EPA to launch Red Team/Blue Team program to evaluate climate science 

Posted: July 1, 2017 by oldbrew in climate, Politics
Tags:


Interesting times ahead for US climate science, as the GWPF reports. It would be great to see Scott Pruitt include Ned Nikolov in this initiative, since his and Karl’s theory is about the only properly quantified alternative to the unproven radiative greenhouse hypothesis. Their theory successfully predicts surface temperatures across a range of planetary bodies, whereas the mainstream theory fails when it is applied to any other planet or moon apart from earth.

U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is leading a formal initiative to challenge mainstream climate science using a “back-and-forth critique” by government-recruited experts, according to a senior administration official.

The program will use “red team, blue team” exercises to conduct an “at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science,” the official said, referring to a concept developed by the military to identify vulnerabilities in field operations.

“The administrator believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals … provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science,” the source said.

“We are in fact very excited about this initiative,” the official added. “Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing.”

The disclosure follows the administration’s suggestions over several days that it supports reviewing climate science outside the normal peer-review process used by scientists. This is the first time agency officials acknowledged that Pruitt has begun that process. The source said Energy Secretary Rick Perry also favors the review.

Executives in the coal industry interpret the move as a step toward challenging the endangerment finding, the agency’s legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and other sources. Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., said Pruitt assured him yesterday that he plans to begin reviewing the endangerment finding within months.

“We talked about that, and they’re going to start addressing it later this year,” Murray said in an interview. “They’re going to start getting a lot of scientific people in to give both sides of the issue.”

Full report: EPA To Launch Red Team/Blue Team Program To Evaluate Climate Science | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Comments
  1. Since the Shell video making the issues over the continued use of Fossil Fuels 25 years have passed during which time there has been ongoing debate. During which time the issues of proof of global warming continue to mount up.

    At some point it will be too late and the warming will be out of any chance of control or mitigation.

    At this stage, moving to clean energy has a cost and creates more jobs than there are Fossil Fuel jobs.

    It is now beyond doubt that burning hydrocarbons is poisoning the air especially heavily in cities
    which poses a severe health risk for people living there especially children. Cost of RE vs Health Cost and the possible long term effects on children.

    Sorry, I think that Pruit wants to play his games that he has played for many years past and that will be for the US to sort out, The Rest of the world will ignore him and carry on. Whilst he is playing games protecting US jobs in Coal which will lose out to gas anyway, China will plough on take the lead and jobs from RE globally.

    Its is as bad as Brexit, How to shoot your country in the foot and put a hole in the bottom of the boat at the same time.

  2. oldbrew says:

    To have ‘proof of global warming’ there has to be the level of warming predicted by those who claim man is changing the climate. The trouble is the climate models predict warming that is not observed in reality. This is failure, not proof.

    ‘It is now beyond doubt that burning hydrocarbons is poisoning the air especially heavily in cities’

    To some extent and in some locations – yes, but that’s not the issue when discussing so-called ‘global’ warming. ‘Poisoning the air’ is nothing to do with carbon dioxide, which is essential to plant growth.

  3. The above first comment, smugly alarmist and dismissive of “skeptics” and stronger critics like myself, readily shows the deep and entrenched incompetence concerning the “global climate”, first and foremost among climate scientists themselves.

    I have for the past 6 and 1/2 years warned that, to address the problem of general incompetence in climate science, the entire field needs to be taken away from climate scientists and given to competent scientists in other fields (physics, basically) to rethink. This new initiative, by the “new” EPA, does not sound like it will do that, and I have strong doubts that it will produce the needed corrections to the theory of global climate that my own small but seminal contributions have revealed.

  4. …Nor is the “Unified Theory of Climate” of Ned Nikolov worth your, or anyone’s, time. (Which begs the question, “Who chooses the ‘experts’?”)

  5. tom0mason says:

    well they could do a quick and dirty look to temperatures via Google —

    Google “Record high temperature” … …And got about 7,910,000 results (0.61 seconds).

    Google “Record low temperature” … …And got about 148,000,000 results (1.15 seconds)

    Even Google cannot “hide the decline”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    And also note —
    At least 30 states had their lowest recorded temperatures on or after 1937. This means there have been more record lows since 1937 then there have been record highs.

    Also, more than half of all U.S. states had their highest recorded temperatures prior to 1937.

    So where’s the global warming?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Info from https://www.iceagenow.info/

  6. Richard111 says:

    Okay. I will follow the debate with interest. Whichever side comes the the conclusion that radiative gases in the atmosphere CANNOT trap heat will get my full support.

  7. oldbrew says:

    People should weigh Harry Huffman’s one line dismissal of Ned and Karl’s theory against their published work and decide for themselves who the experts are.

  8. Brett Keane says:

    @harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says:
    July 1, 2017 at 4:56 pm: ” This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth — the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely. This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus’s clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface. (It also indicates that the Earth atmosphere is substantially warmed the same way, during daylight hours, by direct solar infrared irradiation, and that the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below.) This denies any possibility of a “greenhouse effect” on Venus (or on Earth), much less a “runaway” one. This has already been pointed out recently by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who have written succinctly, “…since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses [sic] is not obeyed.” Yet they are ridiculed by climate scientists, who thus behave like spoiled children who refuse to be chastised by their parents”

    Yes, you were up there as we learnt the truth, and thankyou. Another competent Physicist, Maxwell, saw it some 140 ya in ‘Theory of Heat”, (h/t to Hockeyschtick), and you were among several who posted here years ago as we ‘broke the dam’. Thankyou again. I now have a part of my directory named ‘Unified and Adiabatic Theory, right next to ‘Killers of AGW’ Perhaps you might wish to engage in the comments, with Ned et al….. Anyway, your time may have come, in the Trump era.

  9. Brett Keane says:

    Oops, I should note that the long block quote was from Harry Huffman’s ‘Venus, no greenhouse effect’, a brilliant piece of basic physics that we all learnt with the gas laws… then more or less forgot, to our huge cost. Good one, Harry.

  10. gallopingcamel says:

    @harrydhuffman
    July 1, 2017 at 4:56 pm ha
    “……general incompetence in climate science, the entire field needs to be taken away from climate scientists and given to competent scientists in other fields (physics, basically) to rethink.”

    As you say the new EPA needs stronger medicine than has been announced so far. The real problem is that the government made absurdly large sums of money available for “Climate Science”. The result was tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers that contain little science in the generally accepted meaning of the word.

    Something similar has happened in public education where no matter how many research studies are done nothing useful emerges. While there are many research topics relating to K-12 education here are some interesting statistics on one of them.

    K-12 READING INSTRUCTION IN THE USA
    The National Reading Panel (NRP) carried out a comprehensive review of reading research that amounted to 115,000 papers written between 1966 and 2000. A screening was carried out to select only studies that met criteria “….normally used in medical and behavioral research…” At the end of the screening, only 428 studies met the panel’s high standards, and in September 2000 the findings were presented to the US Congress.

    Thus the panel found that only 0.37% of the studies met generally accepted standards for scientific research.

    The 14-member reading panel was chaired by Donald N. Langenberg, chancellor of the University System of Maryland. Karin Chenoweth (Washington Post) asked him why he, an experimental physicist by training, was chosen. One of the reasons, he said, was, “I know what good research looks like.”

    That answer is the key to winnowing the chaff of “Climate Science” with the aim of extracting the few grains of real science buried within it. Thus I would contend that there is no need to spend another taxpayer dollar on new research studies until we have extracted the few grains of gold buried in the heap of excrement called “Climate Science”.

  11. gallopingcamel says:

    @RichardIII,
    “Okay. I will follow the debate with interest. Whichever side comes the the conclusion that radiative gases in the atmosphere CANNOT trap heat will get my full support.”

    Sorry to disappoint you but all radiative gases in the atmosphere trap heat. A more interesting question is what do those gases do with the excess energy absorb?

    In the stratosphere where the pressure is low, excited molecules often have time to emit a photon before they lose the excess energy through collision with other molecules and more than 50% of the emitted photons are lost into space. Consequently temperature rises with altitude in the stratosphere (except on Venus).

    In the troposphere things are totally different as radiative gases highly effective at absorbing long wave (IR) radiation from the surface thanks to collision broadening while very few excited molecules have time to radiate photons owing to collisions with other molecules. Thus temperature falls with altitude in the troposphere.

    The tropopause is the transition region and in general it can be found at a total pressure of ~0.2 bar. This is a qualitative (hand waving) explanation but a detailed mathematical model is available here:
    http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

    Robinson & Catling have made their computer code available to the public (as real scientists should) so you can check it out for yourself if you don’t believe me (and you should not!).
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

    I am a sucker for scientific theories that explain what is observed. The theory that rising CO2 means higher temperatures does not explain what is observed so it is a false hypothesis. See Richard Feynman, Karl Popper and others.

  12. Brett Keane says:

    Yes, and I should have also noted that, albedoes notwithstanding, it seems as R+C wrote, c.0.1bar is enough. I does occur to me, that we may be referring to ‘one optical depth’, and that might be for the two-way journey, down and up again?

  13. Brett Keane says:

    Aargh – It does

  14. About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was the Little Ice Age. When Oceans are warm, Polar Oceans thaw, snowfall increases and rebuilds ice on Greenland, Antarctic and Mountain Glaciers. Ice builds, spreads and makes earth cold again. Snowfall decreases and the Sun removes ice every year until it gets warm again. It is warm again now because it is supposed to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it. CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water. The alarmists scare us so they can tax and control us.

    Herman A. (Alex) Pope
    Pope’s Climate Theory
    http://popesclimatetheory.com/

  15. Konrad says:

    Red team vs. Blue team sounds like a good idea, but only if it involves empirical experiment not just blackboard scribbling and debate.

    A Blue team (radiative gases cause atmospheric cooling and thereby surface cooling) should be established and funded to 10% of all expenditure on CO2= doom pseudo-science over the last three decades. No one who has ever endorsed the AGW conjecture and no one who has worked the majority of their career for government should be considered suitable for inclusion in the Blue team. Blue team should be assembled from scientists and engineers from private industry.

    Blue team should not be focused on alternate theories for warming observed since the end of the Little Ice age, but rather empirically testing the extraordinary claims that are the foundation of the AGW conjecture. Ie: Blue team should be checking if the null-hypothesis still stands.

    Blue team should be funded to run empirical experiments to check the extraordinary foundation physics claims of the climastrologists:

    Claim 1 – That the surface materials of this planet could only be heated to an average temperature of -18C (255K) by the sun alone in the absence of radiative gases.

    Claim 2 – That surface incident LWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool.

    Claim 3 – That all photons have the same heating effect on liquid water regardless of frequency.

    Claim 4 – That altering the radiative gas concentration in the atmosphere will have no effect on radiative subsidence and thereby the speed of vertical tropospheric circulation in the atmosphere.

    Claim 5 – That LWIR in the 15 micron band being emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily due to absorption and re-emission of 15 micron LWIR emitted from the surface materials of this planet.

    Claim 6 – That hemispherical emissivity for LWIR from liquid water is over 0.9.

    Billions have been wasted on Red team so they could push their propaganda without a shred of empirical evidence to support what they claim is the “basic physics” of their “settled science”. It’s time for a Blue team to empirically check Red team’s extraordinary physics claims.

  16. Richard111 says:

    @gallopingcamel

    I read you. Please explain how any radiative MOLECULE traps heat. Also how does said molecule absorb energy when it has been warmed by conduction with adjacent air molecules. I expect you to pay close attention to PEAK temperature and PEAK radiation as explained in radiation science.

    (“” In the troposphere things are totally different as radiative gases highly effective at absorbing long wave (IR) radiation from the surface thanks to collision broadening while very few excited molecules have time to radiate photons owing to collisions with other molecules. Thus temperature falls with altitude in the troposphere. “”)

    So collision broadening by conduction increases radiative absorption? C’mon, collision broadening by conductive heating widens the RADIATIVE band because the molecule is warmer. Any molecule CANNOT absorb photons that are below the peak temperature of that molecule.

    Only the sun provides photons in energy bands above surface radiation levels. Since half that radiation absorbed from the sun is returned to space this again is a cooling effect

  17. ren says:

    I am afraid that the fall of ozone can cause the increase of ultraviolet radiation on the surface of the Earth. In high pressure areas it can cause a sharp increase in temperature.
    “The emission core of the Mg II doublet (280 nm) exhibits the largest natural solar irradiance variability above 240 nm. It is frequently used as a proxy for spectral solar irradiance variability from the UV to EUV associated with the 11-yr solar cycle (22-yr magnetic cycle) and solar rotation (27d).”


  18. ren says:

    The jet stream pushes direction in Spain.
    http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/eumet/neatl/h5-loop-wv.html

  19. ren says:

    At what height creates a jetstream and what determines its speed?


  20. ren says:

    Cycle 24 progress (July 1, 2017).

  21. A C Osborn says:

    The Hydrogen Answer (@thehydrogenans) says: July 1, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    “During which time the issues of proof of global warming continue to mount up.”

    You have made the statement, now back it up with provable FACTS or don’t bother posting again.

    You also said
    “It is now beyond doubt that burning hydrocarbons is poisoning the air especially heavily in cities
    which poses a severe health risk for people living there especially children.”

    I suggest that you look at the actual values of polution in the UK in comparison to when I was a Child in the 1950s & 60s.

    You do not know what you are talking about, you are obviously brainwashed by either schools, universities or the media.

  22. @A C Osborn,
    “I suggest that you look at the actual values of polution in the UK in comparison to when I was a Child in the 1950s & 60s.”

    How true! I was living in London in the fifties and remember a greenish smog that followed me indoors on more than one occasion. Probably nothing like that today except in Beijing!

    I wore a school uniform with a detachable white collar which was changed every day because a black ring would form around the inside. Owing to shortages of detergents our shirts were changed once per week.

    I suspect our moral superior (The Hydrogen Answer) is a young person who has been mis-educated (brainwashed?) by the leftists who currently control public education. Support Donald Trump’s crusade to return the control of education to the local community. Let every K-12 school have its own board and curb the federal Department of Education if it can’t be completely shut down.

  23. @RichardIII,
    There is nothing controversial about the effects of collision broadening. If we are having a “Failure to agree” it is because I did a poor job of explaining how things work. Forget my lousy explanation and look at the Robinson & Catling model.
    http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

    The above NatGeo letter contains a 32 page explanation of their model which is based on “pressure-dependent infrared transparency”.

    If you don’t feel like wading through all that mathematical stuff please take a look at a Cliff’s Notes explanation of collision broadening:
    http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/QuantumRelativity/CollisionalBroadening/CollisionalBroadening.html

    I started building lasers in 1970 and have been rubbing shoulders with spectroscopists ever since so please forgive me for assuming the physics is widely accepted. I will try to be more precise in future.

  24. oldbrew says:

    Apologies to Konrad. I have no idea why his 5.24am comment got spammed. now rescued and well worth a read

  25. michael hart says:

    Thanks for that first link, gallopingcamel. Interesting reading.

  26. https://www.iceagenow.info/sun-might-change-climate/

    Global cooling began this year and should continue going forward putting an end to the AGW fraud.

    Solar parameters finally reaching the criteria which should result in lower global temperatures.

    Solar criteria is now moving to the values I had said would be significant enough to cause global cooling, following 10+ years of sub – solar activity(2005-present) in general. Duration is now needed for my low average value solar parameters. I am of the opinion that if solar conditions are extreme enough it could move the terrestrial items which govern the climate to threshold values to one degree or another.

    This is perhaps part of the reason why abrupt climate change has occurred in the past.

    TERRESTRIAL ITEMS

    global cloud cover

    global snow cover/sea ice cover

    volcanic activity major

    sea surface temperatures

    atmospheric circulation

    LOW AVERAGE VALUE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED TO CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING

    SOLAR FLUX – SUB 90 – IS IN PLACE

    SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KM/SEC – GETTING TOWARD THIS

    COSMIC RAY COUNTS – 6500 UNITS + – IS IN PLACE

    AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER – COMING DOWN OF LATE

    EUV/UV LIGHT- EUV 100 UNITS OR LOWER – IS IN PLACE- UV LIGHT DOWN

    IMF 4.2 NT – NOT REACHED YET ON A REGULAR BASIS.

    SOLAR IRRADAINCE OFF .15% not reached yet.

    All given solar effects enhanced by a weakening geo magnetic field.

  27. @Salvatore Del Prete’

    “Global cooling began this year and should continue going forward putting an end to the AGW fraud.”

    Don’t get your hopes up. No matter what happens, you and your naughty SUV will get the blame.

    CAGW has nothing to do with science or reality……….the purpose is to control you and to rob you.

  28. Richard111 says:

    @gallopingcamel

    No problem. I am self taught via the net on this subject and have become paranoid because no one will explain in detail how radiative gases in the atmosphere absorb LWIR from the surface when the molecules are at the local altitude temperature.

    [IMG]http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RichardDH/AGW/emitt.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

    This graph shows CO2 and H2O emission characteristics when heated to 1500K !!! Much higher than normal atmospheric temperature but clearly shows line broadening.

    This is an emission curve. The molecules CANNOT absorb photons over the indicated bands. An in band photon will only be absorbed if an identical photon has just been emitted. No change in energy level of the molecule.

  29. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Excellent. About time. Good move for “science”.

  30. Richard111 says:

    Ooops…. apologies. Looks like a link to photo bucket I posted is not behaving as expected.

  31. Ned Nikolov says:

    I am in a process of contacting EPA to inform them about our new findings regarding the physical nature of the so-called “Greenhouse effect”.

    It is important to realize that our empirical results spanning the breadth of the Solar System reveal a fundamentally different thermodynamic mechanism for atmospheric warming of the surface compared to the current IR radiative concept, which is physically incorrect by confusing cause with effects. The new mechanism (driven by total atmospheric pressure) excludes any effect of atmospheric composition on global temperature. In other words, planetary climates are independent of atmospheric constituents. And this is a new paradigm for science!

  32. oldbrew says:

    @ Ned N

    Good luck 🙂
    – – –
    O/T…new book:
    The Galileo of Palomar: essays in memory of Halton Arp
    Paperback – 18 Apr 2017
    http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/halton-arp.htm

  33. @Ned,
    We need you on Pruitt’s “Climate Science Panel” when he gets around to setting one up.

  34. whereas the mainstream theory fails when it is applied to any other planet or moon apart from earth.

    Say what? The mainstream theory fails when it is applied to earth!

  35. Ned Nikolov says:

    @harrydhuffman says on July 1, 2017 at 4:56 pm”
    …Nor is the “Unified Theory of Climate” of Ned Nikolov worth your, or anyone’s, time. (Which begs the question, “Who chooses the ‘experts’?”)

    Harry, I’ve been trying follow your line of reasoning, but without success, simply because it contradicts observations and common logic. If you think that you’ve got some concept about the atmospheric thermal effect (a.k.a. the ‘greenhouse effect’) that makes more physical sense and is better supported by data than ours, please write a paper and try to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. This is how the science works … Ranting on blogs does not advance understanding, and we all are here presumably to improve our understanding about the physics of climate. Throwing uninformed & unfounded opinions online only hurts the reputation of their author …

  36. Paul Vaughan says:

    No one gives a sh*t about more debate.

    The red vs. blue concept is epicly [and in this case EPAcly] silly.

    We ALREADY know from OBSERVATION OF 10 YEARS OF APPLICATION that in this context it does NOT work. It FALSELY presumes competent agents exist. THAT’S FATAL. It’s NOT like the military applications where a supply of competent agents EXISTS.

    Bad optics: They’re setting up (another) silly drama where 2 incompetent groups fight each other. Blue chickens on one side of the pen, red on the other. Years of money wasted on squawking. It doesn’t even qualify as bad entertainment.

    The US appears possessed by a mad drive to consume itself with political infighting. It’s going to take superior — probably divine — leadership to cure American exhaustion from infighting.

    Meanwhile Brother Putin looks cheerfully harmonized with nature:

    “Don’t worry, be happy!” Putin quipped […] Putin lamented that it was still so chilly and rainy in Russia, joking that future responsibility for the impacts of global warming could be pinned on Trump. “Now we can blame it all on him and American imperialism,” Putin said, laughing. “It’s all their fault!”http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/putin-don-t-worry-be-happy-as-trump-ditches-climate-deal-1.3441786

    It’s such a contrast.

    American friends, a simple reminder:
    In God we trust!

  37. oldbrew says:

    To evaluate climate science there needs to be some climate science to evaluate.

    Assuming ‘evaluate’ means ‘compare to reality’ it shouldn’t take long 😉

  38. I hope one of the first things done is to figure out what the temperature actually IS. Over much of the globe alarmist just make up a number. Sometimes they just use a single site to represent vast areas.
    The US National Weather Service had data by the ton but the modern Left decided it needed changing. The Central England records covered over 300 years but were not seen as useful to the Climate Change crowd. Right or wrong, all predictions are based on data. Give us truly valid data and we will figure things out.

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    Truth isn’t a function of culturally imperialistic notions of science and publication.

    “write a paper and try to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. This is how the science works”

    That meme’s dead (dagger through the heart) because it pretends common sense doesn’t take precedence. It’s exactly backwards from the sharpest conservative thinking.

    Quick review of bureaucrats’ preferred tactics:
    1. red tape
    2. delay

    Suggestion: A sense of expedience.

    Polya problem-solving strategy:
    Solve a simpler problem.

    Simple example:
    trail network in woods

    Explore the trails, know where they go — maybe even build new trails connecting familiar places.

    No one called it “science”, no bureaucrats got seats on a gravy train, and no one demanded publication. It’s just common sense.

    We’re not here to waste time and energy on culturally imperialistic notions of science and publication that serve only to entrench a status quo that unwisely aspires to eternally operate in violation of a core principle: The Pareto Principle.

    The sharpest conservatives are here to simply capitalize by beautifully harmonizing with nature. That need not have ANYTHING to do with culturally imperialistic notions of science and publication that are dwarfed by common sense, overshadowed by belief in God, and otherwise nullified by countless other far more powerful motivators.

    Everything is simplified by natural perspective. Trails can be hiked without red tape. We’ll get to our destination without the inefficiency.

  40. dai davies says:

    @Ned,

    “atmospheric thermal effect (a.k.a. the ‘greenhouse effect’)”

    Ned, I’m starting to wonder whether with your focus on your new pressure results, interesting as they are, you may have forgotten, or are at least be underestimating, what you achieved with your earlier work with the ATE. To remind others, you were looking at and refining the impact of daily thermal buffering performed by the atmosphere (and solid surface, particularly with the moon) and radiative imbalance it caused and the substantial (~100 K) subsequent surface warming.

    This is a massive result. It provides a numerically adequate alternative to the greenhouse effect, defined as GHG trapping of heat, which is clearly a very different process. For one thing, the ATE is almost saturated and in no way prone to tipping points. It is primarily the result of water vapour IR transfer between surface and lower atmosphere and CO2 has a negligible impact. And it is a very simple process that can easily be understood and modelled in a simple spreadsheet.

    In short, it is a game changer on its own. It isn’t just another nail in the coffin of AGW it is a wooden stake through the heart of the blood sucking beast. We should be focussing on this and hammering it home.

    dai

  41. Ned Nikolov says:

    Dai,

    You are right that our 2014 paper provided a new insight on how to correctly calculate the global average temperature of an airless spherical body and then use this calculation to estimate the actual thermal effect of a planetary atmosphere. In this paper, we showed that the Earth’s Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) is about 90 K, not 33 as currently assumed by the official climatology.

    We introduced the term ATE as a replacement of the old and physically incorrect term “Greenhouse Effect”. After all, new concepts require new terminology! .. Even the mainstream climate science acknowledges that a free atmosphere does not function as a glass greenhouse! In the 2014 paper, we also showed that at least a portion of the ATE was due to atmospheric pressure, which controls the regolith thermal conductivity and the heat storage coefficient ‘eta’. We intentionally did not discuss any further effects of pressure in this paper.

    In our 2017 paper, we demonstrated through Dimensional Analysis of planetary data that ATE is due to (fully explainable by) pressure alone. The numerical results indicated that no thermal effect was left to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’. In other words, the radiative “greenhouse effect” does not exist (or is not detectable) on a planetary scale! Hence, the thermal effect of an atmosphere (i.e. ATE) currently known as ‘greenhouse effect’ is in reality a thermodynamic phenomenon (i.e. a form of compression heating) that is independent of atmospheric composition!

    Our 2017 papers would not have been possible without the airless temperature model developed in the 2014 paper. This is the continuity in our publications …

  42. tallbloke says:

    Ned Nikolov: Hence, the thermal effect of an atmosphere (i.e. ATE) currently known as ‘greenhouse effect’ is in reality a thermodynamic phenomenon (i.e. a form of compression heating) that is independent of atmospheric composition!

    The Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) is better explained as the direct outcome of the ideal gas law than as “a form of compression heating”. If you talk about “compression heating” in a thermodynamics context, people not unreasonably frame this as ‘work done’ which requires ‘additional energy’, like the muscle work put into a bicycle pump which gets hotter when air is compressed through it. This was the misconception Ira Glickstein propagated at WUWT when our original 2011 post was discussed there.

    It’s more accurate, and less likely to be misunderstood if you just point out that under the ideal gas law, with all other things being equal, a higher pressure on one side of the equation means there will be a higher temperature on the other – QED: No “work done” or “extra energy” required.

    Of course, the physical situation of the application of the law has to be considered (The passage of energy into and back out of Earth’s surface and gravitationally pressurised atmosphere), which is what your paper does at length and with great thoroughness, but the initial introduction to the concept sets the context of understanding, and should be worded with great care, since parties with an interest in defending the status quo will always look for an apparently plausible reason for dismissing a new theory.

    For the same reason, ATE should have been differentiated from the “Greenhouse Effect” in the first sentence of your paper’s introduction, because ATE refers to the enhancement of temperature above that of an airless body at the same distance from the Sun, whereas the GE is framed as the enhancement of temperature compared to a body whose atmosphere is free of ‘greenhouse gases’ (but still with the same albedo).

  43. Ned Nikolov says:

    @ tallbloke:

    Roger, these are good points! I use the term “compression heating” as something that laymen could quickly relate to (although it’s not completely accurate), because most non-scientists do not know the Gas Law. And I emphasize “a form” of compression heating to distinguish the planetary ATE from an actual compression heating occurring in the cylinders of a Diesel engine, for example, that requires work done on the pistons…

    You are right – the Ideal Gas Law itself is sufficient to explain the principle of ATE (i.e. why pressure affects temperature), but not the absolute magnitude of ATE and its response curve shown in Fig. 4 of our 2017 paper. This distinction is discussed in the section “Similarity of the new model to Poisson’s formula and the SB radiation law” of the 2017 paper. The Poisson’s formula (Eq. 13 in our paper), which describes an adiabatic process and is derived from the Gas Law and the energy conservation law, does not contain a “work” term. It simply relates temperature to pressure! But all this requires some technical knowledge that most non-scientists do not possess.

    ATE is a form of adiabatic heating occurring on a planetary scale that implicitly includes the radiative effect of clouds and the effect of surface heat storage on nighttime temperatures. The ATE response function described by our Eq. 11 is not directly derivable from the Gas Law or any combination of processes that can be measured in a lab. This is why we call Eq. 11 an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unknown to science.

    Regarding the difference between GE and ATE, it should be pointed out that the current mainstream climate theory does not distinguish between an atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases and an airless environment when assessing the strength of GE. In other words, the greenhouse concept implicitly assumes GE = ATE. This is discussed in our 2014 paper (https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723). So, in this sense, the therm “Atmospheric Thermal Effect / Enhancement” (ATE) is a replacement of the term “Greenhouse Effect”.

  44. tallbloke says:

    Ned: it should be pointed out that the current mainstream climate theory does not distinguish between an atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases and an airless environment when assessing the strength of GE. In other words, the greenhouse concept implicitly assumes GE = ATE.

    I’m pretty sure the GE is calculated assuming a 0.3 albedo, which is mostly due to clouds. Clearly, there would be no clouds in an airless environment! So GE = ATE – albedo effect difference between 0.3 and 0.12 (maybe around 23K ??).

  45. Ned Nikolov says:

    Yes, the 33 K GE estimate does assume 0.3 albedo, and this is another illogical aspect of this whole calculation, which has been pointed out by others as well (e.g. Zeng 2010:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO150002/epdf).

    BUT the Greenhouse theory does not recognize any thermal effect of the atmosphere in the absence of “greenhouse” gases. In that sense, the theory assumes GE = ATE.

    If we state that ATE is qualitatively different from GE, it would imply that “greenhouse gases” had some separate thermal effect, which is different from that of the whole atmosphere. And such a notion is incorrect! Atmospheric composition has no effect on the global temperature! Realizing this fact leads to the conclusion that the very term “greenhouse gas” is a misnomer …

  46. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Ned. In your paper you mention that there is a real cloud radiative effect. If such radiative effects make no net contribution to the overall ATE, is this due to the additional cloud albedo over the ‘airless rocky planet’ albedo of ~0.12? i.e. is the warmer night-time surface under a cloudy sky offset by the cooler daytime surface under a cloudy sky (due to reflection of solar energy back to space from cloud-tops)?

  47. Ned Nikolov says:

    In our 2014 paper we intentionally made some statements that conform to the current Greenhouse theory, but are actually incorrect from a standpoint of the new understanding brought by our 2017 paper. This was done to avoid “rocking the boat” prematurely and in order to get the first paper published … 🙂

    Yes, the radiative effects of clouds on the global temperature is strictly due to their shortwave reflectivity! One need to keep in mind, though, that clouds are intrinsic manifestation of the kinetic energy of the system set by solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure. So, changes in cloud cover can and does affect global temperature, but such changes are limited in scope due to negative feedbacks operating in the system that tend to return the cloud cover to its equilibrium condition. This is why external forcing affecting clouds such as solar magnetic activity cannot alter Earth’s global temperature by more than ±0.6 K around a long-term mean.

  48. Brett Keane says:

    @Ned Nikolov says July 7, 2017 at 5:51 pm: Thanks Ned. I felt like a fool chipping away at this obvious (to me) albedo anomaly whereby it had no lasting effect to speak of on overall energetics of the ATE. I could even see that what you just wrote above, could be why. But you and your colleagues are the atmospheric scientists, not me.
    I also think that one more reason for confusion is not understanding that airless and airey bodies are different beasts. One has extra matter/mass, and of different states and phases than just solid, plus phase changes. This means more to physics than it might to maths, because processes are different then. The effective radiation level for a start…..There is a lot more going on up ther than we can see.

    “to avoid “rocking the boat” prematurely and in order to get the first paper published …”. Yes, how typical, and very well done. Arthur C. Clarke wrote ‘Childhood’s End”, when I was young, but we haven’t got there yet!

  49. Brett Keane says:

    @Konrad says:
    July 2, 2017 at 5:24 am: Konrad, good to see you firing on all cylinders. Hopefully, your time has come….

  50. @Ned,
    While we may disagree on some details “Pressure Rools”.

  51. dai davies says:

    @Ned
    Roger and I are both trying to clarify terminology, and as he says, this is important. I’ve spent many years building natural language parsers, and am acutely aware of the ambiguity of the English language. It’s great for literature but a serious problem in science. The verbal sleight of hand used by the IPCC is superb – the product of the world’s best bureaucratic minds. Their works could be seen among the great literary products of our time.

    My use of the term ATE is specific. I’ve been using it for the surface day-night thermal buffering with the SB T^4 radiative term lifting mean surface temperature. We both (and others) get around 100K there depending on parameter assumptions. This is, surely, solid science and blows the GHE away.

    You seem to be using ATE in a surface sense and also in a general sense. Perhaps we should use SATE for the surface process, and a general term, GATE, to refer to your latest pressure work.

    The air-surface coupling is certainly directly pressure dependent in both the radiative and conductive terms. Also, for Earth, air pressure regulates surface and airborne evaporation.

    If my calculations for Radiative Delay are correct then so called ‘trapping’ by radiative gasses (correct terminology RDE not GHE) is negligible on Earth, but Venus? That’s a messy one because it isn’t just CO2 but optically opaque or translucent components.

    I can see how invoking the gas laws could reconcile Earth and Venus by overriding radiative effects. As Robinson & Catling pointed out, in a radiative atmosphere the emission to space becomes significant at around 0.1 Bar pressure because only there and beyond is the mean free path long enough. That can be seen in the IR path length distributions shown in my OCM package.

    At that pressure R&C have Earth and Venus differing by only 25 K. The tropospheric lapse rates are similar, with Venus being lower than Earth – the underlying gravitational lapse rates being reduced by upward radiative energy flow caused by the mfp asymmetry arising from reducing density with height – more so with Venus. Increased pressure on Venus gives a much higher tropopause so a much larger temperature differential at the surface. Not sure how this relates to other planets, though.

    Back to semantics, you say: “ATE is due to (fully explainable by) pressure alone.”. I would use “described” rather than “explainable” there. The meanings are quite distinct, and not just to my pedantic mind. You and Karl recognise this as pointing to some, as yet unexplained, general principle that acts across bodies with widely varying atmospheres. “an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unknown to science”.

    I suspect that it will take a better understanding of the evolution of the solar system to unravel that. There’s probably relevant discussion back in the Talkshop archives. I’m still a bit of a newby round here as far as the solar system goes.

    I’ve only recently come to grips with the practical significance of Phi beyond planetary formation, and it’s amazing. Over the last few days I’ve been thinking about it in relation to my analysis of resonance in the brain, and it seems to add valuable explanatory power – for starters, how we see the golden ratio as beauty – but I digress.

    dai

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s