Critic of official climate science tackles…er, sceptics

Posted: April 25, 2014 by oldbrew in atmosphere, Carbon cycle, climate, Clouds, Ocean dynamics, radiative theory, Uncertainty
CO2 chart [image credit: Wikipedia]

CO2 chart
[image credit: Wikipedia]

Well-known climate expert and global warming sceptic (apologies for the cliche) Dr Roy Spencer has by his own admission stirred up a hornet’s nest here.

It’s a list of ‘skeptical arguments’ (US spelling) that he considers to be erroneous. Without further ado: enjoy (?).

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

Update: some Talkshop commenters seriously question nos. 6 and 7 on the list.

Comments
  1. hunter says:

    The list is credible and sensible and makes sense to me.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Dr Spencer at least tries to apply reason to tricky climate questions, without losing his sense of humour – unless provoked too far, of course.

    I liked his recent comment that (words to the effect of) ‘I often disagree with myself’.

  3. Roy Spencer is right on most of his ten points but who are the skeptics making such dumb arguments? It is easy to defeat straw men.

    I disagree with him on point #7. There is abundant evidence for the idea that temperature drives CO2. For example, the last seven glaciation cycles:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/?s=dog

  4. p.g.sharrow says:

    After reading Spencers’ post, the comments and replies I didn’t have the heart to argue. But even he realizes that much of the argument with “sceptics” has more to do with the words then the concepts. The “buzz words” that are used such as “greenhouse effect” to describe the atmospheres’ effect to hold warmth near the surface has nothing to do with how a greenhouse is constructed.
    From time to time I abandon threads on this blog because people spend great effort in arguing points that are really a misunderstanding of the words used. The use of special “buzz words” should be discouraged, Use Plain English, grade 10, to achieve the widest understanding. You are not trying to impress educated people on your education level. You are trying to communicate with NORMAL people. pg.

  5. Richard111 says:

    Of course there is radiation from the atmosphere to the ground. CO2 and H2O molecules will be energised to the local temperature depending on their location up the adiabatic lapse rate. Being able to measure that radiation is no proof it is warming anything. CO2 will be radiating over some 3,800 lines centred around 15 microns covering some 18% of blackbody radiation if source temperature is 300K and 20% of blackbody radiation if source temperature is 200K. The surface will be radiating up the atmosphere with a blackbody level of 95% plus.
    Now think about 10/10ths cloud cover. The liquid water in that cloud will be radiating at 99% blackbody level back at the surface. Anyone ever experienced any increase in warmth as clouds arrive overhead?
    Now those so called ‘greenhouse gases’ do indeed warm the atmosphere when the sun is shining. But the energy that did the warming never reached the surface.
    It is the MASS of the atmosphere that produces the comfortable, to us, surface temperature. It is the so called ‘greenhouse gases’ which radiate to empty space that helps the 99.94% of the molecules in the atmosphere that are unable to radiate, to cool in the upper reaches.

  6. Richard111,
    I heartily concur. The main bulk of the atmosphere is what keeps us toasty.

    The idea that trace gases are responsible was absurd when Arrhenius made his hypothesis in 1896. It is shameful that people who call themselves scientists should act as if the hypothesis was valid:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/

  7. Dr. Spencer I hope you will be able to address this?

    MY COUNTER ARGUMENT

    If CO2 is to have a climate effect(LEAD IT) why would the rate in the rise of CO2 values have an effect on the climate while concentration levels

    of CO2 many times greater in the past then today had NO effect on leading the climate??

    Fact: Past history records (like the chart I sent yesterday) show that no matter how high CO2 concentrations are in the atmosphere they never LEAD the climate/temperature trend. It has always followed the temperature trend.

    The question is why would just a rapid rise in CO2 concentrations from very low levels (280 ppm) to still low levels (400ppm today versus past CO2

    concentrations levels of 2000 ppm or higher) somehow cause CO2 to lead the climate/temperature, when in the past CO2 concentration levels many times greater then today’s levels still could not exert enough forcing on the climate to LEAD it?

    How in the world could lower values of CO2 concentrations (today’s values) somehow exert enough forcing on the climate to lead it when in the past much higher values of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere still could not exert enough forcing on the climate to lead it ? It(CO2) always has followed the temperature regardless of it’s concentration in the atmosphere. Why is that going to change just because it is increasing at a fast rate?

    Dr. Spencer’s other points I do agree with, other then point 5 which I am not sure of.

    But 7 seems to be wrong.

  8. Dr. Spencer ask the following question for point 7.

    So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise?

    That question in point 7 can be turned around.

    Why are CO2 concentration levels which are increasing 100x faster then any time in the previous 300,000 years not causing the temperature to increase 100x faster then it has anytime in the past 300,000 years?

  9. Salvatore Del Prete says:

    April 25, 2014 at 1:02 PM

    I have to ask again . Why is it a bad scientific argument(point 7) to state according to the data CO2 has never led temperature and hence to extrapolate that same relationship will continue?

    The only reason I can think of is that I am assuming the data to be correct, that aside I don’t see how this is not logical reasoning.

    Reply

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:

    April 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

    I’m not saying your argument is without totally merit. I’m mostly saying it’s not really relevant to my post.

    I think he has backed away from point 7. I will send one more exchange.

  10. Salvatore Del Prete says:

    April 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

    What this all come down to is speculation that because CO2 is rising so fast ,that this very fast increase is going to somehow cause CO2 to lead the climate to one degree or another rather then follow it..

    Yet data from the past does not show this ever happening.

    I don’t see how a rapid rise does this if absolute values are relatively low in comparison to the past when no such thing happened unless of course again the data is not showing the true story.

    I think point 7 for bad scientific argument needs a question mark for now.

    Reply

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:

    April 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM

    Fair enough.

  11. I think even if all the other points Dr. Spencer made are correct (which I think they are) if point 7 is wrong then those other points will not be all that meaningful.

    If CO2 does not drive the climate then the other points are mute even if correct.

  12. oldbrew says:

    I’m not sure about no. 6 either but maybe I’ve mis-read it.

    ‘If adiabatic compression explains temperature, why is the atmospheric temperature at 100 mb is nearly the same as the temperature at 1 mb, despite 100x as much atmospheric pressure?’

    100mb. is about 16km. above ground, so basically above the troposphere.
    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html
    1 mb. is even higher up – around 40km.

    What has that got to do with ‘atmospheric temperature’?

    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=16869

  13. I don’t think Roy has a grip on the adiabatic process so I made this comment on his blog:

    “Roy said:

    “No, the lapse rate describes how the temperature of a parcel of air changes from adiabatic compression/expansion of air as it sinks/rises. So, it can explain how the temperature changes during convective overturning, but not what the absolute temperature is”

    The absolute temperature is determined by the amount of conduction from the surface to atmospheric mass and the length of time that the conducted energy spends within convective overturning as gravitational potential energy (which is not heat and does not radiate).

    Roy also said:

    “the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present.”

    The warmed molecules rise (reduced density) and the cooled molecules fall (increased density) which increases convective overturning which prevents any net thermal effect at the surface.

    Roy asked:

    If adiabatic compression explains temperature, why is the atmospheric temperature at 100 mb is nearly the same as the temperature at 1 mb, despite 100x as much atmospheric pressure?”

    Simply because radiation dominates above the tropopause and the presence of gases (ozone) reacting directly to incoming solar shortwave reverses the lapse rate above the tropopause.

    Adiabatic cooling (uplift) and warming of the surface (descent) is a troposphere phenomenon because convection does not get past the tropopause (if one excludes the Brewer Dobson circulation in the stratosphere).

    It is conduction and convection and not radiation that warms the surface above S-B expectations.

    The greenhouse effect is mass induced and not GHG induced.”

  14. Actually I should have said that the rising and falling of GHGs within convective overturning decreases the speed of that overturning because more of the energy within the atmosphere can leak out to space from the GHGs without needing to be returned to the surface first.

  15. I have not bothered to comment on Spencer’s blog because it is difficult to point out errors to someone who does not fully grasp engineering science. Lets start with Thermodynamics. There are some good books around such as Smith, Van Ness & Abbott “Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics” McGraw-Hill 1996. Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook (McGraw Hill) has a good summary – Section 4 Thermodynamics. There are 5 postulates of Thermodynamics
    1/ “There exists a form of energy known as internal energy, which for systems at internal equilibrium is an intrinsic property of the system functionally related to its characteristic coordinates
    2/ The total energy of any system and its surroundings is conserved. (Also known as the 1st law of thermodynamics)
    3/ There exists a property called entropy, which for systems at internal equilibrium is an intrinsic property of the system functionally related to the measurable coordinates which characterize the system. For reversible processes changes in this property may be calculated by the equation dS=dQ/T
    4/ The entropy change of any system and its surrounds, considered together, resulting from any real process is positive, approaching zero when the process approaches reversibility (Also known as the second law of Thermodynamics)
    5/ The macroscopic properties of homogeneous PVT systems at internal equilibrium can be expressed as functions of temperature, pressure and composition only.
    Section 5 of Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook is called Heat and Mass Transfer.
    It is an extensive section which requires a good knowledge of maths and makes considerable reference to dimensionless numbers of which (it appears) no climate scientist has any knowledge.
    I just point out that there are four types of heat transfer a) conduction, b) convection with sub forms of natural and forced c) phase change and d) radiation.
    With respect to radiation it should be pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann law/equation applies to surfaces in a vacuum. Engineers use emissivity factors and view factors (corrected by temperature ratios) with the S-B equation to obtain estimates of radiation heat flux in furnaces and heat exchangers plus other equations for convective heat flux.
    Finally, instruments which measure temperature need to be properly calibrated and zeroed. (I have measured flame temperatures as high as 3500K) There are no instruments that directly measure radiation flux. Those that supposedly show a result from some mathematical equation need to understood, calibrated and zeroed. There can be no radiation heat flux from a cool gas 1000’s m in the atmosphere flowing to a surface which is at a higher temperature. The basic premise of AGW with regard to CO2 is nonsense.

  16. Richard111 says:

    CO2 cools the lower atmosphere. Every CO2 molecule is a discrete entity. It is being continuously collided with by nearby N2, O2 and Argon molecules in the order of billions of times a second and more. The rate these collisions occur effect the ‘temperature’ of the molecule. These collisions not only effect the kinetic speed of the molecule, the collision energy, termed translation energy, drives electrons into higher orbit energy levels. If the electron returns to a lower orbital energy level then a photon is emitted. Mechanical energy in, electromagnetic energy out. Very effective cooling.
    Now each and every photon has a specific energy level defined by the frequency of the radiation. Having emitted a photon of a specific frequency can the molecule immediately absorb another photon of the same frequency? Yes, it is possible but I have read it is a rare event. The rate of collisions tend to drive the electron rapidly back to the higher energy level WHERE IT CANNOT ABSORB A PHOTON OF THAT ENERGY LEVEL. Even if the CO2 molecule did absorb a photon what is the energy difference in the molecule? None!
    Whatever the radiation temperature of the surface the CO2 molecule can only ‘see’ photons over the 13 to 17 micron band. This range of radiation will only warm up a body to a peak temperature of -50C, or if you prefer 223.15K.
    So if the air surrounding that CO2 molecule has a temperature of say 14C and the surface is radiating at 15C that CO2 molecule is far to energised collisions to be able to absorb any radiation from the surface. CO2 in the atmosphere does not and cannot TRAP RADIATION from any source.

  17. Richard111 says:

    cementafriend, you mention Section 5 of Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook. Nice graph at FIG 5-21. Clearly shows the emission performance of CO2 and H2O. Mind you that is at 1,500K!!!
    Love to see the emission graph at 288K. I photocopied it. Don’t know if I can post it here. (copyright!)

    [reply] Sorry, not if it’s copyright.
    However, this might be relevant. 😉
    http://accessengineeringlibrary.com/graph

  18. mkelly says:

    cementafriend says: April 26, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    I have asked numerous person to write a radiative heat transfer equation showing how the atmosphere transfer heat to the surface at one ATM showing the emissivity try of a CO2 and H2O mix, but have never gotten a taker.

  19. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:30pm: This site is billed as a cutting edge science you can dice with blog. Your dicer hasn’t been sharpened in the 50 years since you report last reading an atm. thermo. text book. Consequently much of your conjecture does not hold water & is unfounded as contains no cites to experiment and/or theory. Much is simply your inaccurate conjecture.

    “..potential energy (which is not heat and does not radiate).”

    Potential energy has units of joules, heat has units of joules cite Maxwell “Theory of Heat”. Your conjecture is unfounded and is wrong. Heat transfer is same as energy transfer in Maxwell’s work based on experimental evidence.

    Potential energy in units of joules is not mass in units of kg cite SI units. So this part of your conjecture is well founded, potential energy does not radiate energy as does mass.

    “The warmed molecules rise (reduced density) and the cooled molecules fall (increased density) which increases convective overturning which prevents any net thermal effect at the surface.”

    Most “warmed molecules” are increased in temperature by the sun using up a fuel which causes a net thermal effect at Earth surface. Cite Bohren 2006 sec. 1.6 pp. 32-33. Your conjecture does not hold water, is proven wrong by theory and experiment.

    “…radiation dominates above the tropopause and the presence of gases (ozone) reacting directly to incoming solar shortwave reverses the lapse rate above the tropopause….convection does not get past the tropopause.”

    Your conjecture is well founded but does not answer the question. The tropopause occurs where the atm. ceases to be increased in temperature from the surface below and begins to be increased in temperature from above so convection ceases. For convection explanation, cite Maxwell’s “Theory of Heat” again and see gallopingcamel’s cite with selected ref.s:

    http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

    “It is conduction and convection and not radiation that warms the surface above S-B expectations. The greenhouse effect is mass induced and not GHG induced.”

    This is unfounded conjecture. Radiation from the sun using up a fuel warms Earth L&O surface. All three energy transfer processes occur at the surface and all 3 must be accounted in the surface energy control volume balance in/out for accurate Tmean calculation. Same Bohren 2006 cite sec. 1.6 pp. 32-33.

    Atm. mass does not use up a fuel so does not induce Earth surface warming, your conjecture is unfounded.

    Please provide cites to theory and experimental foundations for cutting edge science not unfounded conjecture.

  20. Trick says:

    cementafriend 3:51pm: “I just point out that there are four types of heat transfer a) conduction, b) convection with sub forms of natural and forced c) phase change and d) radiation.”

    You say or Perry says? I don’t have a copy – can you look up and list the forms of energy transfer as you did in 1/ thru 5/ list? I would hint that phase change is energy storage not energy transfer, curious what Perry writes exactly.

    ”There are no instruments that directly measure radiation flux.Those that supposedly show a result from some mathematical equation need to understood, calibrated and zeroed.”

    As are mercury (and other) thermometers indirect. Thermometry uses well founded physics, calibrated, zeroed to mathematical formulation & test of mercury expansion/contraction. So mercury thermometers are very useful when mfd. properly as are radiometers for indirectly measuring the radiant flux (power) of electromagnetic radiation.

    “There can be no radiation heat flux from a cool gas…”

    Concur – heat doesn’t exist in nature in modern times – that concept served its purpose long ago and has been replaced like slide rules, more properly there can be radiation energy flux from a cool gas…

  21. Trick.

    I don’t accept your comments as correct. No point in going into detail.

    The issue is very simple. Mass interacts with the radiative flow of energy from the sun so as to slow down its rate of passage. Temperature rises as a result.

    Conduction and convection are slower than radiation so they cause the rise in temperature.

    Conduction and convection involve mass and not the radiative capability of that mass.

  22. Trick says:

    Stephen 5:41pm: “The issue is very simple. Mass interacts with the radiative flow of energy from the sun so as to slow down its rate of passage. Temperature rises as a result.”

    Stephen not having read a text book in 50 years, sort of knows the temperature rise is from mass effects (which always and everywhere means radiation) but Stephen misses the actual cutting edge physics of the processes. Not knowing the physics of the processes causes Stephen all sorts of incorrect conjecture that doesn’t hold water.

    “Conduction and convection are slower than radiation so they cause the rise in temperature.”

    These are 2 processes that use up no fuel, can root cause no steady state rise in temperature over eons by themselves; the sun does have a process that uses up fuel and causes most of the rise in steady state mean Earth surface temperature.

  23. Richard111 says:

    Regarding my post at 4:33 pm above. THAT IS the relevant graph! Thanks.
    You can see the full bandwidth of each emission band. Be nice to see emissions at 288K to check bandwidths at that lower temperature.

  24. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Mkelly; I am not a person of formula but I did attempt to create a visual representation of energy transfer:
    http://pgtruspace.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/energy-transfer/
    Maybe some one else can add the math. pg

  25. Trick said:

    “These (conduction and convection) are 2 processes that use up no fuel,”

    They do use up fuel (sunlight) but once the first convective cycle completes there is a continuing closed loop constantly using the same amount of solar energy to create kinetic energy which is recycled through conduction and convection in the form of gravitational potential energy to continue holding the mass of the atmosphere off the surface.

  26. Trick says:

    Stephen 6:22pm – This is inaccurate conjecture that doesn’t hold water since you supply no cites to theory and/or experiment. “They (conduction) do use up fuel (sunlight)”?? Conduction occurs in the dark too – cite Fourier’s work. Experimental proof: The electrical grid conducts fine at night.

  27. Residual night time surface warmth originally came from daytime sunlight.

  28. Trick says:

    Stephen 7:25pm: Now the conjectured conduction works at night. Ok, concur however only the sun uses up fuel still. Or what fuel does your conjectured conduction process use up at night? Note the sun goes down at night. Can’t be sunlight.

  29. Residual night time surface warmth originally came from day time sunlight.

    The fuel for night time conduction is solar energy stored in the oceans and the materials of the solid surfaces.

    Winds and humidity carry it around the night side as necessary and reduce the surface cooling sufficiently to maintain the average global surface temperature 33K above S-B.

    It is all done by atmospheric mass involved in the adiabatic energy exchange.

  30. NikFromNYC says:

    I haven’t heard of any ocean floor fracking revolution so far. That would be a *lot* of extra carbon dioxide over the next few centuries! However, by then, fusion will likely kick in and petrochemicals will be seen as too valuable raw materials to just burn.

  31. Jaime Jessop says:

    I find it a little perplexing that Roy Spencer was expecting a 1000+ (mostly nasty) comments in response to his post. He must take a dim view of a significant proportion of sceptics. I do hope the popular sport of ‘fake sceptic bashing’ so much in evidence among the CAGW crowd is not going to take off amongst a group of ‘elitist climate change sceptics’ who believe they hold a monopoly on all the right arguments. Much of what he says seems fairly reasonable but 7. is a bit more open to debate IMO and the logic he uses to dismiss the claim that CO2 follows temp rises seems a little shaky to me.

    Got to be careful what I say on here now as it seems my comments are being selectively harvested and regurgitated on andtheresphysics as evidence of conspiratorial thinking. Well, gives them something to do I suppose.

    [reply] if that’s all they can find to do, they need to get a life – LOL.

  32. Trick says:

    Stephen 8:14pm: “Residual night time surface warmth originally came from day time sunlight.”

    I get your conjecture on that: your conjectured conduction & convection processes warmed surface during the day by using up sunlight fuel. You now conjecture the sunlight fuel for conduction & convection to operate at night is “stored in the oceans and the materials of the solid surfaces.” Where do you conjecture this sunlight fuel is stored in the oceans at night exactly? I seem to recall oceans are dark at night; no sunlight fuel in evidence.

    Might be moonlight/starlight fuel at night? Well, then there is the problem of the new moon for your conjecture and cloudy nights.

  33. “Where do you conjecture this sunlight fuel is stored in the oceans at night exactly? I seem to recall oceans are dark at night; no sunlight fuel in evidence. ”

    Ever heard of kinetic energy ?

  34. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:11pm: Your conjecture sunlight has kinetic energy is inaccurate because sunlight has no mass though sunlight does have momentum and angular momentum.

  35. Don’t be silly for the sake of it.

    Sunlight imparts kinetic energy to the oceans and land during the day and that kinetic energy continues to provide fuel for conduction and convection through the night.

  36. ren says:

    We have a description of the experience found on the internet forum Gdansk University of Technology . Experience refers precisely to the topic of this discussion. As a result , it was found that all of the infrared radiation in the absorption band of CO 2 is absorbed by the air layer having a thickness of about ten meters. Please think about what this means?

    The thickness of the earth’s atmosphere is about 1000 km . For this , assume that about 100 km above sea level This high-density gases , the above thinning is considerable. It turns out that even very small air layer with a thickness of 10 meters , a very tiny fraction of the atmosphere absorbs all infrared radiation in the range appropriate for CO2 . It must therefore be concluded that increasing or decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as one of the absorbents , nothing will change in the method of infrared absorption . Even a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, containing , understandably, the same fraction of the total amount of CO2 , absorbs all the energy. So you can not expect that the reduction of CO2 , for example, about half would mean that the atmosphere can not absorb the energy or consume less of it . You also can not conclude that the total amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere , is in this case any meaning whatsoever , because I’ve only a fraction of the air they absorb all the infrared , so more or less the amount of CO2 plays no role here .

    And above all, we have here the thesis of Professor Mastalerz cited ” increasing the concentration of CO2 in the air will not change anything , because it is absorbed 100 % of the energy in the band dioxide absorption ” – the constituents of the atmosphere are the property of the total absorption of these bands of radiation that absorbs carbon dioxide. A conclusion from this is that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect on the absorption of these infrared frequencies , and hence variations in the CO2 content in the atmosphere do not matter – they can not affect the climate.
    http://ekotest.republika.pl/Efekt%20cieplarniany%20-%20krytyka%20i%20dyskusja%20strona%202.html

  37. Trick says:

    Stephen 9:42pm: Ok, then you conjecture that convection and conduction process use up sunlight fuel during the day to warm the surface then as sun ramps down you conjecture conduction and convection ramp out of sunlight fuel and ramp into using up kinetic energy fuel to operate at night.

    Your conjecture is convection and conduction are bi-fuel processes: use up sunlight fuel to operate during day to warm the surface and use up kinetic energy fuel to operate at night.

    Convection and conduction munch on sunlight during day to warm surface above S-B and munch on kinetic energy at night to operate. Hence it is not radiation that warms the surface above S-B expectations per your 3:30pm.

  38. michael hart says:

    I wasn’t happy about how he phrased point #7, but then in the comments he says:

    “April 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

    All someone has to say, Salvatore, is that the ice core record cannot show the rapid changes in CO2 we are now experiencing, and so there might be no good example in that record of CO2 causing temperature change…instead, it might be that it shows temperature changes causing changes in the global carbon budget on long time scales.

    *I* don’t think we know what, if anything, the ice core record shows us that is relevant to today’s climate.”

    …which is something I am more comfortable with, although I have other objections. That human CO2 emissions cause some increase in pCO2 is not disputed by me, not least because it is not well mixed on relevant time scales, and both sources and sinks are not at equilibrium. I regard the consensus argument as just one (partially) plausible explanation among other plausible explanations.

  39. Truthseeker says:

    Has anyone got a comment about what Roy says is the real effect of GHGs, which is that they raise the effective height of the emission point of the atmosphere which causes additional temperature?

    I think Huffman’s analysis just destroys that idea, but I would be interested in your opinions.

    [reply] many comments on ‘effective emission height’ here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/effective-emission-height/

  40. Trick says:

    Truthseeker 1:24am – ”Has anyone got a comment…”

    There is atm. T effect also on Venus that holds water; defined by the difference in the Venus steady state Tmean measured by satellite (~232K) and that T measured by (sparse) thermometry on the surface (~732K) – the atm. being the only body in between the two. Same as done for Earth (satellite 255K v. (less sparse) thermometry 288K).

    Consider P=density*R*T. If the same pressure point of 1 bar is analyzed for T on Earth and Venus it should be no surprise that measuring Venus atm. density by radio occultation (refraction physics) as done in the original papers allows temperature differences to be found same as a ratio of orbital difference. A key item is difference in altitude at which p=1 bar.

    http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/education_and_outreach/encyclopedia/heat_balance.htm

  41. Konrad says:

    Truthseeker says:
    April 27, 2014 at 1:24 am
    ———————————-
    The most important thing to understand here is that there is no such thing as EEH. It is a mathematical fiction used by climastrologists to justify their claim that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.

    Go outside on different days and scan the sky with an IR thermometer. The sky is constantly radiating in differing amounts from differing altitudes. The strongest sources of IR from the sky are clouds, which are constantly changing pattern. There is no scientific justification for the use of an “average EEH” for any calculation regarding the effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere. Anyone doing so could be fairly accused of intent to deceive.

  42. Konrad says:

    I have challenged Dr. Spencer, but given hundreds of replies, it is unlikely he will respond. Dr> Spencer does have the unfortunate habit of avoiding those he cannot be seen to easily defeat.

    My challenge to Dr. Spencer at his site –
    —————————————————-
    Dr. Spencer, you have challenged and stabbed a number of strawmen. Would you care to debate a real sceptic?

    I would only ask that you never falsely accuse me of being associated with “Slayers” or “PSI” and that if countering my claims based on empirical experiment and observation, you do so on an empirical basis only.

    I am prepared to ignore the strawmen, and will challenge on points 1, 4 and 10 as I have conducted empirical experiments that contradict your claims in these points.

    “1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.”
    The correct answer here is that there is a radiative GHE effect on this planet, but no net radiative GHE. DWLWIR provably raises Tmin over land, but empirical experiment shows incident LWIR has no significant effect on liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. That would be 71% of the planet’s surface. Remember the claim of the climastrologists that is the oceans could be retained in the absence of an atmosphere they would be at -18C? That claim is provably wrong.

    “4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE.”
    The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Without these gases our atmosphere would have no effective cooling mechanism. (empirical experiment shows gas conduction back to the surface is ineffective) The amount of energy radiated to space by radiative gases is more that twice the net flux they absorb from surface and direct solar radiation.

    Radiative subsidence plays a critical role in vertical tropospheric circulation. Without these gases circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells would stall and the bulk of the atmosphere would have its temperature driven, not by surface Tav*, but by surface Tmax.

    If you model the speed of vertical tropospheric circulation as constant for increasing radiative gas concentration you will always show increased surface warming. But convective circulation coupled with ocean evaporation is the primary means of surface cooling and its speed must increase for increasing radiative gas concentration.

    If your modelling includes the mathematical fiction of “EEH” of “ERL” then you can falsely model that adding radiative gases will reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability. This is of course ludicrous as the atmosphere would have no radiative cooling ability without radiative gases. The simples empirical observation of IR radiation from the atmosphere shows that clouds are the strongest radiators, their pattern and altitudes are constantly changing. There is no such thing as “EEH” or “ERL”

    *Further, the average surface temperature in the absence of an atmosphere is nowhere near -18C. See point 10.

    “10. THE EARTH ISN’T A BLACK BODY.”
    “Well, duh” is not even close. This is the most critical mistake in the whole of the radiative GHE hypothesis, The error is so huge that it invalidates not just AGW but the radiative GHE hypothesis itself.

    The earth, and most particularly the oceans are not a blackbody, for the oceans, not even close. The oceans are best described as a SW selective coating and trying to calculate an equilibrium temperature based on IR emissivity alone is a critical mistake. Climastrologists have claimed that if the oceans could be retained in the absence of an atmosphere the average 240 w/m2 (albedo adjusted) they might receive could only heat them to -18C. This is totally and utterly wrong.
    Empirical experiment shows that for transparent materials with slow internal speed of non-radiative transport, SW absorption at depth as opposed to SW absorption at the surface makes a huge difference to equilibrium temperature. How huge?

    Climastrologists have calculated -18C for our deep transparent oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. The correct figure is 80C or beyond. That’s a 98C error in the very foundation of the whole radiative GHE hypothesis! Try laughing that one off.

    – Empirical experiment shows differing equilibrium temperatures for differing depth of SW absorption in transparent materials.
    – Fresh water evaporation constrained solar ponds can hit 80C or beyond.
    – Significant diurnal overturning in the oceans is observed, which would not be the case if SWIR and DWLWIR (absorbed at the surface) were actually playing a major role in heating (or slowing the cooling rate) of our oceans.

    Our oceans could hit 80C or beyond without atmospheric cooling regardless of DWLWIR.

    The sun heats our oceans.
    The atmosphere cools our oceans.
    Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
    AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility.

    So why am I challenging you? Because when Lukewarmers embrace “science” that is the same as the IPCC’s pseudo science, you can never win.

    The lukewarmer positions –
    “DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of the oceans”
    “Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
    “Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is warming not cooling”
    – are all disproved by empirical experiment or observation.
    ————————————————————————-

  43. Trick says:

    List of Konrad 4:03am arguments that don’t hold water, aren’t cited, aren’t published; proven wrong on all of these points by previous posts and well cited empirical experiment and observation:

    -The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
    -There is no such thing as “EEH”
    -AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility.

  44. kuhnkat says:

    Trick, first you harangue Stephen for not reading any current work then cite Maxwell. You really have a problem there boy.

  45. kuhnkat says:

    Trick:

    “Stephen 9:11pm: Your conjecture sunlight has kinetic energy is inaccurate because sunlight has no mass though sunlight does have momentum and angular momentum.”

    You also don’t think photons have mass?? Wonder how they contribute momentum, or kinetic energy, to particles when they strike them… Must be more of that action at a distance that physics denies.

  46. Trick says:

    kuhnkat – Very good catch. Problem is Stephen hasn’t yet caught up to even the modern science of Maxwell.

  47. kuhnkat says:

    Trick:

    “List of Konrad 4:03am arguments that don’t hold water, aren’t cited, aren’t published; proven wrong on all of these points by previous posts and well cited empirical experiment and observation:”

    I’m sorry, I forgot Trick. If it isn’t CONSENSUS Science it can’t be right!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  48. Trick says:

    kuhnkat wonders how photons have momentum and no mass. Science is trying to understand also – recent progress in understanding Prof. Higgs was right adds some experimental insight.

  49. Blob says:

    In my opinion there needs to be much more discussion about this “Huffman relationship”. Either it is a very unlikely coincidence or a very important hint.

    [reply] Could be a blog post there, will consider it. Meanwhile, there’s a recent discussion here, including comment from Huffmann
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/please-stop-the-stupid/

  50. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    April 27, 2014 at 4:40 am
    “List of Konrad 4:03am arguments that don’t hold water, aren’t cited, aren’t published; proven wrong on all of these points by previous posts and well cited empirical experiment and observation”
    ———————————————————————
    Trick, you tried every trick in the book on this nearly 900 comment long thread –

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/effective-emission-height/comment-page-2/#comments

    – and proved yourself totally and utterly incapable of countering my empirical experiments with any empirical experiments of your own.

    Just where were your “well cited experiments” that showed incident LWIR slowing the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool? Just where were your “well cited experiments” showing water responding as a blackbody to incident SW? Nowhere that’s where.

    For other readers of this thread, let’s just review the various inane attempts you tried to escape the reality that excepting pressure the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling –

    – You tried claiming S-B equations could determine the surface temp of transparent oceans giving a figure of -18C. Empirical experiment proves this false.

    – You tried claiming that DWLWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. Empirical experiment proves this false.

    – You tried claiming that the oceans would boil off in the absence of an atmosphere. But the Church of Radiative Climatology claimed -18C and the bulk of oceans solid ice, so this is irrelevant.

    – You tried claiming that the climastrology calcs were for the rock under the oceans. But all solar SW is absorbed in the first ~200m of our deep oceans. (an utterly unbelievable claim, but you were so desperate you tried it)

    – You tried claiming that a non-radiative atmosphere could cool the oceans, then cool itself in part by adiabatic cooling. Yes, you did! No weaseling!

    – You tried claiming that a non-radiative atmosphere could cool the oceans and then cool itself by conduction back to some other part of the earth. Were the oceans meant to transfer energy back to the 29% land and then the energy was radiated to space? Or was the ocean meant to conductively cool the atmosphere it had just heated? Ridiculous.

    – You tried running back to claiming that IR radiation alone is enough to cool the oceans to 255K. But empirical experiment proves that false.

    – You gave in on 255K then tried to claim 197K, the Diviner lunar temperature reading, and tried to compare this to the earth in absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR, despite the fact the moon doesn’t have deep SW absorbing oceans.

    – You tried to claim those climastrologist who calculated the surface temp in absence of atmosphere were wrong and their claims should be “laughed off”. You tried instead to claim that a non-radiative atmosphere could cool our oceans to 255K, despite evaporative cooling not being available below 273K.

    – You tried to “cite” the entire planet as a controlled empirical experiment, despite there clearly being no “control”.

    Trick, in your desperation you tried everything and eventually ended up in the position of claiming that our atmosphere was indeed cooling our oceans. In defending the global warming hoax you ended up claiming something no climastrologist had ever claimed before. Climastrologists all claim that given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming.

    All you ended up proving was that faced with the question –
    “given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”
    – that an AGW believer will eventually have to concede the answer is “cooling”.

    And that of course means that AGW is a physical impossibility, as an atmosphere with no radiative cooling ability cannot cool the oceans.

  51. “an atmosphere with no radiative cooling ability cannot cool the oceans.”

    The ocean surface can still cool by radiation to space and evaporation will still result in condensation higher up whereby the condensate can radiate some of the released latent heat to space.

    You don’t actually need any radiative capability in an atmosphere to allow a surface beneath an atmosphere to reach radiative equilibrium with incoming solar energy.

    There will still be conduction and convection and a higher surface temperature than S-B predicts.

    Agreed though that air pressure on the ocean surface is what allows the ocean to retain solar energy for a period of time which contributes to the mass induced greenhouse effect subject to there being atmospheric mass above the ocean in the first place.

    No atmosphere would result in immediate explosive evaporation of any water present in liquid form.

    A lot of what Konrad says is correct but I cannot accept the idea that radiative capability within an atmosphere is essential for the decline in temperature with height. That is a result of uneven surface heating and conversion of KE to PE with height.

    Konrad is in good company though. Even Roy Spencer shares the same misapprehension about conduction and convection.

  52. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    April 27, 2014 at 6:50 am
    ———————————–
    “The ocean surface can still cool by radiation to space and evaporation will still result in condensation higher up whereby the condensate can radiate some of the released latent heat to space.”

    I’m sorry Stephen, you don’t seem to be quite getting it. Try imagining that water vapour and condensate could not radiate from the atmosphere, ie: non-radiative atmosphere. Then the atmosphere has no effective way of losing any energy it removes from the surface. Then our oceans become a giant solar storage pond. Empirical experiment shows they would reach 80C. Climastrologists however claim that without atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR our oceans would be at -18C.

    “No atmosphere would result in immediate explosive evaporation of any water present in liquid form.”

    I’m well aware of this, however climastrologists claimed “surface in absence of atmosphere”.

    “but I cannot accept the idea that radiative capability within an atmosphere is essential for the decline in temperature with height”

    I only claim radiative subsidence is essential for continued vertical circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells. It is vertical circulation across the 800 mb pressure gradient of the troposphere that causes the observed lapse rate, not radiation itself.

    Stephen, you saw what happened at WUWT. I didn’t take part, however I had warned you here beforehand that conductive heating and cooling of the atmosphere at the surface simply cannot drive the vertical tropospheric circulation currently observed. Empirical experiment proves the surface very ineffective at conductively cooling the atmosphere.

  53. Richard111 says:

    Way back in the days when I was learning to fly one of the most irritating events was the early morning temperature inversion. No flying allowed until the SUN had burnt of the low band of mist. If you can understand that you will know Stephen Wilde knows what he is talking about.

  54. Richard111 says:

    Talking about temperature inversions at the surface reminded me that the major claim in the AGW fiasco is that the atmosphere warms the world. I would really like to know how this works. Anyone?

  55. Trick says:

    Richard111 8:33am: “No flying allowed until the SUN had burnt of the low band of mist.”

    Observations do indeed show morning fog often disappears soon after sunrise & VFR pilots are grateful, and as a consequence I often hear it said or see it written as here that the sun “burned off the fog”. Because this explanation seems plausible, its correctness is rarely questioned. But can sunlight really vaporize fog droplets in less than an hour (in Stephen’s parlance use up a fuel)?

    To really learn & not be spoon fed, Richard111 et. al. should be able to answer this question quantitatively on a cutting edge science blog. Konrad should be able to run a test. Stephen should be able consult a text book. State all assumptions in answering & testing; I will help (try at least) looking up some details to get y’all started.

    Stephen especially should be able to answer this quickly using his conjecture that conduction & convection processes use up sunlight fuel in the morning (after switching fuel tanks from using up kinetic energy fuel at night as it is not radiation) – Stephen merely needs compute the rate the sunlight fuel is used up.

    The density of liquid water is about 1000 kgm−3 and about 2.5 × 10^6 J is required to evaporate 1 kg of liquid water. Over the solar spectrum the absorption cross section per unit volume of a cloud droplet is approximately equal to the bulk absorption coefficient of pure water. At Earth’s surface, most of the solar irradiance lies at wavelengths less than about 2.5 μm (this is fuel not radiation according to Stephen’s conjecture).

    HINT: To determine the exact rate at which a cloud droplet absorbs solar radiation (or uses up fuel in Stephen’s conjecture & Konrad’s testing) would require considerable computation. But this isn’t necessary if all that is wanted is to determine if this rate is sufficient to evaporate a droplet in say, an hour or less.

    First Richard111 et. al. (esp. Stephen) should set up the problem as exactly as can be done. Then make approximations, always erring toward overestimating the rate of absorption (using up fuel). If after making such approximations Richard111 or Stephen et. al. obtain an evaporation time much greater than say an hour, more detailed calculations will not change your conclusion.

  56. ren says:

    I wanted to draw attention to the current situation. You can see that despite the increase in the neutron (a decrease of solar activity) a significant part of the of ionizing radiation is absorbed by the ozone over the Arctic Circle (radiation falls on cruise altitudes). Were otherwise in the winter, when the ozone level was low. Thus, cosmic radiation reacts strongly with ozone.

  57. Trick says:

    Konrad 6:27am: “Just where were your “well cited experiments”…”

    In all the modern text books & thermo. grand master papers that hold water; I have cited 1 or 2 texts (section, page & formula) for Konrad & a bunch of papers. Konrad simply claimed they all were wrong. This is Konrad’s entire strategy in a nutshell.

    “…AGW is a physical impossibility…”

    Since Konrad has verifiable experimental proof backed by solid theory, getting published past an easy blog comment is the next step. This Konrad paper once published will earn a cover on Nature, a spot on Time’s list and be as much discussed in the MSM as U. Edinburgh Prof. Peter Higgs’ boson. Text books will undergo major revision in next editions. The paper need only be short as this one demonstrates from a patent clerk:

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

    I will suggest a simple title & opening line for Konrad’s paper: “Is AGW a Physical Impossibility? The results of the previous investigation lead to a very interesting conclusion, which is here to be deduced.”

  58. Trick,

    Fog is rapidly ‘burnt off’ because being comprised of water droplets it fast absorbs solar energy directly as it arrives, warms to the evaporation point and converts to vapour.

    Once the fog is gone the incoming solar energy gains unrestricted access to the surface which then warms and from then on it is conduction from the surface to the air which dominates and in due course destroys the temperature inversion leading to convection and creation of PE from KE.

    There is no need for quantification. The physics is clear and well known.

    Konrad is still getting it wrong and the farrago at WUWT just shows how little knowledge there now is of the adiabatic process which was once widely taught but apparently no longer.

    Konrad said:

    “Empirical experiment proves the surface very ineffective at conductively cooling the atmosphere.”

    Yet it is quite clear that a cooling surface at night can cool the air above so as to lead to a temperature inversion as pointed out by Richard111.

    That means that the cooling surface can cool radiatively faster than air can reconvert PE to KE on descent but nonetheless the surface will be warmer than it would have been in the absence of any reconversion of PE to KE on descent.

    I have considered all the points advanced at WUWT in response to my logical presentation and remain convinced that the adiabatic warming of descending air is a major unacknowledged climate feature which has been omitted from the energy budget simply because it is a non radiative process.

    Strangely, Kiehl & Trenberth include thermals and latent heat as an upward energy transfer but not their corollary of warming on descent as a downward energy transfer.

    Instead they suggest that gravitational PE is capable of radiating downward which is clearly nonsense.

    It is unfortunate that Anthony and others have closed minds on the issue.

  59. Konrad said:

    “Try imagining that water vapour and condensate could not radiate from the atmosphere, ie: non-radiative atmosphere. Then the atmosphere has no effective way of losing any energy it removes from the surface. Then our oceans become a giant solar storage pond. Empirical experiment shows they would reach 80C. Climastrologists however claim that without atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR our oceans would be at -18C.”

    You can’t have an ocean of water without evaporation and condensation beneath any overlying atmosphere whether that atmosphere be radiative or non radiative. Water vapour being a GHG with radiative properties you cannot have oceans of water AND a non radiative atmosphere.

    Evaporation and condensation still occurs even if the bulk atmosphere is completely non radiative (i.e. no non condensing GHGs)

    The oceans can never become a giant solar storage pond as Konrad proposes.

    The AGW proposal is also wrong for the same reason. There can be no absence of atmospheric cooling if evaporation from water oceans and condensation at a higher level are present as they would be even without any non condensing GHGs.

    Nor can there be any net warming effect from DWLWIR because the surface to atmosphere radiative flux is always net zero.

    The only way they get a proposed net warming effect from DWLWIR is by incorrectly assigning 102 Wm2 of DWLWIR from gravitational potential energy (GPE) which is clearly a nonsense.

    Energy tied up as GPE does not register as heat and cannot radiate.

    The reality is that the mass of the bulk atmosphere causes the 33K surface temperature enhancement from conduction and convection and it matters not whether there are condensing or non condensing GHGs.

    All that the GHGs achieve (whether condensing or non condensing) is to alter the global air circulation pattern for zero or near zero effect on average surface temperature.

  60. oldbrew says:

    ‘All that the GHGs achieve (whether condensing or non condensing) is to alter the global air circulation pattern for zero or near zero effect on average surface temperature.’

    So it’s just a question of how efficiently the system can perform the adjustments needed to maintain the lapse rate? That appears to be compatible with Harry Huffmann’s Earth-Venus analysis if I’m reading it right.

  61. “So it’s just a question of how efficiently the system can perform the adjustments needed to maintain the lapse rate? ”

    Yes.

    If the lapse rate determined by mass and gravity fails to be maintained then the atmosphere will be lost.

    The adjustment mechanism takes time so it is normal to observe variations around the mean.

    That adjustment mechanism is non radiative being the rate of convection constantly holding the balance between conduction and radiation.

    Convection works two ways via cooling on uplift and warming on descent but the Kiehl Trenberth diagram only notes the ascent portion and substitutes net warming DWIR for the missing warming on descent portion of convective overturning

    Which is wrong.

  62. Roger Clague says:

    I left this on Spencer’s blog

    Spencer’s 10 sc
    skeptical arguments

    Of these 9 are criticisms of the GHG theory that I agree with.
    One is critical of a rival “compression” theory of the lapse rate. The criticisms are that the “compression” theory

    Is about change of T not measurement of an absolute, real, T
    Does not start its analysis at the surface ( surface heating etc )
    Uses energy budgets wrongly
    Wrongly suggests that the atmosphere is different from buildings, cars and cooking pots
    Does not explain stratosphere temperature
    Does not correctly explain the effect of increasing the mass of the atmosphere

    Is about change of T not measurement of an absolute, real, T

    Yes, its called the lapse rate, the rate of change. It is necessary to know a temperature at a certain height to calculate another temp/height pair. This brings us to

    Does not start its analysis at the surface

    GHG theory starts by calculating the ground/ground temp. and then say it cools I start at the tropopause height/ tropopause temp. and calculate the gravitational enhancement.

    Uses energy budgets wrongly

    “Compression” theory uses the law of conservation of energy to an atmosphere in thermal/gravitational equilibrium. It is GHG theory that uses Kirchoff’s Laws wrongly. It is for a BB. But water is not a BB because of evaporation.

    Wrongly suggests that the atmosphere is different from buildings, cars and cooking pots

    Atmosphere is at a different scale. that is why it has lapse rate.

    Does not explain stratosphere temperature

    Lapse rate only occurs in the troposphere because that is where there is mass. The temperatures measured above the tropopause such as at 1mb are of individual molecules

    Does not correctly explain the effect of increasing the mass of the atmosphere

    Spencer correctly say that according to “compression” theory adding mass would increase the surface temperature. He say according to his theory the surface temp would not change. We know that increased mass, such as on Venus does increase surface temp.

  63. p.g.sharrow says:

    If you have the opportunity. Travel from the hills above into Death Vally or to the Dead Sea and experience the change in conditions as you go under greater atmospheric mass. Only a few hundred feet will make a tremendous difference under 1bar plus compression. pg

  64. Konrad says:

    Richard111 and Stephen,

    Please note that I said that the surface was ineffective at cooling the atmosphere, not that it could not cool it at all.

    You raise the issue of the night inversion layer. That is the very physics I am talking about!!!

    Here again is the “AGW Gravity Gremlin experiment” –

    – When the two insulated columns are moved into a cold room, the gas in one cools slower. When moved back into a warmer room, the gas in one column heats faster.

    The issue is that gas conduction in our atmosphere is far slower than convective transport. Convection stalls at night limiting the ability of the surface to cool the atmosphere. Conductive energy transport depends on temperature differential. Gravity brings cooler air to the surface, minimising temperature differential at night. Gravity brings cooler air to the surface maximising temperature differential during the day.

    The ability of the surface to conductively cool the atmosphere is less that the ability of the surface to conductively heat the atmosphere.

  65. Konrad says:

    p.g.sharrow says:
    April 27, 2014 at 7:32 pm
    ———————————-
    This is entirely correct, land areas below sea level have higher average near surface air temperatures. This clearly has nothing to do with DWLWIR.

    There are two reasons for the higher temperatures, both relating to atmospheric pressure.

    The first is that air-masses descending into these regions experience higher adiabatic compression and therefore heat more on their decent.

    The second reason is that the higher the air pressure, the faster the conductive heating of the air in contact with the surface. I ran empirical experiments on this some time ago during N&Z theory discussion here at talkshop –

  66. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    April 27, 2014 at 4:11 pm
    ———————————–
    Stephen, I was trying to illustrate a point by asking you to imagine that H2O was non-radiative. Coming back with the observation that H2O is a radiative gas serves no purpose.

    Stephen, for just one moment forget all the fuss about atmospheric circulation.

    Climastrologists have clearly claimed that in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR that our oceans would be at -18C, a solid block of ice.

    But empirical experiment shows that without atmospheric cooling our oceans would super heat to 80C or beyond.

    Climastrologists have effectively claimed that excepting pressure, the net effect of our atmosphere over the oceans is warming, not cooling.

    That’s game over for all of AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis right there. There is no need to fuss with atmospheric modelling at all. Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of our atmosphere over the oceans is clearly cooling. Climastrologists are therefore totally and utterly wrong.

  67. Konrad says:

    Trick says:
    April 27, 2014 at 2:34 pm
    ———————————-
    That’s the only trick you’ve got left now? Smear, and sarcasm?

    Perhaps it is you that should be re-writing the texts and submitting ground breaking papers Trick?

    After all you are the one now claiming that the atmosphere cools the oceans, when every other AGW defender claims that regardless of evaporative cooling, without atmospheric DWLWIR the oceans would freeze. Perhaps you should be bringing your AGW fellow travellers up to speed on this new “settled science” 😉

  68. Just found this http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Anders%20%C3%85ngstr%C3%B6m which shows up one area of Dr Spencer’s lack of understanding of measurement. and heat transfer.

  69. This http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/search/label/2nd%20law%20of%20thermodynamics is also worth a look. I made a comment in Feb 2013 in the third post where Prof Johnson has a similar definite of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as I put above on April 26 at 3.51PM. I said in my comment that there is no statistics involved in this postulate of Thermodynamics. It is a fact determined by experience and measurement. How many commentators or even commenters have actual experience and measurement of process heat transfer?

  70. Trick says:

    Stephen 3:48pm: “Fog is rapidly ‘burnt off’ because being comprised of water droplets it fast absorbs solar energy directly as it arrives, warms to the evaporation point and converts to vapour….There is no need for quantification. “

    Stephen as usual doesn’t run the numbers. Can’t run the numbers. Jumps to incorrect conclusions. How “rapidly” Stephen? You will find your imagination is wrong in this case just like so many other times. And besides you wrote above 3:30pm: “not radiation that warms” – so now it IS?

    Unrestricted by quantified physics Stephen lives on the other side of the mirror made famous by Lewis Carroll who was at least a mathematician. Waiting for Stephen’s “rapidly” process to burn the fog off will disappoint many more VFR pilots than need be.

    “I have considered all the points …Strangely, Kiehl & Trenberth include thermals and latent heat as an upward energy transfer but not their corollary of warming on descent as a downward energy transfer.”

    Warming on descent IS indeed included in K&T; not being able to do math hinders Stephen once again as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to Stephen: total backradiation arrow of 324 =

    24 downdrafts (i.e. backconvection/backconduction ) + 78 rain (i.e. backevaporation ) + 67 downward solar absorbed in atm. + 158 backradiation balance atm. gas = 324

    It is unfortunate that Stephen and others have closed minds on the issue.

  71. Trick says:

    Konrad 12:41am: ..it is you that should be re-writing the texts and submitting ground breaking papers Trick?”

    Hardly. The texts that hold water are certainly not novel source material.

  72. Trick’s comments are now beyond a joke in the way he twists meanings.

    Radiation from the sun warms fog droplets directly.

    Gravitational potential energy in atmospheric molecules does not radiate so that extra 102 Wm2 cannot be added to the K & T DWIR figure.

    Instead it must return to the surface as KE adiabatically which is NOT shown in the K & T diagram.

    In my 3.30pm post I said:

    “It is conduction and convection and not radiation that warms the surface above S-B expectations.”

    Trick [MOD SNIP] abbreviate[d] that to:

    “not radiation that warms” .

    [MODERATOR SNIP, as a long standing commenter you know how to contact oldbrew or Tim if you have a serious issue with commenters or think things are getting out of hand –Tim]

    [Trick: maybe avoid shorthand which can be taken the wrong way since I assume no-one here is deliberately twisting meanings.]

    [All: long threads with heated discussion can blow up. If moderation cools things it breaks the whole thing so I don’t want to do that. –Tim]

    [mod note: under discussion]

  73. Konrad said:

    “Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of our atmosphere over the oceans is clearly cooling”

    In a sense, yes, but one should be somewhat clearer.

    That 1 bar pressure causes warming but only to a specific level.

    If anything other than more mass, more gravity or more insolation tries to warm the ocean surface further then the effect of the atmosphere is indeed cooling to offset that separate internal system forcing element.

    But that isn’t limited to the oceans, it applies to the entire system.

    Convection is the mechanism whereby a surface temperature rise is prevented by anything other than more mass, more gravity or more insolation.

    Given 1 bar pressure, if anything other than more mass more gravity or more insolation seeks to raise surface temperature above 288K then the net effect of the atmosphere is cooling so as to keep the surface temperature at 288K.

    It works the other way around too.

    If anything other than more mass, more gravity or more insolation seeks to reduce surface temperature below 288K then the net effect of the atmosphere is warming so as to keep the surface temperature at 288K.

    Convection holds the balance between radiation and conduction so that if either goes out of line the system is stabilised.

    All that GHGs achieve is to favour radiation at the expense of conduction so the convective overturning cycle adjusts to compensate for it.

    In the end it is the Gas Laws expanding the atmosphere and reducing density for a cooling effect or contracting the atmosphere and increasing density for a warming effect.

    Radiative theory omits that process entirely.

  74. The difficulty people have lies in realising that although theoretically a warmer surface is required to expand an atmosphere that very expansion reduces density which in turn reduces conduction so with that fall in conduction the surface can become no warmer.

    And vice versa.

    The more conduction the higher the surface temperature enhancement above S-B so if one reduces conduction by reducing density then the increase above S-B will not be as great.

    It is therefore a matter of swapping less conduction (cooling) for more radiation (warming) or more radiation (warming) for less conduction (cooling) for a zero net effect overall.

    In effect one gets the same rise above S-B (33K) for a lesser amount of conduction because the warming that would have been achieved by the (now missing) portion of conduction is replaced by a more radiative environment at the surface.

    It is the density of the atmosphere that varies so as to control the balance between conduction and radiation and thereby ensure that the same amount of energy goes out as comes in.

    An expanded less dense atmosphere can have the same surface temperature as a contracted more dense atmosphere because the slope of the lapse rate changes to ensure stability.

    That is why the AGW proponents are wrong to simply extrapolate the ‘normal’ lapse rate back to the surface from a changed effective emission height.

    The fact is that the lapse rate slope can, indeed must, change when atmospheric density changes in order to maintain stability.

    Change the effective emission height by introducing more GHGs and one must also change the density of the atmosphere and the lapse rate slope which removes the need for a change in surface temperature from more GHGs

    If there were no conduction at all the energy fluxes would then be entirely radiative with no energy retained at a surface and no lapse rate slope at all (or rather it would be flat against the surface) because there would be no atmosphere doing any conducting.

    If there were no radiation at all then all the energy fluxes would be entirely conductive and energy received from space could never leave and the lapse rate slope would be vertical within an isothermal atmosphere.

    Obviously there is both conduction and radiation in the real world and where a gaseous atmosphere exists then convection balances the two forces by varying the lapse rate slope via changes in density.

    Note that AGW proponents and a few sceptics believe that a wholly non radiative atmosphere above a radiative surface would result in an isothermal atmosphere but that is wrong because conduction from the surface to the lower molecules plus uneven surface heating from below would still cause convective overturning which would still show a temperature decline with height and the surface would still lose energy to space by radiative means.

    The only way to get an isothermal atmosphere would be if there were no radiation from the surface either and no convective overturning able to shift conducted energy up and down.

    In other words a solid material which can absorb by conduction but not radiate out. No such material exists.

    A gas able to conduct and convect and a surface capable of radiating prevents an isothermal atmosphere forming even if the gas is entirely non radiative.

  75. Roger Clague says:

    Trick says:
    April 26, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    Atm. mass does not use up a fuel so does not induce Earth surface warming, your conjecture is unfounded.

    Warming does not need to use fuel. Warming does not need extra power in. Blankets and greenhouses don’t provide extra power. they warm by changing the heat transfers that are happening.
    It is CO2 which according to GHG theory provides extra power by back-radiation and should be used up.

    Compression theory doesn’t create energy. It says gravity distributes the energy from the sun within the atmosphere, more motion, higher T, down and less motion, so cooler, up.

  76. tchannon says:

    [MODERATION
    Tone things down a little please. Snippers have been active.

  77. Trick says:

    Stephen 10:32am: “…the way (Trick) twists meanings.”

    Does not hold water. Stephen has the opportunity to look up the full text, I only state a time stamp and clip a pointer to the specific ref. for brevity.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/critic-of-official-climate-science-tackles-er-sceptics/comment-page-1/#comment-76926

    Shows Stephen 3:30pm: “It is conduction and convection and not radiation that warms the surface above S-B expectations.”

    Stephen 10:32am: “Radiation from the sun warms fog droplets directly.”

    So we have “not radiation that warms” at 3:30pm and “radiation…warms” at 10:32am.

    It is Stephen twists meanings into arguments that don’t hold water. If anything, I have a hard time keeping track of Stephen twists. May stumble a bit. Unraveling Stephen imaginations is tough but I learn a lot from his missteps. Here’s one of many:

    11:44am: “In the end it is the Gas Laws expanding the atmosphere and reducing density for a cooling effect or contracting the atmosphere and increasing density for a warming effect.”

    Does not hold water. If this were the case in reality, Tim’s reports of meteorological data barometric pressure, thermometer readings of T, air density would follow P=density*R*T exactly. Inspection of weather records shows these readings do NOT follow each other even in direction at times. This statement of Stephen’s exists only in his imagination.

    “If anything other than more mass, more gravity or more insolation seeks to reduce surface temperature below 288K then the net effect of the atmosphere is warming so as to keep the surface temperature at 288K.”

    Does not hold water. The system doesn’t have a thermostat set point at 288K, Tmean varies monthly, yearly, over decades and centuries.

    12:31pm: “The fact is that the lapse rate slope can, indeed must, change when atmospheric density changes in order to maintain stability.”

    Doesn’t hold water.
    Approx. lapse: -g/Cp
    Ideal exact lapse: T(p) = To * (P(z)/Po)^R/Cp

    No density term in either, Stephen can’t do math just imagines many, many things that don’t hold water like this one that also does not hold water: ”Change the effective emission height by introducing more GHGs and one must also change the density of the atmosphere and the lapse rate slope which removes the need for a change in surface temperature from more GHGs.” Cue eye roll.

  78. oldbrew says:

    Granted that it’s an average, but the standard atmosphere is used daily by aviation and others.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere

    It’s an accepted standard worldwide.

    The default screen on this calculator, based on the standard atmosphere, shows:

    Altitude: 0
    Temperature: 15 C
    Pressure: 1 atmosphere

    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/

    After about 40000 feet the temperature stabilises around -56 C while pressure keeps reducing.
    You can create your own table to see how it works.

    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/table.htm

  79. Density is a function of mass, gravity and temperature which together affect volume.

    The standard atmosphere is good enough for all practical purposes and does not preclude variations in density in both the horizontal and vertical planes.

    It is an interplay in the form of vertical motion both up and down between the variations in density which change the actual lapse rate slopes as necessary to maintain the ‘ideal exact lapse rate’ specified by mass and gravity.

    In that process, adjustments are made between conduction and radiation to keep the system stable.

    Variations either side of 288K are a result of changes in insolation reaching the surface either from Milankovitch cycles or from solar induced cloudiness changes.

    Weather records show local and regional variability within the system and cannot give the exact global numbers at any given moment.

    There is constant variability about the mean in any event so air density would never follow P=density*R*T exactly.

    Radiation absorbed directly by water droplets suspended in the air doesn’t increase the surface temperature beyond the S-B equation any more than does radiation reaching the surface.

    The S-B figure is the surface temperature for radiation alone wit no other forms of energy transmission affecting the peed of energy throughput.. You need conduction and convection to go higher than S-B.

  80. Eric Barnes says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    April 28, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    IMO, supporting evidence for Stephen is the reduction in extreme high temps.

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/frequency-of-record-setting-temperatures-have-sharply-declined-in-the-us/

    This make sense as well. To get an extreme high, you’d want the air column to contain as little radiative gas as possible to allow for a maximum of solar radiation to reach the surface and warm it via conduction.

    Increasing CO2 will only moderate extremes at the surface layer of the atmosphere..

  81. One of the more significant aspects of the above discussion, which was demonstrated theoretically back in the mid-1960s by Manabe and Strickler, is that the cooling effects of weather short-circuit at least 50% of the greenhouse effect’s warming of the surface. In other words, without surface evaporation and convective heat loss, the Earth’s surface would be about 70 deg. C warmer, rather than 33 deg. C warmer, than simple solar absorption by the surface would suggest.

    Thus, weather cools the surface in the face of radiative heating.

    The above from Dr. Spencer which I agree with 100%.

  82. ren says:

    Radiation and temperature are two different things. The body radiates infrared-specific bands and at a specified temperature (for those absorption bands). If this temperature is lower than ambient temperature will not increase the _ of the ambient temperature. We know this from personal experience. So it is with the main CO2 absorption bands in the range of 14 to 18 microns. A suitable temperature is between -66 to -112 degrees C.

  83. ren says:

    Comparison of absorption of infrared radiation shows you how little CO2 affects the total absorption of this radiation by atmospheric gases.

  84. ren says:

    You can see that for a significant temperature increase can only range between 4 and 5 microns. You can compare it with the range of absorption and the amount of water vapor in the lower troposphere.

  85. Bart says:

    #7 is just plain wrong. The dependence of the rate of change of CO2 on temperatures is undeniable. This relationship identifies the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration as a function of temperature anomaly to within a constant offset. Since the rate of human input has not been constant, but instead has been increasing at an accelerating rate, it cannot be having a significant impact on atmospheric CO2.

    It’s a slam dunk, as we say in the States. But, people are still focusing their attacks on the towers, because they think an attack on the foundation is futile, even as it is crumbling before their very eyes.

  86. oldbrew says:

    If the CO2 chart at the top of the post is still showing a sawtooth pattern (seasonal variation) doesn’t that suggest not much of it is man-made (not seasonal)?

  87. If radiative gases reduce the radiative window to space from the surface by say 5 Wm2 then they simultaneously increase emission to space from the atmosphere by 5 Wm2.

    A completely non radiative atmosphere allows 100 % radiative emission from the surface and a wholly radiative atmosphere emits 100% from within the atmosphere and nothing from the surface.

    All that radiative properties of an atmosphere achieve is to alter the balance of radiation to space between surface emissions and atmospheric emissions.

    The temperature of the system as a whole is unaffected but there are changes in convective overturning in that such overturning has to be faster if there are no radiative gases because more of the energy in the atmosphere has to be returned to the surface before it can be radiated from the surface to space.

    A radiative atmosphere requires less vigorous convective overturning than a non radiative atmosphere.

    At all times the total energy absorbed by surface and atmosphere together equals the total energy emitted by surface and atmosphere together but the proportions change according to the radiative capability of the atmosphere.

    One can see just that in the Kiel Trenberth diagram in which the surface absorbs 168 Wm2 and atmosphere absorbs 67 Wm2 (total 235 Wm2) whereas the atmosphere plus clouds emit 195 Wm2 and the surface emits 40 Wm2 (total 235 Wm2).

    It is the presence of radiative gases that changes the relative proportions between arrival and departure.

    No average surface temperature change occurs in that process but there are regional changes as the global convective overturning cycle adapts as necessary.

    The 30 Wm2 allocated to clouds is the joker in the pack because solar variations can cause cloudiness changes and that is what causes climate variability on the time scales of MWP to LIA to date.

  88. Konrad says:

    Bart says:
    April 28, 2014 at 9:41 pm
    “But, people are still focusing their attacks on the towers, because they think an attack on the foundation is futile, even as it is crumbling before their very eyes.”

    Bart, sadly this is the case. The foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis is built on sand and can easily be destroyed. The basic claims of the climastrologists are as follows –

    1. The average temperature of the planet in absence of an atmosphere is -18C (255K)
    2. Our current average surface temperature with atmosphere is 15C (288K)
    3. The atmosphere must be warming the planet.

    The critical error that negates not just AGW but the idea of a net radiative GHE is in step 1. The surface temperature of the planet without atmosphere would be nowhere near -18C. If our oceans could be retained in the absence of an atmosphere they would not act as a near blackbody as climastrologists claim. They would instead act as a giant solar storage pond with temperatures topping 80C.

    That’s a 98C error for 71% of the planets surface in the very foundation of the whole AGW hoax. It means that the atmosphere must be acting to cool our oceans. And there is only one effective means of cooling our atmosphere. Radiative gases.

    Climastrologists are not just a little bit wrong. They are totally and utterly wrong.

    The most delicious bit is they can never escape their shame. Their “-18C for the “surface” in absence of an atmosphere” claim is locked in. It is recorded from one side of the internet to the other. It is in pal-reviewed papers. It is printed in text books. In the end there can be no escape 😉

  89. Konrad says:

    oldbrew says:
    April 28, 2014 at 2:13 pm
    ———————————
    There is a simple reason the lapse rate stagnates then reverses beyond the tropopause.

    All strong vertical circulation occurs below that level. At the tropopause the atmosphere runs out of H2O. No more radiative subsidence. No more vertical circulation across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere. No more negative lapse rate.

  90. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    April 28, 2014 at 11:44 am
    ———————————
    Stephen,
    again I encourage you to just throw the atmosphere away. All except pressure to retain the oceans.

    Now how hot do the oceans get?

    Climastrologists claimed that in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR the oceans would be a block of ice at -18C.

    That’s game over for AGW right there. There is no need for the complexities of atmospheric modelling.

    You are trying to show how atmospheric pressure can create 33C of warming without radiative gases. You are making the same mistake as the climastrologists. You should not be looking for how the atmosphere warms the “surface” but instead, how it cools the oceans from 80C back to 15C.

  91. Roger Clague says:

    Konrad, can you tell me, in a few words, a short sentence at max, what in your opinion, is the cause of the Greenhouse Effect?

  92. ren says:

    Roger Clague says:
    Konrad, can you tell me, in a few words, a short sentence at max, what in your opinion, is the cause of the Greenhouse Effect?
    Water vapor.

  93. Konrad says:

    Roger Clague says:
    April 29, 2014 at 10:28 am
    ————————————-
    One short sentence?

    There is no NET radiative GHE on our ocean planet.

    The sun heats the oceans.
    The atmosphere cools the oceans.
    Radiative gases cool our our atmosphere.

    Anything further we were not crystal on?

    (sorry to be harsh, but you called it. 😉 )

  94. Konrad said:

    “At the tropopause the atmosphere runs out of H2O.”

    Above the tropopause there is heating from ozone directly absorbing incoming solar radiation. That is what stops further convection, not the fact that at such a height nearly all the H20 has condensed out and fallen to the ground.

    If it were not for the ozone induced lapse rate reversal then adiabatic uplift would have continued without water vapour simply due to density differentials.

    and:

    “You should not be looking for how the atmosphere warms the “surface” but instead, how it cools the oceans from 80C back to 15C.”

    The atmosphere warms both land and ocean surfaces from 235K to 288K simply by virtue of its mass absorbing conductively then adiabatically convecting upward a portion of the incoming energy and then subsequently returning it to the surface in adiabatic descent so that the surface is then ‘holding’ additional energy over and above the background radiative flow of energy in from the sun and out to space.

    If the oceans could be retained beneath a wholly non radiative atmosphere at 1 bar pressure then they would reach radiative equilibrium with energy from the sun at around 235K plus 33K (making 288K or 15C) depending on how close to a blackbody they were.

    Could you remind me how you got the oceans to 80C rather than 15C in the absence of radiative gases ?

    I suspect you have made the same error as Kiehl and Trenberth in relying on additional DWIR when there are GHGs in addition to warming on adiabatic descent which then gives double counting.

    Note that you can’t have that additional DWIR of 102 Wm2 because the energy from which it is supposed to emanate is in the form of gravitational potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate.

  95. ren says:

    Satellite clearly shows that the water and water vapor (no clouds) absorbs most solar energy. Water vapor in the troposphere is capable give back energy at night.

  96. oldbrew says:

    This might be of interest. If anyone is in favour it could be upgraded to a ‘reblog’.

    ‘An alternative metric to assess global warming’
    Posted on April 28, 2014
    by Roger A. Pielke Sr., Richard T. McNider, and John Christy

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/28/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/#more-15404

    Excerpt: ‘the difference in ocean heat content at two different time periods largely accounts for the global average radiative imbalance over that time (within the uncertainty of the ocean heat measurements).’

  97. Subject: ghg effect/convection-evaporation negative feedback they cancel one another to a large extent??? .

    One of the more significant aspects of the above discussion, which was demonstrated theoretically back in the mid-1960s by Manabe and Strickler, is that the cooling effects of weather short-circuit at least 50% of the greenhouse effect’s warming of the surface. In other words, without surface evaporation and convective heat loss, the Earth’s surface would be about 70 deg. C warmer, rather than 33 deg. C warmer, than simple solar absorption by the surface would suggest.

    Is it possible for the following: As the GHG effect increases, the lapse rate increases in response to the GHG effect and reaches some critical value or values which then promotes more convection/surface evaporation which in turn compensates or more then compensates for the GHG effect.

    The GHG effect /convection- evaporation connection produces a constant negative feedback situation? Have you thought about that?.

    What I sent to Dr. Spencer . His reply will follow. This makes perfect sense and explains the situation in a very logical way.

    My only differences are I think it is a big deal that CO2 always has followed the temperature, while Dr. Spencer, doesn’t. In addition I put much more emphasis on these four factors.

    1. Solar Variability– with associated primary and secondary effects.

    2.Earth’s Magnetic Field— which can compound or moderate solar effects.

    3. Milankovitch Cycles —which can work in concert with solar activity or against it.

    4. Beginning state of the climate—- How far away is the climate from glacial conditions if in Inter -glacial or vice versa.

  98. yes, I have mentioned this possibility numerous times (that convective cooling of the surface might cancel out 50-75% of the extra greenhouse warming). So did Lindzen in his 1990 BAMS paper, “Some Coolness Regarding Global Warming”.

    -Roy

    DR. SPENCER’S REPLY ABOVE

    I say below,

    This makes so much sense. Once more observation and data back this up.

  99. Given the extraordinary stability of the system I still suggest that the negative convective response must deal with as near 100% of GHG thermal effects as makes no difference.

    Otherwise one gets a permanent distortion of the actual lapse rate away from the ideal lapse rate set by mass and gravity.

    That way lies the loss of the atmosphere.

    The combined emission of surface and atmosphere can never exceed or fall short of ( for any length of time) the combined absorption of surface and atmosphere.

    Therefore logic dictates that GHGs can only affect the relative proportions of emission or absorption between surface and atmosphere.

    With no GHGs and a fully transparent atmosphere so that the atmosphere doesn’t participate at all any attempt of the surface to get hotter than 288K gives faster convection, which returns upwardly conducted energy to the surface at a rate which ensures that the surface radiates the correct amount of energy out to space leaving the surface at a stable temperature of 288K.

    With GHGs that are 100% radiatively efficient so that the surface doesn’t participate at all any attempt by the surface to get cooler than 288K gives slower convection, which returns upwardly conducted energy to the surface at a rate which ensures that the atmosphere radiates the correct amount of energy out to space leaving the surface at a stable temperature of 288K.

    At all times the ‘correct’ amount of energy is that which is absorbed from the incoming radiative flux by the mass of both atmosphere and surface.

    The Kiehl Trenberth diagram illustrates the variability of absorption and emission between atmosphere and surface.

    If GHGs reduce the size of the radiative window from the surface by 5 Wm2 then they increase radiative emission from the atmosphere by 5 Wm2 for a zero net effect.

  100. Gail Combs says:

    oldbrew says:
    April 29, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    This might be of interest. If anyone is in favour it could be upgraded to a ‘reblog’….
    ….judithcurry(dot)com/2014/04/28/…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If you do, do not forget a reference to Nir Shaviv’s The oceans as a calorimeter

    The paper: http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf

  101. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    April 29, 2014 at 10:01 pm
    “If GHGs reduce the size of the radiative window from the surface by 5 Wm2 then they increase radiative emission from the atmosphere by 5 Wm2 for a zero net effect”
    —————————————————————————————
    Stephen,
    in our current atmosphere, radiative gases are emitting more than twice as much LWIR to space as the net flux of radiation they absorb from surface LWIR and directly intercepted solar radiation combined. Remember the energy emitted as OLR to space from the atmosphere was primarily acquired by surface conduction and the release of latent heat of evaporation.

    This means that increasing radiative gases will increase the LWIR emitted to space from the atmosphere by a greater, not equal, amount than they intercept at low altitude.

    It is unlikely we could detect the cooling from a doubling of CO2. The changes in convective circulation would also be very minor. All that would happen is the average time for air masses to break away from the surface boundary layer after dawn would be advance by a few seconds. This would be undetectable within current variability.

  102. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    April 29, 2014 at 12:51 pm
    “Could you remind me how you got the oceans to 80C rather than 15C in the absence of radiative gases ?”
    ————————————————————
    Stephen,
    Atmospheric pressure plays a role in setting ocean temperature by setting the temperature required for evaporative cooling, but without evaporative cooling ocean temperatures would rise dramatically.

    80C is a conservative figure for the oceans in absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. Climastrologists claim this figure should be -18C.

    The 80C figure has multiple supporting lines of empirical evidence.

    The first is the engineering of solar storage ponds. Here we are not talking of the standard saline gradient ponds but what are known as “freshwater convecting solar ponds”. –

    This type of pond is not favoured, as if built too shallow overnight radiative cooling reduces working temperature. The solution is to build the pond deeper, but this has cost disadvantages over shallower saline ponds. Our oceans however are 4-5 km deep.

    With regard to achievable solar pond temperatures, 80C is a conservative figure. Energy extraction must be controlled to prevent boiling. In transparent materials with a SW absorption layer below the surface I have achieved temperatures of 118.9C.

    To understand the mistake of the climastrologists in treating the oceans as a near blackbody, you only need to be able to answer the following question about the picture above – why don’t the engineers make layer 2 matt black? It would reflect less SW and could have more UV stabilisers etc. Why does black at the base work best?

    You can build a small empirical test for yourself if you doubt the temperatures achievable –

    I will shortly be posting material for a thread on empirical experiments showing how transparent materials such as our oceans act as a “selective coating” rather than black body.

    Further empirical evidence for how our oceans heat is available from the pattern of diurnal overturning in the oceans above the thermocline. Climastrologists incorrectly claim that the sun does not have the power to keep our oceans from freezing. Because they incorrectly used standard S-B calculations on the oceans they need to add DWLWIR* to raise the oceans to 15C. If this were actually the case we would see UV/SW absorbed at depth and SWIR/LWIR absorbed at the surface in almost equal amounts. Diurnal overturning would be very limited. This is not what is observed.

    Stephen, if your climate modelling shows the atmosphere (excepting pressure ) warming our oceans, then you have gotten something wrong. Empirical experiment and observation shows that the oceans would not be at -18C (not sure where you got -38C (235K)) in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. Without atmospheric cooling it’s boiled whale time.

    *Empirical experiment proves that DWLWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of the oceans.

  103. p.g.sharrow says:

    Emm….. If you have no evaporative cooling of the oceans they will get very hot! Duh, yeah, hotter then boiling, oops no boiling! just damn hot. 180F not difficult in the summer sun. How hot can the Earth get without evaporation. Does Venus ring any bells. I kind of like things with evaporation. What I can do without are hypothetical conditions that don’t exist. Come on guys arguments with assumptions of conditions that can’t exist are as valuable as argument on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A small one!. pg

  104. Konrad says:

    p.g.sharrow says:
    April 30, 2014 at 5:06 am
    ———————————–
    There is a very good point to this “hypothetical” argument.

    Remember that claim of the climastrologists that if the oceans could be retained in the absence of an atmosphere they would have a temperature of -18C?

    That is the very foundation of the entire global warming hoax.

    You are correct in saying “If you have no evaporative cooling of the oceans they will get very hot!”.

    But the very foundation of the global warming hoax is that the oceans would be 18 degrees below freezing without evaporative cooling and no DWLWIR. The claim was that radiative gases were raising this temperature to 15C. This is provably false.

    Without evaporative cooling, regardless of DWLWIR, our oceans would heat to 80C or beyond. Therefore the net effect of our atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans. And the only effective cooling mechanism for our atmosphere is radiative gases.

    The point of this hypothetical argument you wish to dismiss is that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming due to human emissions of CO2 is quite simply a physical impossibility.

  105. oldbrew says:

    The discussion seems to have broadened out from the ‘Spencer list’ so I propose to start a new thread for matters relating to the oceans and climate.

    This is it:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/

  106. “Stephen, if your climate modelling shows the atmosphere (excepting pressure ) warming our oceans, then you have gotten something wrong”

    It is the pressure that achieves the warming to 288K (or 15C) so you can’t except it.

    Latent heat of evaporation is released at height by condensation but most of it is conducted to the non radiative bulk atmosphere which then rises even further than it would otherwise have done.

    Any latent heat which is conducted to the non radiative bulk molecules simply becomes gravitational potential energy and is returned to KE in the subsequent descent. Ultimately it comes back to the surface so that (major) portion of latent heat of evaporation does NOT cool the surface once the first convective cycle has completed.

    Once the first convective cycle is over ,convection only cools the surface in so far as sensible energy (which includes latent heat released on condensation) gets passed to radiative molecules but that represents ‘leakage’ from the adiabatic cycle to the diabatic exchange between surface and space.

    Radiative capability within the atmosphere tries to cool the system by radiating more to space but in the process weakens convective overturning for a zero net effect on average surface temperature

    The weaker convective overturning returns less energy to the surface than was taken up from the surface thus offsetting any increase in DWIR from the radiative gases.

    One simply substitutes more emission from the atmosphere for less emission from the surface with balance being maintained at the same globally averaged surface temperature.

    It works in reverse too.

    The surface temperature has to do two jobs, it has to hold enough energy to radiate to space the amount received from space AND it has to maintain the convective overturning to keep the atmosphere suspended off the surface.

    Radiative capability just reapportions the allocation of surface heat to the two jobs.

    So I think both you and the AGW proponents are incorrect in your numbers.

    With or without radiative capability the surface (whether oceans or land) will still be 288K (or 15C) if mass, gravity and insolation stay the same.

  107. Roger Clague says:

    What is the cause of the Greenhouse Effect?

    I say Gravity
    Trick says CO2
    Ren says water vapor
    Konrad says No GHE

    Any other suggestions ?

    [reply] that’s a topic for another post really

  108. oldbrew says:

    From the new thread:

    ‘The thing we’ve all forgotten is the heat storage of the ocean – it’s a thousand times greater than the atmosphere and the surface.’ – James Lovelock

    ‘We present this alternate tool to assess the magnitude of global warming based on assessing the magnitudes of the annual global average radiative imbalance, and the annual global average radiative forcing and feedbacks.’
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/

  109. As regards Roy’s item 6 relating to adiabatic compression of descending air I think the solution can be expressed very simply.

    It is accepted that GHGs both absorb and emit radiation received from the surface and that they then emit that radiation both out to space and down to the ground.

    The thing is that the emission to space reduces the vigour of the convective cycle because a portion of the energy in that cycle is lost to space and not returned to the surface.

    Thus the amount of energy returned to the surface by adiabatic compression is less than the energy flowing upward in adiabatic decompression due to the leakage to space from GHGs.

    It is that reduction in energy getting back to the surface in the convective cycle that offsets any warming effect of the downward radiation from GHGs.

    There are three consequences of GHGs in an otherwise radiatively inert bulk atmosphere:

    i) Radiation to space from within the atmosphere.

    ii) Radiation to the surface from within the atmosphere

    iii) Energy leaking to space from within the adiabatic cycle which would otherwise have been returned to the surface to warm the surface.

    It appears that ii) and iii) cancel out leaving surface temperature unchanged whilst i) simply replaces energy that would otherwise have been emitted from the surface if there had been no GHGs hence a zero net effect on radiative emission to space as well as an unchanged surface temperature.

  110. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    April 30, 2014 at 12:00 pm
    “It is the pressure that achieves the warming to 288K (or 15C) so you can’t except it.”
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    Your still stuck in the same position as AGW believers. You are claiming that the atmosphere is warming the oceans.

    Pressure just sets the maximum temperature the oceans can be driven by the sun before they turn to steam. Evaporative cooling is what stops our oceans ever reaching that temperature. After the atmosphere has cooled the oceans it is radiative gases that in turn cool the atmosphere.

    The role of radiative gases is not neutral Stephen. Radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

  111. “The role of radiative gases is not neutral Stephen. Radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”

    I think it is neutral because the more energy that radiative gases allow to leak out to space from the convective adiabatic cycle the less energy returns to the surface adiabatically relative to the energy that leaves the surface adiabatically.

    That must weaken convective overturning compared to what it would have been without GHGs.

    A weakened adiabatic cycle returning a reduced amount of energy back to the surface has a cooling effect at the surface which exactly offsets any DWIR that emanates from the GHGs so the net effect must be zero.

    Otherwise stability would be lost and the atmosphere would go with it.

    “Pressure just sets the maximum temperature the oceans can be driven by the sun before they turn to steam”

    Steam is water vapour that has condensed to water droplets due to condensation occurring very soon after vaporisation. Best to just refer to vapour.

    Pressure sets the minimum temperature the liquid oceans need to get to before they begin to turn to vapour from the surface AND the maximum they can get to before they boil. Boiling occurs where the entire body of the water is engaged in vaporisation whereas evaporation involves just the surface.

    Pressure sets both the evaporation point and the boiling point which are different temperatures for a body of liquid due to the fact that evaporation from the surface can occur without the lower levels being involved in the vaporisation process.

    With no pressure at all water will vaporise at the temperature of space but after a while its internal energy is expended, it freezes to ice and then sublimates over time by turning directly to vapour from ice without going through the liquid phase.

    That happens due to the boiling point and the evaporation point becoming the same once the internal energy of the liquid phase has been lost in the vaporisation process.

  112. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    May 1, 2014 at 7:31 am
    “I think it is neutral because the more energy that radiative gases allow to leak out to space from the convective adiabatic cycle the less energy returns to the surface adiabatically relative to the energy that leaves the surface adiabatically. That must weaken convective overturning compared to what it would have been without GHGs”
    ——————————————————
    Stephen, as I responded to you over at Dr. Spencers –

    “you keep insisting that strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation can be driven by conductive heating and cooling at disparate surface locations. Where is the supporting empirical evidence of this?

    My gas column experiments have consistently shown two things –

    1. The surface is poor at conductively cooling the atmosphere.

    2. Heating low down and cooling high up results in strong vertical circulation and lower average temperatures. Heating and cooling at disparate surface locations results in stalled circulation and higher average gas temperatures.

    Why do you hate radiative subsidence so much? Radiative subsidence is what disproves AGW. Increased radiative gases cause increased LWIR emission from the upper troposphere, increased radiative subsidence and increased speed of convective circulation, the primary energy transport away from the surface. What’s not to love?

    Stop being so radiation phobic Stephen ;-)”

    You are claiming heating and cooling at disparate surface locations creates stronger vertical circulation than heating at surface and cooling at altitude! Where is your empirical evidence for this extraordinary claim?! All my gas column experiments show the exact opposite.

    I back all my claims with empirical evidence. Where’s yours?

  113. kuhnkat says:

    Trick,

    you think they found the Higgs??

    Just stay calm. I won’t bother you anymore.

  114. kuhnkat says:

    Trick,

    while you are telling us what the specs are for pure water would you please also tell us what the specs for that droplet surrounding soot, sulphur or some other aerosol is??

  115. Konrad said:

    “Why do you hate radiative subsidence so much? Radiative subsidence is what disproves AGW. ”

    I don’t hate it. I just don’t see why one needs it.

    Subsidence and the KE recovered from PE during the subsidence process disproves AGW because it gets KE back to the surface without needing any extra DWIR.

    Why do you term it radiative subsidence when uplift and subsidence would happen even without radiation to space from GHGs due to uneven surface heating and density differences in the horizontal plane ?

    Do you just mean that radiation to space cools the molecules higher up ?

    I agree with that but that is not the main cause of cooling with height. The main cause is conversion of KE to PE.

    The radiative cooling is best treated as leakage from the adiabatic cycle which is thus weakened in the way I described.

    Weakening the adiabatic cycle returns less energy to the surface in the descent phase of the adiabatic cycle than was taken up in the ascent phase. which offsets the surface thermal effect of DWIR from GHGs.

    You are doing what the AGW proponents do which is jumbling up the radiative and non radiative processes.

    Convection is entirely adiabatic and non radiative and so should be treated as a separate internal system energy loop between surface and atmosphere.

    Radiation is entirely diabatic and creates a separate diabatic loop between external source, surface and space.

    It all boils down to this (numbers from the Trenberth diagram):

    i) The surface / atmosphere radiative balance is stable at 222 Wm2

    ii) The surface / atmosphere conductive balance is stable at 102 Wm2 due to the effect of adiabatic convection both up and down.

    iii) Energy absorbed by both surface and atmosphere (235 Wm2) is balanced with energy emitted by both surface and atmosphere (235 Wm2).

    The whole thing works just fine with no radiative imbalance and no need for any ‘extra’ DWIR over and above that 222 Wm2.

  116. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    May 1, 2014 at 10:59 am
    “Why do you term it radiative subsidence when uplift and subsidence would happen even without radiation to space from GHGs due to uneven surface heating and density differences in the horizontal plane ?”
    —————————————————
    Again, you have no empirical evidence to support this claim.

  117. The world in front of you is replete with empirical evidence that an unevenly warmed surface creates parcels of air of different temperatures and densities next to one another.

    High and low pressure cells are an example on the larger scale.

    When that happens the lighter less dense parcel rises above the heavier more dense parcel.

    Radiative cooling higher up is simply not required for the basic adiabatic convective exchange.

    There is a decline in temperature with height in any event due to conversion of KE to PE with height.

    Meteorology is founded on that.

  118. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Konrad, Any argument based on assumptions that can not exist are based on untruths.

    As.to the oceans heating or cooling the atmosphere, Anyone that has lived by the sea can tell you that bodies of water can heat or cool the atmosphere. The reverse is also true.
    Reality just is. Lab experiments are fine, BUT, ambient conditions in the lab can overload any results. When you live outside, you are IN the experiment, the real world, no assumptions of “ideal” conditions. pg

  119. For the record, all I did was query whether Roy and Anthony accepted that conduction and convection lead to a mass induced greenhouse effect.

    That issue seems to cause apoplexy for some reason.

  120. craigm350 says:

    #9 was one I particularly disagreed with Dr Spencer, who has a vested interest in claiming it is so – he can like it or lump it but he is hardly going to shout out that the [adjusted] satellite measurements, his field, area of many measures and will probably be looked back in decades to come* as a well intentioned but ultimately deluded attempt to claim ‘accuracy’ in measurement of something we still lack a fundamental understanding of (seemingly taking the Leif S belief that a small bit of knowledge ~5% is a reason to sing our own praises and shout out how clever we are are when we are just measuring the voltage from a plug socket in a dark room). If anything Dr Spencer’s article is just another example of the belief in the omnipotence of modern science. I see little wonder and only one ‘consensus’ fighting to replace another (whilst raising a toast to the ancient regime) which is how I view AW’s increasing tetchyness and trying to silence the ‘new’ deniers or cyclomaniacs 😉
    ‘Here’s the new boss, same as the old boss’

    Anyway I noted rgbatduke’s comment under the snipped Stephen Wilde one:

    A second nit to pick might be the discussion of global average temperature. The problem isn’t that one cannot define a global average temperature — the problem is that global average temperature is a poor, and enormously variable, metric for energy balance. 
    […]
    The problem is that “the Earth” can heat at constant average temperature within our ability to resolve it. It can cool (as in lower its total internal energy) as average temperature rises the ways we currently try to measure it. Our ability to precisely measure energy flow in and out even at the TOA is still highly limited. And everything is nonlinear and complex to the point where — in my opinion — it is still basically incomputable as a meaningful solution to a well-posed problem in physics. So I agree with you that global average temperature is — something. It is what it is, even though it keeps “changing” as people keep changing the algorithms and data sets used to compute it, especially in the remote past where the errors in measurement and method probably exceed the difference in the current metric and the past estimates. It isn’t irrelevant to discussions of climate, but neither is it the single parameter that it has been turned into supposedly reflecting anthropogenic warming. It is also a quantity that has — in my opinion — countless thumbs on the supposedly objective scales. And then we can discuss the problems with kriging the data, especially kriging with highly sparse lat/long grids mapped into the surface of a sphere with its polar divergence in the spherical-polar Jacobean (one of many reasons I don’t take estimates of temperature in 1890 seriously, even given a very sparse land surface record in parts of the world — the oceans at 70% and whole continents like Antarctica are essentiall unrepresented AT ALL).

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/01/top-ten-skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-1626304

    For all the recent sceptic advances in the debate (won IMO by falsefied ‘projections’ utterly failing) we (some of us anyway) still seem to be arguing on their turf and on their terms about magic unicorns.
    😕

    * hence the need, as TB said over @WUWT before of the need to have guardians of data so we don’t have to unpick the mess in future. Jo Nova humorous piece regarding SL rise covers the problem of adjustments by the data molesters – in a further quandry as the data is so obviously wrong

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/sea-level-rise-has-slowed-it-must-be-time-to-correct-that-data/

  121. Someone at WUWT said:

    “The only significant anthropogenic atmospheric effect happened on the Moon. Apollo doubled the mass of the lunar atmosphere. Six times.”

    Apparently mass doesn’t make any difference, only the radiative capability of the material added 🙂

    If Anthony considers the issue of a mass induced greenhouse effect to be closed then I think he will come to look foolish in due course.

    It is conduction to mass that lies at the heart of the greenhouse effect.

  122. Konrad says:

    p.g.sharrow says:
    May 1, 2014 at 5:38 pm
    ——————————-
    I understand the point you make about the difference between un-physical assumptions and reality.

    However the entirety of all claims about the radiative GHE are based on assuming the earth would have a surface temperature of -18C in the absence of an atmosphere.

    I am well aware our ocean would boil into space without atmospheric pressure.

    All I am doing is showing that if the oceans could be retained in absence of an atmosphere they would heat dramatically, and that the standard S-B equations used by climastrologists provably give the wrong answer.

    You are seem to be claiming that I am making un-physical assumptions. I would argue that I am challenging the un-physical assumptions of climastrologists. The oceans clearly do not respond to solar radiation as a blackbody or anywhere close.

    The foundation claim of the climastrologists is “the surface in absence of atmosphere would have a Tmean of -18C”. I see no problem with challenging the foundation claim of the climastrologists. It is the simplest way to destroy the AGW hoax.

  123. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    May 1, 2014 at 9:13 pm
    For the record, all I did was…..
    —————————————
    ….. step on lukewarmer toes 😉

    Stephen,
    I am watching some of the goings on at WUWT with some interest. The position of Willis, Dr. Brown and Viscount Monckton is changing. Emergent phenomena and non-radiative transports are getting more regularly mentioned by each.

    They seem to be trying for a “CO2 effects too minor to matter” position. They need time to slink away from their previous lukewarmer “1.2 per doubling” position. Pointing out problems with the radiative GHE hypothesis before the great ones “discover” them is not appreciated…

  124. Thanks, Konrad, I agree with that. 🙂