McNider and Christy: We don’t understand systems we can’t model

Posted: March 6, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism, Analysis, data, Natural Variation
Tags: , , ,

It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the ‘consensus’ and said the Earth was round.
By Richard McNider And John Christy Updated Feb. 19, 2014

In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.” But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts?

ChristyMT_GL_102_Models

In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?

Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV “science guy,” say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space. What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans. We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average,

always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate. For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was “one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results.” As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years. When the failure of its predictions become clear, the modeling industry always comes back with new models that soften their previous warming forecasts, claiming, for instance, that an unexpected increase in the human use of aerosols had skewed the results. After these changes, the models tended to agree better with the actual numbers that came in—but the forecasts for future temperatures have continued to be too warm. The modelers insist that they are unlucky because natural temperature variability is masking the real warming. They might be right, but when a batter goes 0 for 10, he’s better off questioning his swing than blaming the umpire. The models mostly miss warming in the deep atmosphere—from the Earth’s surface to 75,000 feet —which is supposed to be one of the real signals of warming caused by carbon dioxide. Here, the consensus ignores the reality of temperature observations of the deep atmosphere collected by satellites and balloons, which have continually shown less than half of the warming shown in the average model forecasts.

The climate-change-consensus community points to such indirect evidence of warming as glaciers melting, coral being bleached, more droughts and stronger storms. Yet observations show that the warming of the deep atmosphere (the fundamental sign of carbon-dioxide-caused climate change, which is supposedly behind these natural phenomena) is not occurring at an alarming rate: Instruments aboard NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association satellites put the Mid-Tropospheric warming rate since late 1978 at about 0.7 degrees Celsius, or 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years. For the same period, the models on average give 2.1 degrees Celsius, or 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years (see graph). The models also fail to get details of the past climate right. For example, most of the observed warming over land in the past century occurred at night. The same models used to predict future warming models showed day and night warming over the last century at nearly the same rates. Past models also missed the dramatic recent warming found in observations in the Arctic. With this information as hindsight, the latest, adjusted set of climate models did manage to show more warming in the Arctic. But the tweaking resulted in too-warm predictions—disproved by real-world evidence—for the rest of the planet compared with earlier models. Shouldn’t modelers be more humble and open to saying that perhaps the Arctic warming is due to something we don’t understand? While none of these inconsistencies refutes the fundamental concern about greenhouse-gasenhanced climate change, it is disturbing that “consensus science” will not acknowledge that such discrepancies are major problems. From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s beginning, that largely self-selected panel of scientists has embraced the notion that consensus on climate change is the necessary path to taking action and reducing man-made carbon emissions.

around the world. The consensus community uses this to push the view that “the science is settled” and hold up skeptics to ridicule, as John Kerry did on Sunday. We are reminded of the dangers of consensus science in the past. For example, in the 18th century, more British sailors died of scurvy than died in battle. In this disease, brought on by a lack of vitamin C, the body loses its ability to manufacture collagen, and gums and other tissues bleed and disintegrate. These deaths were especially tragic because many sea captains and some ships’ doctors knew, based on observations early in the century, that fresh vegetables and citrus cured scurvy. Nonetheless, the British Admiralty’s onshore Sick and Health Board of scientists and physicians (somewhat akin to the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) dismissed this evidence for more than 50 years because it did not fit their consensus theory that putrefaction (or internal decay) caused scurvy, which they felt could be cured by fresh air, exercise and laxatives. “Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors. We should not have a climate-science research program that searches only for ways to confirm prevailing theories, and we should not honor government leaders, such as Secretary Kerry, who attack others for their inconvenient, fact-based views.

Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore.

Comments
  1. wolsten says:

    Hi Rog, a good article but a few bits could do with a proof read, e.g. last para.

  2. AlecM says:

    At the heart of this scandal is the fact that US Atmospheric Scientists have for 50 years been taught a version of radiative physics incompatible with truth.

    In 1964, Goody and Young published ‘Atmospheric Radiation’. In it they derived maths used by Climate Alchemists to predict the average radiating temperature of the Earth to Space, the most basic parameter in the models.

    Unfortunately, possibly coming from Carl Sagan, they mistook what the ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ equation predicts. They believed it to be a real energy flow when it is in reality ‘Potential radiative energy flux in a vacuum to a sink at Absolute Zero’.

    Following another ‘mistake’ by GISS, the models create 40% more energy than reality, mostly ‘going into the oceans’. There is also what can only have been deliberate fraud, to use as a ‘hind-casting’ parameter ~1/3rd more low level cloud albedo than reality. Because cloud cover is 2/3rds, this pretends sunlit oceans are twice as warm above the mean as it is cooler under clouds, yet the mean is correct.

    That, folks, is how they create imaginary ‘positive feedback’: every claim made by Hansen to US Congress in 1988 was faulty modelling. When an NODC scientist warned Congress in 2004 of ocean acidification, he eliminated most past real data to pretend oceans were acidifying fast. This has been sophisticated Science Fraud.

  3. What was the strangest thing of all was that mariners who shipped with barrels of Sauerkraut did not suffer scurvy and did not have to go ashore to get fresh fruit, not always possible or safe.

  4. diogenese2 says:

    Compare and contrast:

    “The data so far has confirmed that our theory is really, really good, which is frustrating because we know it is not! We know it cannot explain a lot of the universe. So instead of trying to test the truth of the theory what we really want to do is to break it. to show where it stops reflecting reality. That is the only way we are going to make progress. ”

    Professor Tara Shears , currently working with the Large Hadron Collider.

    “the science is settled”

    The entire Climate-change-consensus community

  5. diogenese2 says:

    p.s Re: proof reading; ” ENLARGE US Secretary of State John Kerry…..”

    Please, please don’t do this.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Heh, thanks, fixed. I agree, he’s inflated enough already.

  7. ren says:

    “Neutron monitor (NM) data has been widely used in the search for correlations between cosmic rays and atmospheric processes, notably that between galactic cosmic rays and satellite-derived observation of low cloud amount. The usefulness of neutron monitor data in providing information on the actual atmospheric ionisation at cloud heights is therefore an important consideration (e.g. Harrison and Carslaw, 2003). From Fig. 8, it is apparent that the majority of stronger and significant correlations are at the higher (10–20 km) altitudes, i. e. that the NM data are most useful for estimating the ionisation rate between 10 km and 20 km. Below 10 km, the possibility that the correlations obtained between the launch time NM count rate and the in situ count rate occur by chance cannot be discounted. Whilst this may be partially due to the small count rates at the lower levels, or indeed the contribution of surface radioactivity, Bazilevskaya et al. (2008) also show that the correlation between in situ measurements and NM data decreases substantially below 1 km. Hence it is unlikely that short-term variations in atmospheric ionisation are well predicted by NM data, for the typical timescales associated with balloon flights of a few hours. For monthly timescales, a closer agreement is apparent in the lower atmosphere, such as at 700 hPa (e.g. Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2006). Consequently the rapid onset of a Forbush decrease which is apparent in NM data may not provide a good representation of the actual atmospheric short-term ionisation changes at cloud levels. This may, in part, provide an explanation for the differences found in the response of clouds to monthly and Forbush changes (Calogovic et al., 2010).”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614001850
    “The occurrence of coldest region in the lower and middle stratosphere has been investigated using COSMIC/FORMASAT-3 radio occultation measurements. Observations from January 2007 to December 2011, comprising of 2,871,811 numbers of occultations uniformly spread over land and sea, have been used in this study. Using vertical profiles of temperature upto 40 km altitude, zonally averaged at each 5° latitude band between 90°N and 90°S, it is shown that the coldest region in the upper atmosphere occurs during winter in high latitude stratosphere (latitudes >45°) in both the hemispheres with southern hemisphere (temperature less than <−85 °C) cooler than northern hemisphere (temperature ~−75 °C). The spatial extent of the region of low temperature region found between 10 km and 30 km altitude, indicating a 20 km vertical thick layer of cold temperature. In the southern hemisphere, such a region of coldest temperature remains for more than six months (April–October), in the Northern hemispheric polar region (~−75 °C) it is seen mostly during four winter months between October and January. Using NCEP-DOE reanalysis data, we show that cold temperature in the stratospheric region coexists with the jet streams prevalent in those regions. Strong wind jet is surmised to make stratosphere colder. The absence of sunlight in the coldest region is known to cause jet streams. Impact of stratospheric quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) on the sharpness of tropical tropopause (stability) has also been investigated. Observations suggest that during westerly phase of QBO, the stability of the tropopause increases."

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614002351

  8. Some of the reasons why the models are off (OR RUN HOT) are because they neglect or assign wrong relative importance to the following items:

    Geo -Magnetic Field Strength Of The Earth.

    Solar Variability and Associated Secondary Effects. Way under estimated.

    CO2 ‘S Role– far to much importance.

    Initial State Of The Climate- probably wrong or incomplete.

    Lack Of Understanding Of Feedbacks. Especially clouds.

    Aerosols – The models do not address them properly.

    This is why even in hindsight the models can not get it right and why basic atmospheric predictions they made such as the hot spot in the lower troposphere in the tropics and a more zonal atmospheric circulation pattern in response to global warming have not come to pass.

  9. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
    A good read, thanks for posting Rog.

    Not so sure about ancients being flat earthers, they knew much about our geoid but sadly a load of believers undid that knowledge. History does not repeat but it does rhyme…

  10. ren says:

    Variation since 1960 of global sea surface temperature (HadSST3), observed sunspot number (Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC), and Specific atmospheric humidity (g/kg) at 300 mb altitude (Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA)). Base period: 1961-1990. The thin lines in the diagram represent the monthly values, while the thick lines is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Last month shown: February 2015. Last diagram update: 3 March 2015.
    The temperature of solar activity follows.
    http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif?time=1423448402000
    The decrease of humidity in the tropopause is proof of the cooler (and more clouds)?

  11. ren says:

    Sorry.

  12. ren says:

    In 2014 we had a peak sunny and the temperature rose.
    lsvalgaard March 5, 2015 at 9:01 am
    So, you show that despite declining solar activity the temperature has been steadily climbing.

  13. ren says:

    Butterfly diagram:

  14. ren says:

    I believe is a great similarity cycle 24 and 14.

  15. ren says:

    The Solar Dynamo.

  16. ren says:

    Abstract
    The solar impact on the Earth’s climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok’s local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614002685

  17. oldbrew says:

    ren: the 521 year cycle is 18 Inex or as a professor put it ‘the basic period’.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/why-phi-the-inex-eclipse-cycle-fibonacci-and-lucas/

    208 years represents the de Vries cycle.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/ian-wilson-connecting-the-208-year-de-vries-cycle-with-the-earth-moon-system/

    Paper: ‘As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.’

    Oh no – good job they’re not Americans or the political puppetmasters would be on their case😉

  18. DD More says:

    The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.

    But as AJB posted March 6, 2015 at 5:31 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/06/it-would-not-matter-if-trenberth-was-correct-now-includes-january-data/#comment-1876593

    “In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.”

    But you have the wrong relationship of CO2 to temperature.
    Try: δCO2/δt = λT
    i.e. relate the rate of change of CO2 concentration to temperature. Like this.
    http://postimg.org/image/a153d8xan/full/

    So why have year on year levels remained close to the same when output has skyrocketed.

    Might be temperature and ocean effects.

    Salvatore Del Prete says: March 6, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    Must have also missed the note in a Heat Transfer class book – At room temperatures, radiant heat transfer can generally be ignored.

  19. ren says:

    New NASA-funded research now suggests that the heliosphere is actually dominated by two giant jets of material shooting backwards over the north and south poles of the sun, which are confined by the interaction of the sun’s magnetic field with the interstellar magnetic field. These curve around in two—relatively short – tails toward the back. The end result is a heliosphere without that long tail; a heliosphere that looks a lot more like a crescent moon than a comet. What’s more, the two jets are similar to other astrophysical jets seen in space, so studying them locally could open doors to understanding such jets throughout the universe. The research is described in a paper in Astrophysical Journal Letters, which appeared online on Feb. 19, 2015.
    http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/673xvariable_height/public/thumbnails/image/twojets.jpg?itok=sar1D4D8
    http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/two-solar-wind-jets-found-in-the-heliosphere/

  20. oldbrew says:

    ‘carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.’

    Only one problem: gases can’t trap heat.

  21. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: March 6, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    Exactly OB. CO2 may well be one of the heavier gasses in Earth’s atmosphere, but it’s near enough to the average density for it to ‘convect’ with the remainder of the atmosphere! Thus, CO2 radiates to space at altitude. Convection rules, and the low density of water vapour helps to promote convection!

    Best regards, Ray.

  22. markstoval says:

    oldbrew says: “Only one problem: gases can’t trap heat.”

    Indeed. But how can we get the people to realize this fact?

  23. Susan Fraser says:

    Kerry should know that alarmists and flat earthers are brother in arm re global warming thank to this
    often quoted article by Alex Seitz-Wald

    Wednesday, Jun 26, 2013 07:40 AM NZST

    Actually, even the Flat Earth Society believes in climate change

    Yes, such a group exists. It thinks the world is flat — but also getting warmer
    Alex Seitz-Wald

    As it turns out, there is a real Flat Earth Society and its president thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real. In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he “can’t speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change,” he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/flat_earth_society_believes_in_climate_change/

  24. suricat says:

    markstoval says: March 6, 2015 at 11:34 pm

    “(oldbrew says: “Only one problem: gases can’t trap heat.”)

    Indeed. But how can we get the people to realize this fact?”

    Well, unless you want to educate ‘the masses’ on the subject of ‘kinetic theory of gasses’;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory

    there can’t be a democratic resolution Mark.😦

    Then again, we don’t need ‘democracy’ when a ‘general scientific consensus’ will suffice for policy issues.😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  25. markstoval says: March 6, 2015 at 11:34 pm
    oldbrew says: (“Only one problem: gases can’t trap heat.”)
    “Indeed. But how can we get the people to realize this fact?”

    Why bother with most folk that can not realize? The WAR is not on the serfs, but among opposing ELITE. All those that refuse to think!

  26. DD More says: March 6, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    “The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.”

    These are but claims from the Climate Clowns, never facts, Measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased, with absolutely no identifiable cause. As measured, atmospheric CO2 at any concentration can not trap or in any way restrict radiative flux to space.

  27. ren says:

    markstoval mówi:
    6 marca 2015 na 23:34
    oldbrew mówi: “Tylko jeden problem: gazy nie mogą zatrzymują ciepło.”

    Rzeczywiście. Ale jak możemy się ludzie, aby ten fakt?
    Water and steam have a large heat capacity. That’s why we do not have global temperature dropped. Water vapor cools the surface of in the day, but also reduces the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

  28. ren says:

    Table of specific heat capacities at 25 °C (298 K) unless otherwise noted.[citation needed]
    Notable minima and maxima are shown in maroon
    Substance Phase Isobaric
    mass
    heat capacity
    cP
    J·g−1·K−1 Isobaric
    molar
    heat capacity
    CP,m
    J·mol−1·K−1 Isochore
    molar
    heat capacity
    CV,m
    J·mol−1·K−1 Isobaric
    volumetric
    heat capacity
    CP,v
    J·cm−3·K−1 Isochore
    atom-molar
    heat capacity
    in units of R
    CV,am
    atom-mol−1

    Carbon dioxide CO2[23] gas 0.839* 36.94 28.46 1.14 R
    Water at 100 °C (steam) gas 2.080 37.47 28.03 1.12 R
    Water at 25 °C liquid 4.1813 75.327 74.53 4.1796 3.02 R
    Water at 100 °C liquid 4.1813 75.327 74.53 4.2160 3.02 R
    Water at −10 °C (ice)[28] solid 2.11 38.09 1.938 1.53 R

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity

  29. ren says:

    For any given substance, the heat capacity of a body is directly proportional to the amount of substance it contains (measured in terms of mass or moles or volume). Doubling the amount of substance in a body doubles its heat capacity, etc.

  30. AlecM says:

    @ren: there can be no thermalisation of GHG-absorbed surface IR, even if there were any surface IR in the self-absorbed GHG bands to absorb.

    This is the result of quantum exclusion, the Principle of Equipartition of Energy. The energy pseudo-diffuses to thermalise at heterogeneous interfaces.

    Another way of understanding this is that IR absorption cannot increase average kinetic energy so there can be no sensible heat increase of a GHG mixture, unless adsorbed molecules on condensed matter surfaces directly acquire vibrational energy as kinetic energy.

  31. ren says:

    Abstract
    For a long time, it has been known that low-energy continuous gamma radiation is present in open air at the Earth’s surface. In previous investigations it was assumed that this radiation is produced almost exclusively by gamma photons emitted due to the natural radioactivity, which are backscattered by air above ground. We show that significant amount of this radiation (related to energy region 30–300 keV) that peaks at about 90 keV, is produced by cosmic-rays, with the photon flux of about 3000 m−2 s−1. We find that the contribution of this omnipresent low-energy gamma radiation of cosmic-ray origin, including the corresponding low-energy electron flux, to the doses of general population are non-negligible components of overall doses induced by cosmic rays near sea level.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614002892

  32. AlecM says: March 7, 2015 at 10:51 am

    “@ren: there can be no thermalisation of GHG-absorbed surface IR, even if there were any surface IR in the self-absorbed GHG bands to absorb. This is the result of quantum exclusion, the Principle of Equipartition of Energy. The energy pseudo-diffuses to thermalise at heterogeneous interfaces. Another way of understanding this is that IR absorption cannot increase average kinetic energy so there can be no sensible heat increase of a GHG mixture, unless adsorbed molecules on condensed matter surfaces directly acquire vibrational energy as kinetic energy.”

    This is true “only” when such gas has a temperature at or above that required for radiative equilibrium. All gas in the troposphere has temperature above radiative equilibrium. This is why EMR exit flux continues to accumulate all the way to 220 km!

  33. ren says:

    Please notice the same pattern of circulation (snow cover in Europe) in 2014 and 2015.

    Europe-Asia snow cover (white) and sea ice (yellow) 3 March 2014 (left) and 2015 (right). Map source: National Ice Center (NIC).
    You can see more ice around Svalbard.

  34. ren says:

    Strong solar wind (speed) and the polar vortex recedes up from Canada, which will change circulation over Europe.

  35. ren says:

    Sunspot number: 20 – New regions: 0

  36. suricat says:

    ren says: March 7, 2015 at 7:59 am

    “markstoval mówi:
    6 marca 2015 na 23:34
    oldbrew mówi: “Tylko jeden problem: gazy nie mogą zatrzymują ciepło.”

    Rzeczywiście. Ale jak możemy się ludzie, aby ten fakt?”

    English please.

    “Water and steam have a large heat capacity. That’s why we do not have global temperature dropped. Water vapor cools the surface of in the day, but also reduces the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere.”

    “Water and steam” have a ‘heat capacity’ that is ‘poles apart’!

    Please elucidate and describe how “Water vapour cools the surface of in the day, but also reduces the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere.”. This would be its ‘latent’ capacity?

    ren says: March 7, 2015 at 8:20 am, and March 7, 2015 at 8:35 am.

    I don’t see any ‘latent product’ in your descriptions yet ren. Okay. The ‘thermal capacity of ‘water’ is greater than the thermal capacity of both ice and ‘steam’ (‘water vapour’ [WV]). However, these are ‘sensible heat’ values! The major thermal capacity in Earth’s atmosphere is the energy incorporated within the ‘latent energy’ that enables a ‘change of phase’ as the environmental scenario unfolds.

    You’ll be aware that a ‘phase change’ towards ‘gas’ is ‘endothermic’, and that a ‘phase change’ towards ‘solid’ is ‘exothermic’. This NEEDS to be properly addressed!

    Best regards, Ray.

  37. tallbloke says:

    Good to see this thread kicking up interesting comments. Oldbrew and I are pushing forward with the solar-planetary theory up in bonny Scotland where internet access is sparse. Back Thursday.

  38. p.g.sharrow says:

    McNider and Christy: “We don’t understand systems we can’t model”

    Hansen and other Climate Scientists have that same problem all along. You can not create a computer model that works if you don’t know how the system works! I remember back in the 1970s these guys promised that they could only discover the secrets of climate variation if they got lengthy time on government Super Computers of that time, it was far too complex for them to grasp with their brains. The were positive if they could plug in all the temperature data from around the world the computers would tell them how the climate operated. Computers are DUMB, they only give the answers that you tell them how to find. These people found that they had to tweak the algorithms to get the answers that they were sure were there. GIGO The ignorant programing the dumb computers and expecting to discover intelligence! Mike Mann needed “tricks” to get his hockey stick, but the stick came out of the embedded programing. pg

  39. ren says:

    Suricat.
    I am not physicist. I only know that in the air saturated with water vapor temperature decreases more slowly with height. If you are a physicist you can explain.

  40. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: March 9, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    “solar-planetary theory”? Would that be ‘the standard model’, ‘ephemeral’, or something else? Perhaps we’ll find out on Thursday.🙂

    BTW, if it’s a ‘standard model’, please consider that the ‘planets’ coalesced with the ‘same’ time-line as Sol. Thus, planets were identifiable entities before Sol ‘flamed’.

    Enjoy the Lochs (etc.).😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  41. suricat says:

    p.g.sharrow says: March 9, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    I concur, but “embedded programing” I see as ‘parametrisations’.😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  42. p.g.sharrow says:

    @suricat; Ray you are correct. For several years I have read and commented here but, nearly everyone has no real grasp on how the physics of gasses operates. Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon are the real Greenhouse gasses that Prevent heat flow through conduction, they are INSULATORS and prevent heat/energy flow to space. Carbon dioxide, and water are wonderful to have in a greenhouse for the plants but are conductors of heat/energy.
    Water is actually the refrigerant that cools the this planets surface and quickly moves the heat/energy up to the point where radiation becomes the main means of heat/energy movement to space. This Is the tropopause, about 1/10 bar atmospheric density. It appears to me that every atmosphere that is dense enough has a tropopause, even the sun. This is the point where conduction gives way to radiation as the main means of heat/energy transfer.
    One of the first things that I mastered was commercial refrigeration, even Absorption systems where heat is applied to make cold. I also learned how to create active and passive solar heating systems as well as the insulation quality needed to save that energy, even greenhouses.
    It is nearly impossible to make progress in this discussion as long as the terms are wrong in usage and explanation. pg

  43. suricat says:

    p.g.sharrow says:March 10, 2015 at 4:14 am

    I concur, the ‘non-radiating gasses’ provide the ‘glass’ of the ‘greenhouse’! Why would anyone consider that CO2 could be a ‘greenhouse gas’ when its ‘radiating spectra’ fall within the IR spectra of Earth’s ‘escaping photons’ to ‘space’? Duh!

    I, again, find myself in concurrence with your objectivity pg.

    CO2 is used as an energy transport medium in many nuclear reactor plants. However, its use is primarily due to the ‘energy transport properties’ (specific heat) of CO2 and its ability to accept and release energy easily, but this incorporation also includes the scenario/problem with ‘oxidation’ (the ‘O2’ component) to material contact with components within the plant!

    If N2 was used the plant life would be extended, but N2 both doesn’t ‘move’ (specific heat) as much energy, or absorb and emit energy at an acceptable rate. Thus, plant redundancy is accelerated as an acceptable consequence of the use of CO2 as a ‘coolant/energy transfer medium’. I’m not actually qualified to make that statement, but my understanding of engineering leads me towards this finding.

    “Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon are the real Greenhouse gasses that Prevent heat flow through conduction, they are INSULATORS and prevent heat/energy flow to space.”

    I have a few small issues with this statement p.g..

    The gasses named both conduct and convect quite well. They just don’t ‘radiate’ well at the ‘prescribed’ ‘energy level’. Much of the ‘conduction’ process involves a microscopic ‘radiative resonance’ between the two ‘mediums/media’. The concept of an ‘insulator’ implies that a compound resists energy transport within its own medium and doesn’t apply to energy transmission between different compounds.

    RSVP.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  44. “Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon are the real Greenhouse gasses that Prevent heat flow through conduction, they are INSULATORS and prevent heat/energy flow to space.”

    I have a few small issues with this statement p.g..

    The gasses named both conduct and convect quite well. They just don’t ‘radiate’ well at the ‘prescribed’ ‘energy level’. Much of the ‘conduction’ process involves a microscopic ‘radiative resonance’ between the two ‘mediums/media’. The concept of an ‘insulator’ implies that a compound resists energy transport within its own medium and doesn’t apply to energy transmission between different compounds.

    RSVP.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    I agree, “Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon” are much better conductors, convectors than vacuum. and assist in getting sensible heat to an altitude where remaining WV can radiate to space, however they are still insignificant compared to latent heat truly powering the continuous at altitude EMR exitance to space. 🙂

  45. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: March 12, 2015 at 5:18 am

    I appreciate your concurrence Will, but “p.g.sharrow says: March 10, 2015 at 4:14 am” indicates that these gasses are ‘radiative’ ‘insulators’. IMHO this is correct. Please don’t confuse this with ‘insulators’ for ‘conduction’ and allow a reactive response to my post.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.