat, during day time it is recharged again, so I assume the thermocline rises and sinks slightly over the course of a day.

    Sorry that this disrupts the whole N&Z theory when I’m correct, but the bright side is it does also kill the whole GHE theory.

  204. Tenuc says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    “…’Tenuc says – Assuming 0.15w/m^2 is correct, then perhaps it’s the combined effect of a bunch of different mechanisms that provide the heat>>>’

    When you are looking for 0.15 w/m2 does it really matter?…

    Yes I think it does matter – as many loose threads as possible need to be removed to prevent ‘nit-pickers’ picking at it. I think your calculated 0.15w/m^2 and a list of possible causes nails this one, especially with Tallbloke’s ‘Grater Theory’ now in the mix… :-)

    [Reply] Supporting evidence: They’re not really craters, they’re open cast cheese mines. :)

  205. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    “I appreciate your constructive criticism, so don’t feel you are under attack for pushing at N&Z’s weaknesses.”

    Thanks, but I never thought I was.

    The main thing is, I’m learning something. :-)

  206. tallbloke says:

    Ben: If there were no atmosphere, there would be no-oceans either. That’s why N&Z’s gray-body temperature is correct.

    Once you have an ocean, you have an atmosphere too, of water vapour if nothing else.

  207. Erinome says:

    Another problem with N&Z’s equation 2 is that the constant c_s is missing some energies, by a factor of at least 6.

    c_s is essentially the energy density of space, times the speed of light to make it into a flux. But it’s only *deep space* that has a temperature of 2.72 K from the cosmic microwave background. There are other particles at play in galaxies and solar systems, as noted here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Flux

    So the total nonsolar energy incident on the Earth, or a similar planet, is:

    CMB: 0.25 eV/cm3
    cosmic rays: 1 eV/cm3
    visible starlight: 0.3 eV/cm3
    galactic magnetic field: 0.25 eV/cm3

    Add these and it means c_s should be at least 87e-4. I don’t know yet if this changes later analysis.

    [Reply] Thanks, we’ve been writing down a few small factors ourselves. This helps.

  208. Erinome says:

    Also, it’s scientifically ludicrous to give the curve-fitting parameters (eq 7) to 6 significant figures when the determining are known to (N_TE) are known to 4 significant figures. And N_TE clearly can’t have that amount of significance anyway, because the Bond albedos that determine T_gb are only known to 2 decimal places.

    This is the kind of thing that would get this paper laughed out of peer-review, so the authors better correct it before submitting it.

    [Reply]: Just got this from Ned: Of course you need 6 significant digits in a HIGHLY non-linear function if you want others to be able to reproduce accurately your results. Using rounded coefficients with few digits in this double exponential function will easily throw the predicted temperatures astray. If this were a linear function, and we were showing 6 digit parameters, then it would be silly, but it makes perfect sense in this steep non-linear function …

    – Ned

  209. Erinome says:

    Tenuc says:
    Conduction through crust.

    Heat from the core is fairly well-known, and is only 0.8 mW/m2.

    [Reply] We are discussing the Moon, which is cold all the way through I think?

  210. Erinome says:

    [Reply] We are discussing the Moon, which is cold all the way through I think?

    “Moon’s Core Much Like Earth’s,” Discovery News, Jan 7, 2011
    http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-core-formation-110107.html

    Though I don’t know if there is a temperature (heat flux) estimate.

    [Reply] Fascinating. The crust is far thicker than Earth’s though, with correspondingly less transmission of heat. Probably why the Moon shows craters and Earth doesn’t. Sobering thought.

  211. P.G. Sharrow says:

    You all are getting down into the weeds of the moons surface temperature at the poles. Well here is one more “weed”. The moon has an atmosphere! and therefor “weather” VERY SMALL to be sure, still it exists. More like a lichen then a weed. Even polar ice caps. ;-) pg

  212. davidmhoffer says:

    BenAW;
    I think you misunderstood me. Wish I could draw and publish a graph here.
    My point is about this graph:http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/>>&gt;

    Yeah, I’m partial to a whiteboard and substantive arm waving myself ;-)

    I looked at the graph and my intitial reaction was yeah, that’s observed temps. I guess I’m unclear as to what point you are making. The BB temp indeed goes to zero, per your second link. They show the observed (if in fact that is what they are showing) temps at the poles in winter flat lining at about 40K and the lunar night descending to about 175K even though it too would have a BB temp of zero.

    So what values should we expect? Heat capacity isn’t zero, and I’m guessing conductance isn’t zero either. I wouldn’t expect actual temps to reach BB at either end of the scale, and I’d expect that the differential between BB and actual would be lowest at the high end of the scale and highest at the low end of the scale.

  213. Stephen Wilde says:

    I don’t think N & Z have to rethink anything because of the energy storage capacity of the oceans.

    I explained elsewhere how the rate of energy flow from oceans to air is dictated by surface pressure because surface pressure fixes the energy cost of a given amount of evaporation. We all know that the boilng point for water is lower at the top of Everest.

    It is also well established that the slope of the lapse rate is determined by pressure which is induced by the gravitational field of the planet and the mass of the atmosphere.

    Thus there is a pressure induced continuum from beneath the ocean surface right up to the top of the atmosphere such that even with our water oceans we still find the same or nearly the same temperatures on Earth and on Venus at a given atmospheric pressure subject to an adjustment for distance from the sun.

    The same principle applies to any planetary atmosphere and the oceans are part of our atmosphere for energy retention purposes.

    If any combination of atmospheric composition in either or both of liquid or gaseous form tries to change the lapse rate then the circulaton within those materials is what has to change and not the lapse rate.

    So all this may be fatal to the GHE from GHGs (because it involves every molecule in atmosphere and oceans) but not for the N & Z proposition or indeed the longer established concept of the Standard Atmosphere with its Adiabatic Lapse Rate.

    In the meantime Ned has advised me that his Part 2 will amongst other things deal with the distinction between his NTE and the earlier concept of the Standard Atmosphere.

  214. BenAW says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    “Ben: If there were no atmosphere, there would be no-oceans either. That’s why N&Z’s gray-body temperature is correct.”

    Their GB calculation is better than the GHE calc, no discussion about that.
    My point is that a GB calculation has no relevance for water planet earth.
    Blackbodies do not exist in reality. They are a theoretical construct.
    See http://www.pnas.org/content/106/15/6044.full
    A BB in space, no radiation has temp 0K.
    Shine some radiaition on it, and it IMMEDIATELY has the temp corresponding with the radiation, and IMMEDIATELY starts radiating according that temp.
    Shut off the radiation, temp IMMEDIATELY goes to 0K again.

    “Once you have an ocean, you have an atmosphere too, of water vapour if nothing else”

    No discussion about his either, but your point is?
    I assume that the sun warms a small part of the oceans from 275K to their average 290K.
    The oceans warm the atmosphere, and the atmosphere in the end radiates the same amount of radiation to space as the earth receives from the sun.
    So there is a delicate balance between incoming solar, ocean surface temp, and atmosphere temp.
    resulting in the same amount of radiation leaving system earth again.

    This delicate balance is most probably reached by cooling of the oceans from much higher temps they had since their creation. Assuming constant TSI over time as long as the oceans were cooling the amount of outgoing radiation was higher than incoming untill present balance was reached.

  215. BenAW says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 6, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    David. I tried to demonstrate that the limited heat storage capacity already have a noticeable effect.
    When you draw the ocean surface temps on this graph for different lattitudes, they would basically flatline over an earth day. Imo this is due to the good heat storage capacity of water.

  216. wayne says:

    @ Erinome: February 6, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Erinome, the conversion from eV/cm^3 to W/m^3 is “times 4.803×10^-05″. Right? Seems you missed a couple of magnitudes. Seems 1.8 eV/cm^3 is 8.6×10^-6 W/m^3, not 8.6×10^-4.

  217. wayne says:

    Erinome, I too am off a magnitude, missed the volume to area factor.
    1 ‹c*eV/cm^3› to ‹W/m^2› = 4.803e-05 ‹W*cm^3/(c*eV*m^2)› conversion factor.
    1.8 ‹c*eV/cm^3› to ‹W/m^2› = 8.6e-05 ‹W/m^2› .
    Seems the correct figure was inbetween our two figures.
    Still, it’s a very tiny correction, but real.

  218. davidmhoffer says:

    BenAW says:
    February 6, 2012 at 11:40 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    February 6, 2012 at 6:42 pm
    David. I tried to demonstrate that the limited heat storage capacity already have a noticeable effect.
    When you draw the ocean surface temps on this graph for different lattitudes, they would basically flatline over an earth day. Imo this is due to the good heat storage capacity of water.>>>>

    OK, got it.
    But would the flatline effect be a combination of factors? Sunlight penetrates sea water to a depth of 100 meters or more. As a consequence, the sun’s energy during the day would largely be absorbed at depth rather than at surface, would it not? Hence far less heating “at surface” than one would expect. Then at night, you’ve got conduction and various water currents returning that heat to the surface to maintain the flatline. So I see heat capacity as being part of the equation, not all of it.

  219. J. Snow says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 2:15 am
    OK, got it… Sunlight penetrates sea water to a depth of 100 meters or more. As a consequence, the sun’s energy during the day would largely be absorbed at depth rather than at surface, would it not? Hence far less heating “at surface” than one would expect.

    I may be a bit out of my element here, but my last vacation to Cancun may be informative. The water was warm (almost hot) and gorgeous. But as I waded away from the beach the depths became much cooler. I can dive probably 3.5-4.5 meters and at the bottom of those dives the water was frigid. So it seems to me surface heating is predominant. An empirical observation but meaningful nonetheless.

  220. wayne says:

    tb/mods: Any reason my comments are no longer appearing? Is it me being a bit too picky for correctness or maybe when I’m not correct and have to come back and correct myself!!? :)

    [Reply] Sorry about that. If you mention a word or name on the blacklist, your comment drops in the can until it’s rescued. Erinome has been under tight control, because he can tend to disrupt, though he seems to be learning fast.

  221. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    davidmhoffer @ February 6, 2:27 am

    …No suprise that Willis and Joel didn’t show up. I noticed that whenever there is a quality analysis of SB Law they are not interested in engaging.

    David & Rog et al, I think you might be interested and even entertained by my following latest (4th?) version of a question I repeatedly beg Joel Shore for his great wisdom, this time @ WUWT where he attacks Monckton who attacks John Cook @ SS. Previously he has either ignored such enquiries or responded with obfuscation that has little to do with the price of cheese. It remains pregnant because he seems to have retired from that thread.

    Joel Shore @ February 4, 6:15 am

    Joel, I’m flattered and surprised that you have responded to mine this time, although I’m not sure that you understood what the questions were, so I’ll re-phrase and expand on them:
    First, I’ll repeat the numbers again according to the Trenberth 2009 energy balance cartoon, which no doubt will be repeated in AR5. (units = W/m^2):

    • Thermals = 17; augmenting Evapotranspiration = 80; total; AKA “convection” = 97
    • Via radiation directly to space = 40
    • Via radiation temporarily absorbed in the atmosphere and clouds = 23 (GHE)
    • Disapearados = 1

    What to note here is that the combined surface heat loss transitorily attributable to absorption, (mostly in H2O vapour and CO2), is a small player compared with “convection”, let alone cloud cover. Your & IPCC dogma is that a small increase in CO2 will also result in increased water vapour, and hence a positive feedback. However, IF there is increased water vapour, then it is reasonable to conjecture both increased cloud cover, and increased “convection”. (= evapotranspiration + thermals). Thus since surface cooling from these latter thingies is over four times greater than the radiative effects that are your baby, why do you assume that any change in the assumed warming radiative effects would exceed the reactive collective effects of that much greater pool of cooling potential?

    BTW, a year or more ago, I had some Email exchanges with Roy Spencer, enquiring as to why there seemed to be a dearth of study into “convective” effects, and my interpretation of his responses was that: Oh well, “convection” is certainly very important, but we are all too busy competing on the (arguably less important) radiative effects. This is evidenced by the “warfare” between Dessler and he, and their contradictory conclusions. OK, I expect you to ridicule Spencer, but may I point out that even that elitist Dessler has in the past conceded that Spencer is a credible climate scientist.

  222. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    Joel Shore @ February 6, 5:28 pm over at WUWT:

    Oh whoops, Joel Shore has just reappeared at the WUWT thread. Yet, the hilarity grows. Put very simply, I asked why he believed a small change in the assumed positive radiative feedback effect within GHG’s could exceed the negative reaction within a pool of cooling effects which Trenberth postulates are over four times greater.

    Enjoy it and smile everyone, I quote Joel:

    Bob Fernley-Jones says:
    …However, IF there is increased water vapour, then it is reasonable to conjecture both increased cloud cover, and increased “convection”. (= evapotranspiration + thermals). Thus since surface cooling from these latter thingies is [allegedly] over four times greater than the radiative effects that are your baby, [Joel], why do you assume that any change in the assumed warming radiative effects would exceed the reactive collective effects of that much greater pool of cooling potential?

    You [Bob_FJ] have this weird way of responding to my posts by just ignoring what I wrote. So, I will tell you again: I have explained what convection does. You are hampered by a picture where you are trying to figure out the surface temperature by starting with the surface radiation balance. That is a very poor way to do it. What one should start with is the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative balance, which tells you what has to happen to the temperature in the mid- and upper-troposphere where most of the radiation escapes to space. One then can work down to figure out what happens at the surface by noting that the effect of convection is to keep the lapse rate at approximately the appropriate adiabatic lapse rate.
    So, in other words, it is already understood what the effect of convection is. You remain ignorant of what this effect is because you are thinking about the problem in the wrong way.

    Whilst some may think that Joel is an Oracle of infinite understandings, again, I can’t see any connection between what he says, and the great wisdom that I have sought from him. Can anyone help me here?

  223. tallbloke says:

    Bob, willful ignorance and deliberate misunderstanding were regarded by the Buddha as the deadliest of all sins.

    It has damn near ruined debate at WUWT and if the moderation there was more diligent in cracking down on it, Leif, Joel, Willis and Ira would be less able to dominate and misdirect/obfuscate threads. Unfortunately, because they sound sciency, the mods don’t realise what is going on. I’ve had my login revoked now for giving Ned advance warning of Willis’ ludicrous EQ8 post, so there’s nothing I can do.

    I had an amusing if frustrating email convo with Leif via email yesterday on the N&Z theory. He seems unable to talk straight about it, and wouldn’t respond to my requests for a demonstration of his assertion that radiative theory can explain as much as N&Z’s theory. He uses an unrealistic thought experiment to ‘refute’ the theory, and ignores the real empirical results.

    WUWT is still a great climate news and views site, but unfortunately it has lost its way on the science front.

  224. tallbloke says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 2:15 am
    OK, got it… Sunlight penetrates sea water to a depth of 100 meters or more. As a consequence, the sun’s energy during the day would largely be absorbed at depth rather than at surface, would it not? Hence far less heating “at surface” than one would expect.

    No, the shorter (bluer) solar wavelengths which penetrate the deepest are not carrying as much energy as the longer (redder) wavelengths which are absorbed within a few feet of the surface. The “less heating at the surface than you’d expect” is the effect of evaporation cooling it.

    J. Snow says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:24 am
    I may be a bit out of my element here, but my last vacation to Cancun may be informative. The water was warm (almost hot) and gorgeous. But as I waded away from the beach the depths became much cooler. I can dive probably 3.5-4.5 meters and at the bottom of those dives the water was frigid. So it seems to me surface heating is predominant. An empirical observation but meaningful nonetheless.

    At wading depth, a lot of solar energy hits the bottom, warming the sand which then warms the water above it. Further out, direct penetration and wave action carries a lot of the heat deeper into the sea and ‘dilutes the warmth’ more, hence colder on the skin. Also, the shallowing shore causes turbulent mixing of the surface water with currents which flow parallel to the land.

    The near surface ‘well mixed layer’ varies from a few metres in calmer waters to many metres in rough seas. energy is carried all the way down to the thermocline (~35m in the tropics, seasonally up to ~1000m in the mid latitudes winter) by internal tides, thermohaline density differences and sundry roilings and rollings the sea performs as it swishes around our rapidly spinning planet. The gravity gradient plays its part here too.

  225. tallbloke says:

    BenAW says:
    February 6, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    tallbloke says:
    February 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    “Ben: If there were no atmosphere, there would be no-oceans either. That’s why N&Z’s gray-body temperature is correct.”

    Their GB calculation is better than the GHE calc, no discussion about that.
    My point is that a GB calculation has no relevance for water planet earth.

    It is necessary in the N&Z theory to calculate Tgb in order to calculate the ratio with the actual surface temperature Ts.

    Blackbodies do not exist in reality. They are a theoretical construct.
    See http://www.pnas.org/content/106/15/6044.full
    A BB in space, no radiation has temp 0K.
    Shine some radiaition on it, and it IMMEDIATELY has the temp corresponding with the radiation, and IMMEDIATELY starts radiating according that temp.
    Shut off the radiation, temp IMMEDIATELY goes to 0K again.

    Agreed. So the question is, for an airless body like the Moon, what difference does it make? The answer seems to be 10-15K.

    “Once you have an ocean, you have an atmosphere too, of water vapour if nothing else”

    No discussion about his either, but your point is?

    My point is that all discussion of an Earth with no atmosphere (or no ghg) but with oceans is pointless. The atmosphere and oceans are inseparable.

    I assume that the sun warms a small part of the oceans from 275K to their average 290K.

    I don’t understand where this 275K figure is coming from. Please explain. If you mean that’s the baseline average surface temperature the oceans provide disregarding the contribution of the atmosphere’s heat capacity near the surface then you may be right, but this doesn’t invalidate N&Z, because the oceans owe their continued presence on Earth to the pressure effect of the atmospheric mass above them, and to which they contribute by keeping a gazillion megatons of water up there.

    The oceans warm the atmosphere, and the atmosphere in the end radiates the same amount of radiation to space as the earth receives from the sun.
    So there is a delicate balance between incoming solar, ocean surface temp, and atmosphere temp.
    resulting in the same amount of radiation leaving system earth again.

    Agreed.

    This delicate balance is most probably reached by cooling of the oceans from much higher temps they had since their creation. Assuming constant TSI over time as long as the oceans were cooling the amount of outgoing radiation was higher than incoming untill present balance was reached.

    Don’t know, but I don’t see how this fits into the argument you are making. Sorry for being thick, please help me understand your viewpoint further.

  226. BenAW says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 2:15 am

    OK, got it.
    But would the flatline effect be a combination of factors? Sunlight penetrates sea water to a depth of 100 meters or more. As a consequence, the sun’s energy during the day would largely be absorbed at depth rather than at surface, would it not? Hence far less heating “at surface” than one would expect. Then at night, you’ve got conduction and various water currents returning that heat to the surface to maintain the flatline. So I see heat capacity as being part of the equation, not all of it

    Whatever the process, the sun heats a shallow top layer of the oceans, couple of hundred meters in the tropics and reducing to 0m around the polar circle or so.
    At night if the surface cools, that water is “replaced” by then relatively warmer water from below.
    At the moment we’re skating in Holland. First water to freeze are the shallow lakes and canals.
    The deeper ones take longer, because the whole depth has to cool before the surface can freeze.

  227. Tenuc says:

    BenAW says:
    February 6, 2012 at 11:35 pm
    …Blackbodies do not exist in reality. They are a theoretical construct…

    Correct. I wish that people like Trenberth could appreciate this simple fact! Planet Earth is solid with a conductive medium in contact with the surface and this causes non-linear effects which make even GB approximations poor. IR radiation is reflected and absorbed in differing amounts, depending on terrain, composition of surface, amount of vegetation e.t.c…e.t.c Therefore nothing useful or meaningful to be seen here.

    …So there is a delicate balance between incoming solar, ocean surface temp, and atmosphere temp resulting in the same amount of radiation leaving system earth again…

    I don’t think delicate balance is the correct description, rather stable dynamic imbalance. History shows us that providing enough energy is hitting us from the sun our climate system can maointain a constant temperature to within a few degrees, The atmosphere and oceans are driven by many highly non-linear close coupled turbulent systems. They act as a refrigeration plant that removes surplus energy from the system over various time intervals. Land masses act as giant storage heaters preventing too much cooling during the night and through the winter.

    Harry Huffman shows us that it is simple to derive a very good estimate of the temperature of a planetary atmosphere at any pressure level up to the tropopause. All you need is the difference in its average distance from the sun compared to that of Earth and the application of the SB law at the boundary between top of atmosphere and space. No need to know about atmospheric composition, albedo, e.t.c. as by calculating at the boundary between atmosphere and space all internal processes can be ignored and treated as a black-box mechanism.

    Harry has little theory to show why this is the case, and chooses just to present an irrefutable fact about Venus and Earth which destroys the idea that CO2 can have any effect on planetary average temperatures.

    If you want a speculative conjecture of why this should work here’s mine. I think it”s because all planetary systems strive towards maximum entropy production (law of MEP) and when there is an increase in insolation the black-box reconfigures itself, via spatio-temporal chaos, to disperse more heat to space. The downside to this happy state is that if there is too little insolation, and it is prolonged enough for the heat sinks of land and oceans become exhausted, we inevitably slide into a long ice age.

  228. mpf says:

    The information here is great. I can’t absorb all of it, but it is fascinating
    .
    How does one recreate an atmospheric soup? Is it possible to identify differences in the chemical mix of Paleontological material? Could there be genetic indices, can a record of biomass give the indication of likely atmospheric density over time, or levels of change?

    Is this data already in the geochemical Dendro records, or obtainable elsewhere? Some proxies for GCM’s are partly based on geochemical proxies (tree rings). Is it a worthwhile pursuit in explaining a piece of a macroclimatology model?

    I mean, if atmospheric DNA and RNA nucleic acids, can be a soup of life, is it possible to trace an atmospheric density at a point in time, by the genetic capabilities of biological geneses in a geological time frame?

    How does one best match N&K to known geology and past climates? Is it a necessary process? Am I barking up a wrong tree?

  229. BenAW says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 7, 2012 at 8:24 am

    I assume that the sun warms a small part of the oceans from 275K to their average 290K.

    I don’t understand where this 275K figure is coming from. Please explain.

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html
    The bulk of the oceans just are at this 275K (or 277K or whatever, I choose 275K because it’s 20K above the 255K in the GHE)

  230. davidmhoffer says:

    tallbloke;
    No, the shorter (bluer) solar wavelengths which penetrate the deepest are not carrying as much energy as the longer (redder) wavelengths which are absorbed within a few feet of the surface. The “less heating at the surface than you’d expect” is the effect of evaporation cooling it.>>>>

    No…. my point was that there are a combination of factors involved. It isn’t “all” evaporation anymore than it is “all” absorption at depth. I also resist the notion of treating the ocean as a nice flat surface with a known interface to the atmosphere. The ocean surface is subject to constant wave action, frequently has a significant portion of itself covered with white caps and flotsam, and when it rains (frequently I hear) large rain drops penetrate ocean surface by as much as 4 cm not to mention completely disrupting the surface tension layer that various people tend to quote as doing x, y or z. It takes approximately 8 seconds for a disrupted surface tension layer to reform, which means that during a rain storm, there just isn’t one. All I’m getting at is that evaporation isn’t 100% of the equation (though it may well me the bulk of it for all I know).

    But at day’s end, in the context of N&Z, I’m not sure the exact “why” is anymore important than the exact “why” of the poles on the moon only dropping to 40 K. N&Z holds up for all but a few boundary conditions that can be explained by a rounding error, 40 K being justified by less than 1 watt/m2 as an example.

  231. davidmhoffer says:

    tallbloke;
    I’ve had my login revoked now for giving Ned advance warning of Willis’ ludicrous EQ8 post, so there’s nothing I can do.>>>>

    Well, if I’d been Anthony I’d have been royaly ticked at you for going around me like that too. On the other hand, that was as an egregious piece of yellow journalism as I’ve seen in the climate debate, on either side (and that’s an ugly accusation, I’m well aware of that) and deserved to be outed as such. Unfortunate in the extreme that Anthony chose to simply react instead of pondering carefully the reasons for your actions.

    That said, I think there is something you can do… and you are doing it by hosting a rational discussion here that WUWT refuses to allow.

    There’s not much I can do, but I am doing it…. which is withdrawing from WUWT in protest.

  232. BenAW says:

    Tenuc says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:09 am

    ” The downside to this happy state is that if there is too little insolation, and it is prolonged enough for the heat sinks of land and oceans become exhausted, we inevitably slide into a long ice age.”

    A nice demonstration of this is the moving N and S of the “thermocline” layer with the seasons, allowing freezing of the polar sea in their respective winters, and melting towards the summer.
    Now a reduced insolation (lower TSI, consecutive vulcanic eruptions, increased albedo due to more clouds etc.) will result in a shrinking of the thermocline layer in depth and also away from the poles.
    This may allow sea ice in BOTH polar seas at the same time, perhaps creating a Tipping Point ;-)
    and starting an ice age.

  233. tallbloke says:

    Hoff: I have no complaints, I’m just stating the facts. I apologized to Anthony for my actions and told him I understood and respected his decision.

    Anyway, the decks are clear for me to concentrate on trying to keep this blog as the best cutting edge climate science site on the net.

  234. BenAW says:

    tallbloke says:
    February 7, 2012 at 8:24 am

    This delicate balance is most probably reached by cooling of the oceans from much higher temps they had since their creation. Assuming constant TSI over time as long as the oceans were cooling the amount of outgoing radiation was higher than incoming untill present balance was reached.

    “Don’t know, but I don’t see how this fits into the argument you are making. Sorry for being thick, please help me understand your viewpoint further.”

    This was in anticipation of the question: where does the energy come from to get the oceans to ~275K, and why are we in this balanced situation at the momentn?

  235. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    Lucy Skywalker @ February 5, 11:27 pm
    You wrote in part:

    As for getting a guesstimate of earthshine effect on the moon, I think of the difference between the radiance of the lunar disc at fullmoon, and its faint radiance from earthshine at the new moon. There is a discernible radiance at the new moon, caused only by earthshine, and I am sure this could be responsible for several Kelvins when the temperature is really low.
    It would be nice to see the calculations. But this is still minutiae, it does not overthrow the core thesis.

    Lucy,
    Whilst you, me, and others may find this a fascinating topic, it is all very intuitive and I would think not significant in the order of things. For instance, when you talk of a visible aura on the new moon remember that this is purely subjective in contrast to the blackness of space, and what does it mean in the context of our old pal T^4? Also of course, what you see is?….. Reflection + re-emission, for whatever albedo in those long wavelengths?
    Personally, I suspect that the lunar regolith and rocks, which have a suspected generally highly insulative dusty surface, may result in increased deeper lateral conduction and interesting thermal inertia effects. However that is pure speculation on my part, and others around this place have made other speculations, and each of these may combine? Thus, might I say that there are bewildering unknowns, but whatever, the consequence is trivial, and is best put aside in favour of studying more important parameters.

  236. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    davidmhoffer @ February 6, 2:27 am

    David, you wrote in part, presumably in the context of the GHE:

    …I’ve tried to promote discussion about upward bound LW not originating from a single point, but from a range of points in other threads, to no avail. Seems counter intuitive, but the upward bound LW has a very low chance of escaping at bottom of atmosphere, and an increasingly higher chance of escaping as one approaches TOA. As a consequence, the colder high altitudes must represent a disproportionately high percentage of the escaping LW. As seen from space, the total flux escaping has no choice (it seems to me) but to represent a far lower “average” temperature than exists at the surface.

    Yes indeed, and one of the things that really pisses me off is that the wizards of radiation compare observations from satellites to typically the 300K blackbody Plancky. So what is the T range in thin air from where the atmosphere can no longer restrain those naughty photons, and what has it to do with a black body?

    BTW David, do you know of any data for grey body emissivity distribution of the oceans, and other stuff such as vegetative surfaces and whatnot?
    Might Planck turn in his grave?

  237. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    davidmhoffer @ February 7, 1:24 pm

    David, you wrote in part to TB:

    …Unfortunate in the extreme that Anthony [Watts] chose to simply react instead of pondering carefully the reasons for your [Tallguy] actions.
    That said, I think there is something you can do… and you are doing it by hosting a rational discussion here that WUWT refuses to allow.
    There’s not much I can do, but I am doing it…. which is withdrawing from WUWT in protest.

    David, whilst I share your feelings about a recent general loss of credibility at WUWT, I still go there to read stuff from guest authors that I have respect for, and others that might be worth exploring. (and minimally, I find it hard to resist responding with several comments to that arrogant elitist troll; Joel Shore, hopefully in wanting that readers will understand his deceptions and obfuscations.).

    BTW, I pity Joel’s poor students if they can’t work-him-out, and the real world out there. ……… groan, what is modern education coming to?

    Oh and for supportive assertion for you David, I do not intend to even read posts from Willis or Ira and some others supportive of their crap.

  238. BenAW says:

    “The thermal effect of pressure is vividly demonstrated on a cosmic scale in the process of star formation, where gravity-induced rise of gas pressure boosts the temperature of an interstellar cloud to the threshold of nuclear fusion. At a planetary level, the effect is manifest in Chinook winds, where adiabatically heated downslope airflow raises the local temperature by 20C-30C in a matter of hours.”

    I did a little reading on star formation, eg http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/solsys_star.php#why

    The two manifestions of the thermal effect of pressure turn out te be in both cases the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy imo.
    So for a static atmosphere I still don’t see the physical process that creates the thermal effect of pressure.

    In the star formation process the interstellar cloud can collapse without consequence for it’s surroundings. It just leaves empty space when shrinking.
    For the Chinook, the downslope flow has to be compensated by an upslope flow, which I have shown in a post above.

  239. BenAW says:

    Another point I have doubts about is on page 5 of the original N&Z paper.
    – Extra kinetic energy in the troposphere.

    The observations that show the downward radiation are probably done with a pyrgeometer or similar.
    These devices don’t measure radiation directly, but measure temperature (using a thermopile) and then CALCULATE radiation using SB.
    This seems similar to the “observed” backradiation in the GHE.

    Have a look at this paper:
    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf
    The summary on page 16 says it all.

    Lastly, not all temperatures are made equal. Compare eg the effect of a sauna with temp. 90C and a quantity of water at 90C. Same temperature, very different impact. Ask a lobster ;-)
    Very different heat flux for the same temperature.

  240. davidmhoffer says:

    Bob Fernley-Jones;
    Yes indeed, and one of the things that really pisses me off is that the wizards of radiation compare observations from satellites to typically the 300K blackbody Plancky. So what is the T range in thin air from where the atmosphere can no longer restrain those naughty photons, and what has it to do with a black body?>>>

    I haven’t a clue. I’m not being sarcastic, I really don’t have a clue. I start thinking about which photons came from where, how one could possibly determine that, and how one could possibly work backwards from the observed radiance at any given point in time and space and relate it back to temperature… and I can only conclude that I don’t know exactly what is being measured or what surface or point in space/time to attribute how much of the measurement to.

    But I’ll take the conundrum a step further. So enamoured have we become with the temperature record, that we’ve forgotten WHY we were examining it in detail in the first place. We started out with the assertion that CO2 increases could cause a potential energy imbalance that would raise earth’s temperature. So off we ran to gather all the temperature data, average it, graph it, and then debate how much of the observed temperature increase is due to what causes.

    Why are we doing this?

    If we want to know what the effects of increased CO2 are on earth’s energy balance, why would we use a second hand metric? After all, when it comes to energy balance, that’s all temperature actually is, a second hand metric. It is a lousy second hand metric because it doesn’t vary directly with P inthe first place, it is the 4th root of T that varies with P. We’ve adopted a second hand metric that makes analysis of the collective temperature data of earth in both time and space next to useless.

    We have several billion dollars worth of satellite equipment in orbit about the planet, diligently reporting w/m2 data from various altitudes, using various techniques, and for about 30 years. What do UAH and RSS do with this data that is measured in w/m2?

    Why they convert it to… temperature!

    Here they are with all their raw data measured in w/m2, and rather than use the w/m2 to determine what the trend in earth’s energy balance is, they instead convert it to temperature, average it, and graph that, introducing all the misleading results of T^4 and Holder’s Inequality in the process.

    One would think if one wants to determine the effect of CO2 in w/m2, one would take advantage of all that data… in w/m2?

  241. davidmhoffer says:

    Bob Fernley-Jones;
    BTW David, do you know of any data for grey body emissivity distribution of the oceans, and other stuff such as vegetative surfaces and whatnot?
    Might Planck turn in his grave?>>>

    No… and Yes!

    Bob;
    BTW, I pity Joel’s poor students if they can’t work-him-out, and the real world out there. ……… groan, what is modern education coming to?>>>

    Yes, I’ve pondered both vegatative surfaces and vegatative brains. University was several decades ago for me, I got 3/4 of a degree in about 6 different things and then left. As soon as I figure out what I want to do when I grow up, I’ll go back and finish one. Or start a new one as the case may be…. But one thing I noticed in wandering about from one discipline to another is how badly many researchers suffer from lack of general knowledge versus specialized knowledge.

    I got thrown out of a geology class when the professor explained something or other and fingered “centrifugal force” as the culprit. The argument ended with me getting him to swing a weight on the end of a string around himself in a circle, and then I asked… OK, so are you pushing on the string? Or pulling on it?

    Long conversation with the Dean about not making fools of professors in class even when they are dead wrong, drop this class, pick up that class…

    I’ve noticed over the years that knowledge is a three step forward, two step backward process. A big part of N&Z is the proper application of SB Law for example. Is this new? No! Is Holder’s Inequality new? No! We clearly “understood” these issues at some point in time or we wouldn’t have “Holder’s Inequality” to refer to in explaining them. We knew, then we forgot, and now N&Z are bringing those concepts back into the forefront of the debate. But they aren’t “new”.

  242. BenAW says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 8, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    We have several billion dollars worth of satellite equipment in orbit about the planet, diligently reporting w/m2 data from various altitudes, using various techniques, and for about 30 years. What do UAH and RSS do with this data that is measured in w/m2?

    Why they convert it to… temperature!

    Are you sure about this? Afaik the instruments used to measure radiation, actually measure temperature, and convert the result to radiation, using the SB formula.

  243. davidmhoffer says:

    BenAW;
    Are you sure about this? Afaik the instruments used to measure radiation, actually measure temperature, and convert the result to radiation, using the SB formula>>>

    My recollection being foggy… here’s the link to Roy Spencer’s article on how AMSU works. Read it a long time ago, don’t have the time just now to go through it in detail just now. That said, my understanding is that the satellite looks at specific frequencies unique to Oxygen at various altitudes. The intensity or brightness temperature doesn’t get measured as either degrees or w/m2 if one wants to get technical about it. The sensor just provides a voltage based on how much energy is being absorbed and that voltage is then turned into “temperature” via a process that Spencer describes in the article. I think there is a discussion about surface temps and how emissivity of ocean vs vegetation gets involved too.

    Bottom line in my mind is that we have a sensor, that when exposed to a given radiance, outputs a voltage, which UAH then converts to a temperature.

    Why?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to convert it to w/m2? Then instead of averaging the temps from across the planet, average the w/m2 across the planet and trend that. Isn’t that what we’re looking for? A change in either the total w/m2 or the distribution of w/m2 or both?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

  244. davidmhoffer says:

    BenAW;

    Just a quick PS. Even if the satellites are measuring temperature, at the end of the day, they are averaging the temperature data across the globe and then trending it. Ridiculous. They should be converting to w/m2 and calculating the total, and trending that.

  245. BenAW says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 9, 2012 at 12:21 am

    BenAW;

    Just a quick PS. Even if the satellites are measuring temperature, at the end of the day, they are averaging the temperature data across the globe and then trending it. Ridiculous.

    No argument here.
    My point is that if you measure the temp of eg. a cloud above you as eg. 279K, how sure are we that you are receiving 344 W/m^2 as SB indicates?
    Same for my sauna and hot water example. Both would show eg. 90C, but the effect is quite different.
    Temperature and heat flux are two different things.

  246. Christoph Dollis says:

    OK – the Unified Theory is an over arching theory of the forces that determine the [maximum] surface temperature on the planets and moons of our solar system and I suspect of all others in far space as well (other unknown factors aside).

    As mentioned briefly in your post, AussieDan, various factors cause average temperatures to fluctuate, below the maximum temperature.

    I suspect that the main driver of this, at least on Earth, is both the long term (galactic rotation in and out of spiral arms) and short term (shielding effect of the Sun’s activity) cosmic-ray-driven cloud formation by the physical mechanism hypothesized by Svensmark, and now partially experimentally verified in two experiments.

    So in other words, if Ned and Karl are correct, they explain how planets get their average maximum temperature in the first place, and Svensmark explains how this varies.

    Anyhow, am in a bit of a spat with Willis over there over all this. I truthfully told him I had no intention of coming here and becoming your sycophantic fans, and I mean that.

    I am thinking about Ned and Karl’s model, whether it violate conservation of energy (am looking forward to “Part 2″), the exact physical mechanisms that make this all happen and so forth, and even the validity of the famous/infamous (take your pick) equation 8.

    Maybe Willis is right (except about their being a fifth “tunable parameter”, which there isn’t, clearly). Maybe this is gibberish with too many arbitrary, manually tuned variables and too small of a data set to confirm. I’ll leave that to the math experts, although I’m certainly interested in listening to them.

    However, I have long wondered how, if trapped radiative heat is from greenhouse gases (in a free-atmosphere, not a contained greenhouse) is what keeps the Earth warm, why it does not cool off much, much faster at night … and how the temperature range is kept as stable as it is.

    Both of these things have puzzled me.

    Ned and Karl have proposed a hybrid irradiance/atmospheric pressure-based convective heat model that provide a more plausible explanation to those (seeming) puzzles to my mind than does the standard GHE model (which also doesn’t fit the data worth a darn, as I’ve known for ages, whether from wrongly modeled climate sensitivity feedbacks or another mechanism such as Ned and Karl propose).

    So I await further developments of their work, including testing and detailed rigorous mathematical analysis.

    Let people tear it apart! Make that the goal. See if it’s actually true. That is what matters.
     
     
    P.S. Put another way if I understand correctly, to my left and right as I type comfortably in this otherwise cold room are these. Ned and Karl are saying planetary and moon climates work less like those, and more like this. Is that about right by way of analogy?