Remember me
▼ Content

Simple thermodynamics for climate sceptics


Simple thermodynamics for climate sceptics09-05-2017 18:10
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
This post concerns Richard Lindzen's essay on climate change and involves a toy model to illustrate the effects of radiative forcing. I am an amateur in all matters atmospheric, so my post is to be read with healthy criticism.

Prof. Richard Lindzen is a distinguished atmospheric scientist, now retired. It seems that he could be termed a climate sceptic, whether he uses this term himself or not. He has published an essay entitled as Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change on Merion West on April 25, 2017. Merion West is an independent web journal which affiliates itself with 'Hard Center'. Presently, Prof. Lindzen's essay can be found at: http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/. All quotes from Lindzen are verbatim.


General comments

Lindzen discusses graphs presenting the Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA). He states that the GTA is seldom presented with error bounds. This may be the case. However, NASA presents the graph with error bounds (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/).

Concerning temperature anomalies, Lindzen states: "These are referred to as anomalies and it is the anomalies that are averaged over the globe. The only attempt I know of to illustrate the steps in this process was by the late Stan Grotch at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory". This might be the case, if one is looking for a popularized illustration. However, the averaging procedure used by NASA has been documented in scientific literature (Hansen et al. 2010: Global surface temperature change. Reviews of Geophysics 48).

Lindzen seems to problematize the graphs of GTA: "There is quite a lot of random noise in Figure 1c, and this noise is a pretty good indication of the uncertainty of the analysis (roughly +/- 0.2C). The usual presentations show something considerably smoother." He also notes that these curves are often stretched to fill the graph. But this doesn't invalidate the graphs, and the trends therein should not be judged by eyeballing. They should be judged by statistical testing. Lindzen knows this but leaves this unsaid. Why? Presumably because there is an increasing trend whenever these data are rigorously tested.


Radiative forcing

Lindzen concludes the essay with the following remark: "The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic."

Well, dynamical systems are a sort of magic. For some systems and some variables, 2% may be very much. For some systems and variables, it may be very little. It all depends on the specific system and the interactions of the variables therein. This is actually the reason why scientists bother to study the Earth system. From a mathematical point of view, Lindzen's argumentation does not make sense here.

For an amateur scientist, what "a 2% perturbation to this budget" means, is a bit unclear. Perhaps, we can safely assume that it means a 2% change in radiative forcing. To investigate the effect of a 2% change, I now present a simple thermodynamic model of the global energy balance. Let us assume that the Earth is warmed by incoming solar radiation (C) and cooled by black-body radiation. (Since the space is a vacuum, the heat does not escape through convection or conduction, notwithstanding a negligible amount of hydrogen molecules escaping the atmosphere.)

The power of black-body radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature (Stefan-Boltzman law). Thus, the change of Earth's temperature per time unit can be written as
T' = C - bT^4

where b is some positive constant. The system is in thermal equilibrium when
C = bT^4

or
T = (C/b)^0.25.

How to implement "a 2% perturbation of this budget" here? Since the CO2 concentration cannot affect the incoming solar radiation, I interpret that the CO2 emission decrease the constant b by 2%. (Another option is that Lindzen is talking about a 2% perturbation of the equiliribum temperature, but that does not seem likely.) So let there be two states of world, Pre-industrial and Modern. In the Modern state, b is replaced by 0.98b. The problem is to find the ratio of the equilibrium temperatures. This problem can be solved by elementary algebra.

The solution is that the ratio of temperatures (Modern/Pre-industrial) is 1.005063, i.e. that the doubling of CO2 causes some 0.5% increase in global temperature. The mean surface temperature of Earth is some 288 Kelvins, and half a percent of this is 1.46 degrees (Celsius or Kelvin).


Conclusion

The above calculation shows that in a simple toy model of atmosphere, a 2% change of energy flow can have discernible effects. On the other hand, 1.46 degrees is quite little. It is certainly not the horror scenario portrayed by some environmental organizations. It should be noted that Lindzen's "2% perturbation" concerns "doublind CO2" which hasn't occurred yet and will not occur very soon. However, Lindzen does not give references for this figure. What if doubling CO2 causes a 3% perturbation, in place of a 2% one? Using the logic presented above, this would translate into 2.2 degrees. These considerations seem to refute Lindzen's position that climate warming is not occurring, or that it cannot occur as a result of the actions of man. On the other hand, they also cast doubt on the most alarmistic positions regarding climate change (5+ degrees etc.).

Of course, the calculation is based on a very simple model. It does not account for feed-back mechanisms. Very probably the model should be modified by stating a non-linear dependence between CO2 and b. The climate alarmists would probably claim that b increases in CO2 more than linearly (convexly), i.e. that there are feed-back mechanisms that strengthen the greenhouse effect. The sceptics would probably claim that b increases in CO2 less than linearly (concavely). I would personally believe in a less than linear relationship, implying that there are negative feed-back loops. I tend to find these more plausible, than positive feed-back loops, because the Earth system has been relatively stable for a long period of time. However, this is open to discussion.

Finally, there are many forms of climate scepticism. These include the denial of 1. rising CO2, 2. rising temperature, 3. causal link between rising CO2 and temperature, and 4. devastating effects of rising temperature. In his essay, Lindzen does not make any effort to deny 1, and I think there is a general consensus regarding that one (Keeling's curve). However, he makes efforts to deny both 2, 3 and 4. I think denying the temperature rise is unjustified given the evidence presented i.a. by NASA (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/). The calculation I have made in this post shows that there is no a-priori reason to deny the causal link, either. Thus, it seems that denying the effects would be the most profitable avenue for the sceptics, and I wonder, why they do not pursue it more often. Given the present calculation, at least, it might be justified.
Edited on 09-05-2017 18:17
09-05-2017 19:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
This post concerns Richard Lindzen's essay on climate change and involves a toy model to illustrate the effects of radiative forcing. I am an amateur in all matters atmospheric, so my post is to be read with healthy criticism.

Prof. Richard Lindzen is a distinguished atmospheric scientist, now retired. It seems that he could be termed a climate sceptic, whether he uses this term himself or not. He has published an essay entitled as Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change on Merion West on April 25, 2017. Merion West is an independent web journal which affiliates itself with 'Hard Center'. Presently, Prof. Lindzen's essay can be found at: http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/. All quotes from Lindzen are verbatim.


General comments

Lindzen discusses graphs presenting the Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA). He states that the GTA is seldom presented with error bounds. This may be the case. However, NASA presents the graph with error bounds (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/).

Concerning temperature anomalies, Lindzen states: "These are referred to as anomalies and it is the anomalies that are averaged over the globe. The only attempt I know of to illustrate the steps in this process was by the late Stan Grotch at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory". This might be the case, if one is looking for a popularized illustration. However, the averaging procedure used by NASA has been documented in scientific literature (Hansen et al. 2010: Global surface temperature change. Reviews of Geophysics 48).

Lindzen seems to problematize the graphs of GTA: "There is quite a lot of random noise in Figure 1c, and this noise is a pretty good indication of the uncertainty of the analysis (roughly +/- 0.2C). The usual presentations show something considerably smoother." He also notes that these curves are often stretched to fill the graph. But this doesn't invalidate the graphs, and the trends therein should not be judged by eyeballing. They should be judged by statistical testing. Lindzen knows this but leaves this unsaid. Why? Presumably because there is an increasing trend whenever these data are rigorously tested.


Radiative forcing

Lindzen concludes the essay with the following remark: "The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic."

Well, dynamical systems are a sort of magic. For some systems and some variables, 2% may be very much. For some systems and variables, it may be very little. It all depends on the specific system and the interactions of the variables therein. This is actually the reason why scientists bother to study the Earth system. From a mathematical point of view, Lindzen's argumentation does not make sense here.

For an amateur scientist, what "a 2% perturbation to this budget" means, is a bit unclear. Perhaps, we can safely assume that it means a 2% change in radiative forcing. To investigate the effect of a 2% change, I now present a simple thermodynamic model of the global energy balance. Let us assume that the Earth is warmed by incoming solar radiation (C) and cooled by black-body radiation. (Since the space is a vacuum, the heat does not escape through convection or conduction, notwithstanding a negligible amount of hydrogen molecules escaping the atmosphere.)

The power of black-body radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature (Stefan-Boltzman law). Thus, the change of Earth's temperature per time unit can be written as
T' = C - bT^4

where b is some positive constant. The system is in thermal equilibrium when
C = bT^4

or
T = (C/b)^0.25.

How to implement "a 2% perturbation of this budget" here? Since the CO2 concentration cannot affect the incoming solar radiation, I interpret that the CO2 emission decrease the constant b by 2%. (Another option is that Lindzen is talking about a 2% perturbation of the equiliribum temperature, but that does not seem likely.) So let there be two states of world, Pre-industrial and Modern. In the Modern state, b is replaced by 0.98b. The problem is to find the ratio of the equilibrium temperatures. This problem can be solved by elementary algebra.

The solution is that the ratio of temperatures (Modern/Pre-industrial) is 1.005063, i.e. that the doubling of CO2 causes some 0.5% increase in global temperature. The mean surface temperature of Earth is some 288 Kelvins, and half a percent of this is 1.46 degrees (Celsius or Kelvin).


Conclusion

The above calculation shows that in a simple toy model of atmosphere, a 2% change of energy flow can have discernible effects. On the other hand, 1.46 degrees is quite little. It is certainly not the horror scenario portrayed by some environmental organizations. It should be noted that Lindzen's "2% perturbation" concerns "doublind CO2" which hasn't occurred yet and will not occur very soon. However, Lindzen does not give references for this figure. What if doubling CO2 causes a 3% perturbation, in place of a 2% one? Using the logic presented above, this would translate into 2.2 degrees. These considerations seem to refute Lindzen's position that climate warming is not occurring, or that it cannot occur as a result of the actions of man. On the other hand, they also cast doubt on the most alarmistic positions regarding climate change (5+ degrees etc.).

Of course, the calculation is based on a very simple model. It does not account for feed-back mechanisms. Very probably the model should be modified by stating a non-linear dependence between CO2 and b. The climate alarmists would probably claim that b increases in CO2 more than linearly (convexly), i.e. that there are feed-back mechanisms that strengthen the greenhouse effect. The sceptics would probably claim that b increases in CO2 less than linearly (concavely). I would personally believe in a less than linear relationship, implying that there are negative feed-back loops. I tend to find these more plausible, than positive feed-back loops, because the Earth system has been relatively stable for a long period of time. However, this is open to discussion.

Finally, there are many forms of climate scepticism. These include the denial of 1. rising CO2, 2. rising temperature, 3. causal link between rising CO2 and temperature, and 4. devastating effects of rising temperature. In his essay, Lindzen does not make any effort to deny 1, and I think there is a general consensus regarding that one (Keeling's curve). However, he makes efforts to deny both 2, 3 and 4. I think denying the temperature rise is unjustified given the evidence presented i.a. by NASA (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/). The calculation I have made in this post shows that there is no a-priori reason to deny the causal link, either. Thus, it seems that denying the effects would be the most profitable avenue for the sceptics, and I wonder, why they do not pursue it more often. Given the present calculation, at least, it might be justified.


The majority of the scare tactics that have been used have been supported by long term ground based temperature monitoring.

This began about 1725 after Fahrenheit invented the thermometer. The record in question started circa 1886. There has been a more or less documented temperature rise. However, in the 1645 to about 1715 we had the Little Ice Age (the Maunder Minimum) apparently caused by the Sun having a very long period of stability and no sunspot activity. Then again in 1790 to 1830 we had a similar cold period called the Dalton Minimum. The newspapers in England at this time showed people ice skating on the River Thames in London.

The atmosphere is very large and would take a very long time to recover from all of that lost heat.

In any case, the areas in which there are long temperature records from ground stations were rapidly growing large urban areas.

When Obama demanded a paper from NOAA showing global warming NOAA didn't correct or didn't correct properly for the urban growth and the thing called the "heat island effect". This then gave Obama what he wanted to present to the IPCC - man-made global warming that had a set of curves specifically scaled to make it appear that the rise in CO2 and the rise in Mean Global Temperatures (MGT) matched. That the rise in world population and the increase in world farming area could have also been scaled to matched these curves completely by-passed the man on the street. (co-incidentally all of the charts that show comparisons of the absorption of heat by CO2 and H2O fail to show that H20 absorbs 1000 times more than CO2 AND in energy bands that are there unlike CO2.)

But in fact while the lying leftist media has been announcing the HOTTEST YEAR EVER the pure unaltered satellite data that started from 1979 showed a different story - the pause is very real.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

Other's that have modified the ground temperature records so that the period of 1979 to present matched the satellite data have said that the MGT is actually cooling and not heating.

This is a very questionable claim of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). While the scientists in the IPCC are rather neutral and appear to be seeking nothing more than the truth, most of the IPCC is composed of politicians and not scientists.

We know that Obama is most assuredly not very bright and continually was trying to leave a mark on the world by his very presence, we also suspect that the IPCC politicians were looking to form a one-world government in order to gain sufficient power to FORCE the world to obey their commands through the threats of catastrophic events if they were not given such power. And if these IPCC politicians happened to be part of the new world governing body more's the benefit to themselves.

There have been many papers concerning exactly how AGW is not occurring and that the only thing that is occurring is the normal climate cycling that has been occurring since the beginning of time.

I have attacked the problem of CO2 causing AGW from a spectroscopic point of view and what we are aware of is that there simply isn't enough energy in the absorption bands of CO2 for it to have any effect on climate.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

This paper calculates the effects of the atmospheric gases and shows no effect from CO2 in the first place. Actually it shows CO2 acting as a slight coolant.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

This paper demonstrates that the behavior of the atmosphere is the same as all of the other planets and satellites that have an atmosphere at the same pressures. These atmospheres all have different compositions but react the same. It is conduction and convection that is acting in the lower atmosphere up to the PRESSURE of Earth's middle stratosphere that is significant among all of the planets.

Is the climate heating? That is difficult to say with so many false claims out there. But what we can be sure of is that if it is heating it has nothing to do with man.
09-05-2017 20:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Rather long post. CO2 is only 0.04% of atmospheric gases. I like this article (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/) by Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
He states that
>> Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. <<

This is why I believe that more research involving the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges is important. Geologic forces play an important role. As NASA's graph shows, warming before about 1978 was independent of CO2 levels.
I think this is why claiming to have everything made known already is the wrong answer. I think it is bad science to pursue research with an already preconceived notion of what the correct answer is.

Jim
09-05-2017 20:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Rather long post. CO2 is only 0.04% of atmospheric gases. I like this article (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/) by Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
He states that
>> Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. <<

This is why I believe that more research involving the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges is important. Geologic forces play an important role. As NASA's graph shows, warming before about 1978 was independent of CO2 levels.
I think this is why claiming to have everything made known already is the wrong answer. I think it is bad science to pursue research with an already preconceived notion of what the correct answer is.

Jim


Ice ages do not occur "rapidly" except in the geological sense. It takes about 300,000 years for the climate to drive down to the ice age level - we are presently in an interglacial period of an ice age. While it is possible that we could fall into a true ice age again it is more likely that we will take the 120,000 year climb up to a temperature optimum.

If you look at: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File
hanerozoic_Climate_Change.png[/url]

you can see the slow dipping down to the ice ages and the rapid recovery. Of course this is relative to geologic time.
09-05-2017 22:04
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Thanks for a swift reply, Wake. So you seem to be a type-3 sceptic. Fair enough.


Wake wrote:
The atmosphere is very large and would take a very long time to recover from all of that lost heat.


So you are practically saying that the Earth system is out of balance regarding the present levels of solar radiation? That the atmosphere is merely warming to adapt to present conditions? Sure, the atmosphere is large, but I find it difficult to believe it would take hundreds of years to adjust.


Wake:
When Obama demanded a paper from NOAA showing global warming NOAA didn't correct or didn't correct properly for the urban growth and the thing called the "heat island effect".


Ok, no idea on that one. Might be true, I've only concentrated on the NASA averages so far, and I have the image that NASA corrects for urban growth, different density of observation posts etc. etc.


Wake:
But in fact while the lying leftist media has been announcing the HOTTEST YEAR EVER the pure unaltered satellite data that started from 1979 showed a different story - the pause is very real.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg


Sorry, I don't see a pause here. I see only a rising trend. But what I was saying also concerning Lindzen's piece is that it doesn't matter what you or me see in these figures. The statistical tests are the only thing that matters. I might imagine two ways of testing this one. a) chopping it to suitable intervals and testing the medians, b) fitting a linear or exponential trend. Wanna give a try at this one?


Wake:
We know that Obama is most assuredly not very bright and continually was trying to leave a mark on the world by his very presence, we also suspect that the IPCC politicians were looking to form a one-world government in order to gain sufficient power to FORCE the world to obey their commands through the threats of catastrophic events if they were not given such power. And if these IPCC politicians happened to be part of the new world governing body more's the benefit to themselves.


Sounds a bit paranoid, but I don't know IPCC or Obama's policies, so I prefer to speak about science.


Wake:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

This paper calculates the effects of the atmospheric gases and shows no effect from CO2 in the first place. Actually it shows CO2 acting as a slight coolant.


Should I be able to read this from Figure 4.6? True, most of the time the CO2 curve seems to stay on the left of zero, indicating net outward irradiation. But so do the H2O curves, and yet you called H2O a greenhouse gas.

Returning to the world system toy model, I guess we can both agree that CO2 has no effect on albedo (and hence C). So the effect of CO2 has to come through outward flux. You seem to suggest that CO2 increases the net emissivity of the Earth? If that was true, CO2 would need to be so hot that its black-body radiation exceeds the absorbed radiation from Earth and Sun.


Wake:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

This paper demonstrates that the behavior of the atmosphere is the same as all of the other planets and satellites that have an atmosphere at the same pressures. These atmospheres all have different compositions but react the same. It is conduction and convection that is acting in the lower atmosphere up to the PRESSURE of Earth's middle stratosphere that is significant among all of the planets.


A nice paper! Not many comments really on this one. Though... here https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php we see that the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere much exceeds the amount of heat transferred by convection & evaporation. The figure doesn't distinguish between the heat absorbed by different layers of atmosphere, but I have a similar figure which does (Wallace and Hobbs, Atmospheric Science, p. 420). In this figure also, the most of heat from Earth to troposphere seems to be transferred by radiation.
Edited on 09-05-2017 22:08
09-05-2017 22:29
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
James_ wrote:
Rather long post.


True. I was initially going to post this on ArXiv, but then I was like, nah, I don't wanna do the layout...


James_:
He states that
>> Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. <<


As Wake mentioned, 'sudden' is a relative concept here. Even though the ice ages are interesting, I prefer to leave them to Great Cthulhu, because I won't see them.

James_:
As NASA's graph shows, warming before about 1978 was independent of CO2 levels.


Which graphs shows so?


James_:
I think this is why claiming to have everything made known already is the wrong answer. I think it is bad science to pursue research with an already preconceived notion of what the correct answer is.


Agree on this one. A good maxim for any research.
09-05-2017 22:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Thanks for a swift reply, Wake. So you seem to be a type-3 sceptic. Fair enough.


Wake wrote:
The atmosphere is very large and would take a very long time to recover from all of that lost heat.


So you are practically saying that the Earth system is out of balance regarding the present levels of solar radiation? That the atmosphere is merely warming to adapt to present conditions? Sure, the atmosphere is large, but I find it difficult to believe it would take hundreds of years to adjust.


Not quite - this isn't in the atmosphere per se. NASA and NOAA both have recorded a 0.6 Wm^2 difference between energy in and energy out. This is attributed to the Earth absorbing that amount of energy.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
When Obama demanded a paper from NOAA showing global warming NOAA didn't correct or didn't correct properly for the urban growth and the thing called the "heat island effect".


Ok, no idea on that one. Might be true, I've only concentrated on the NASA averages so far, and I have the image that NASA corrects for urban growth, different density of observation posts etc. etc.

They did not correct anywhere near enough. That is why they show that wild hockey stick swing while the satellite data shows a null.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
But in fact while the lying leftist media has been announcing the HOTTEST YEAR EVER the pure unaltered satellite data that started from 1979 showed a different story - the pause is very real.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg


Sorry, I don't see a pause here. I see only a rising trend. But what I was saying also concerning Lindzen's piece is that it doesn't matter what you or me see in these figures. The statistical tests are the only thing that matters. I might imagine two ways of testing this one. a) chopping it to suitable intervals and testing the medians, b) fitting a linear or exponential trend. Wanna give a try at this one?


This is not a rise - it averages out to near zero. Because it appears to you to be a rise when there is a high spot on one end does not make it rising.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
We know that Obama is most assuredly not very bright and continually was trying to leave a mark on the world by his very presence, we also suspect that the IPCC politicians were looking to form a one-world government in order to gain sufficient power to FORCE the world to obey their commands through the threats of catastrophic events if they were not given such power. And if these IPCC politicians happened to be part of the new world governing body more's the benefit to themselves.


Sounds a bit paranoid, but I don't know IPCC or Obama's policies, so I prefer to speak about science.


At the time I attributed his actions to his Marxist education. After more thought I now attribute it more to his trying to make a mark such as Moonbeam Brown who intends to put a Eurotrain into California as his mark upon the state even if we can't afford it and even if Amtrak presently follows exactly the same route and is losing money.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

This paper calculates the effects of the atmospheric gases and shows no effect from CO2 in the first place. Actually it shows CO2 acting as a slight coolant.


Should I be able to read this from Figure 4.6? True, most of the time the CO2 curve seems to stay on the left of zero, indicating net outward irradiation. But so do the H2O curves, and yet you called H2O a greenhouse gas.

Returning to the world system toy model, I guess we can both agree that CO2 has no effect on albedo (and hence C). So the effect of CO2 has to come through outward flux. You seem to suggest that CO2 increases the net emissivity of the Earth? If that was true, CO2 would need to be so hot that its black-body radiation exceeds the absorbed radiation from Earth and Sun.


What this is showing is that neither CO2 nor H2O are heating the lower atmosphere through radiation. That they use conduction and convection to move energy into the Tropopause and slightly above where heat radiates into space. Do not mistake radiation for conduction and convection. Even the NOAA models show that the Earth's radiation is "absorbed by the atmosphere" meaning that H2O which is 1000 times the energy sink of CO2 and 4,000 times as large as the so-called man's addition of CO2 is the the overwhelming source of energy transfer in the lower atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere radiation takes over. But again the water layer essentially blocks the Earth since this radiation is in the frequency band of water. So most of the energy doesn't return to Earth through radiation but is vented to space.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

This paper demonstrates that the behavior of the atmosphere is the same as all of the other planets and satellites that have an atmosphere at the same pressures. These atmospheres all have different compositions but react the same. It is conduction and convection that is acting in the lower atmosphere up to the PRESSURE of Earth's middle stratosphere that is significant among all of the planets.


A nice paper! Not many comments really on this one. Though... here https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php we see that the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere much exceeds the amount of heat transferred by convection & evaporation. The figure doesn't distinguish between the heat absorbed by different layers of atmosphere, but I have a similar figure which does (Wallace and Hobbs, Atmospheric Science, p. 420). In this figure also, the most of heat from Earth to troposphere seems to be transferred by radiation.


If you look at that "heat balance" carefully you will see that the only energy that radiates out of the lower atmosphere is the 40 um band. The rest is absorbed by the atmosphere proper. The break is between the atmosphere in the troposphere and the upper thinner atmosphere which is too thin to use conduction and convection to move energy.

The problem isn't with NOAA's papers on neutral things like this except they use numbers that are senseless.

For instance, in most of their descriptive drawings it shows the rounded off input energy from the Sun of 340 Wm^2. And then in other depictions (not this one) they show 398 Wm^2 leaving. They then play games with the extra energy having to do with radiative heating by returning radiation from the atmosphere.

This isn't only confusing but inaccurate.

My skepticism despite your belief is entirely science based. I have been in science for almost 50 years now. I have seen just about everything passed off as true science that wasn't.

By believing those who held PhD's on at least one occasion I was almost killed by a project when I realized that these "experts" didn't have a clue what they were talking about and derived my own equations and fixed a military project.

On other projects I was given faulty information on how to handle deadly disease pathogens. So I learned everything about it myself and the chief chemist won a Nobel Prize from my work that defined his theories. As well as saving literally millions of lives.

So my skepticism comes from practical reality. If you don't have at least equal experience perhaps you should not be critical of skeptics.
09-05-2017 23:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Rather long post. CO2 is only 0.04% of atmospheric gases. I like this article (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/) by Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
He states that
>> Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. <<

This is why I believe that more research involving the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges is important. Geologic forces play an important role. As NASA's graph shows, warming before about 1978 was independent of CO2 levels.
I think this is why claiming to have everything made known already is the wrong answer. I think it is bad science to pursue research with an already preconceived notion of what the correct answer is.

Jim


Ice core research is extremely iffy. The core research from the Antarctic is from an area of the globe that is totally cut off from the rest of the globe via the Antarctic vortex. This area has no plants and little animal life. So the mixture of gases that are there can be and probably are completely different from the rest of the world.

What's more, freezing water totally changes the mixture of gases. Try freezing some carbonated water and you'll see what I mean when you thaw it. The gas is gone from the water. The CO2 levels would be completely different from the original.

What's more, the ice sheets in the Antarctic are not formed year to year. The Antarctic is the world's driest desert. It almost NEVER has any precipitation in the form of snow. Though it CAN look like it's snowing through blowing heavy frost that looks like snow.

The build up of the ice sheet is from layer after layer of frost building up some as long as a century before sufficient weight has grown to crush these layers down into a hard ice sheet. So at best the gas mixtures could only be a broad average.

The interesting thing is the claim that over the last 800,000 years we've had 8 100,000 year long ice ages. So the implication is that Interglacial periods are temporary and short lived. So what would you prefer? An ice age or warming?

You need to be careful that even extremely good scientists are still specialists and while explaining their own specialties can over or under-state other parts of their studies.

Try this paper as well: http://principia-scientific.org/no-warming-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-gas-effect/
10-05-2017 13:04
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Wake:
Not quite - this isn't in the atmosphere per se. NASA and NOAA both have recorded a 0.6 Wm^2 difference between energy in and energy out. This is attributed to the Earth absorbing that amount of energy.


Yes, and we're both interested, why this happens. As a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or for some other reason.


Wake:
This is not a rise - it averages out to near zero. Because it appears to you to be a rise when there is a high spot on one end does not make it rising.


You completely ignore my point about using statistics to judge data.


Wake:
What this is showing is that neither CO2 nor H2O are heating the lower atmosphere through radiation. That they use conduction and convection to move energy into the Tropopause and slightly above where heat radiates into space. Do not mistake radiation for conduction and convection. Even the NOAA models show that the Earth's radiation is "absorbed by the atmosphere" meaning that H2O which is 1000 times the energy sink of CO2 and 4,000 times as large as the so-called man's addition of CO2 is the the overwhelming source of energy transfer in the lower atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere radiation takes over. But again the water layer essentially blocks the Earth since this radiation is in the frequency band of water. So most of the energy doesn't return to Earth through radiation but is vented to space.


This is the most interesting part of your argument. So you are basically saying that neither CO2 nor H2O is a greenhouse gas (against conventional wisdom). And the case is that their radiative budget is negative, i.e. that they emit more heat radiation than they absorb? If that was the case, that would be big news indeed! And yes, I don't mix radiation with conduction and convection. These two act as internal transfer mechanisms within the atmosphere, but what ultimately counts is only the radiation, because heat is transferred in and out of the Earth system only through radiation.


Wake:
My skepticism despite your belief is entirely science based. I have been in science for almost 50 years now. I have seen just about everything passed off as true science that wasn't.

By believing those who held PhD's on at least one occasion I was almost killed by a project when I realized that these "experts" didn't have a clue what they were talking about and derived my own equations and fixed a military project.

On other projects I was given faulty information on how to handle deadly disease pathogens. So I learned everything about it myself and the chief chemist won a Nobel Prize from my work that defined his theories. As well as saving literally millions of lives.

So my skepticism comes from practical reality. If you don't have at least equal experience perhaps you should not be critical of skeptics.


Sounds fantastic. Might I ask, how learning better lab procedures saved millions of people?
10-05-2017 17:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Rather long post. CO2 is only 0.04% of atmospheric gases. I like this article (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/) by Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
He states that
>> Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. <<

This is why I believe that more research involving the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges is important. Geologic forces play an important role. As NASA's graph shows, warming before about 1978 was independent of CO2 levels.
I think this is why claiming to have everything made known already is the wrong answer. I think it is bad science to pursue research with an already preconceived notion of what the correct answer is.

Jim


Ice ages do not occur "rapidly" except in the geological sense. It takes about 300,000 years for the climate to drive down to the ice age level - we are presently in an interglacial period of an ice age. While it is possible that we could fall into a true ice age again it is more likely that we will take the 120,000 year climb up to a temperature optimum.

If you look at: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File
hanerozoic_Climate_Change.png[/url]

you can see the slow dipping down to the ice ages and the rapid recovery. Of course this is relative to geologic time.


Wake wrote:


Ice core research is extremely iffy. The core research from the Antarctic is from an area of the globe that is totally cut off from the rest of the globe via the Antarctic vortex.


The person I quoted was referencing the Arctic which has Ice Ages. And the time frame you gave for Ice Ages was wrong as well. You said every 300,000 years when it's every 100,000 if our planet is cool or every 40,000 years when our planet is warm. Scientists haven't shown how a warmer planet increases the frequency of Ice Ages.
Wake, with me I think long posts help. This is because if someone desires to make a point they should be able to present a summary. With some of what is being posted it would take a lot of time for someone to study it.

https://phys.org/news/2015-05-ice-cores-atmospheric-million-years.html

Wake,
What everyone is missing is the reason for record temperatures globally is because the missing heat was found, it was in the Pacific Ocean. That heat could becoming from the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges.
If that's the case then the global warming pause happened when the ozone layer's depletion had slowed as well. Both statements come from the IPCC. Yet you seem to support CO2 as causing climate change. If not then your constant referencing CO2 makes it seem that way.
10-05-2017 19:33
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Richard Lindzen's does not explain a lot, next to what we already know. Basically he only suggests that doubling CO2 would reduce emissivity by 2%, which is extremely high. Mind that estimates for temperature increase due to doubling CO2 itself range from 0-1K. If we took the high end of such estimates, which is 1K, we can determine (289/288) ^4 -1 = 1.4%. So the only thing Lindzen does is to unrealisicly overstate the role of CO2.

In my essay I added a short note to (really) explain greenhouse gases..

PS. Understanding "greenhouse gases": I think this is important, otherwise I would not write it. However I am not trying to provide evidence, but just analogies, which is always the path to understanding. The concept of greenhouse gases which scatter infrared back to surface makes actually a lot of sense. Think of it as a semitransparent mirror, covering 10% of the sky. As (infrared) radiation can not pass through it, the surface must emit to the remaining 90% at an accordingly higher rate. The higher rate of radiation would be achieved by higher temperatures, and we can even calculate that: (1 / 0.9) ^0.25 * Temp. If Temp was 255°K, that would yield 261.8, or a GHE of 6.8°K.
In fact this is very similar to a bridge pier planted into a river and covering like 10% of its width. Then the remaining 90% must have an according stronger water flow. And also, although hardly recognizable, the water level will be somewhat higher just in front of the pier, which will be the reason why water flows just a bit faster.
Now greenhouse gases are not a mirror, and neither they are reflective. They are just standing in the way of radiation. And even though they may cover a wide range of the radial spectrum, they are doing only so over a very long (accumulating) distance. How is that different?
Just think of the river again, where we do not have one massive pier, but a large number on tiny rods being put into the river bed, over a distance of let us say 5km. They altogether, if you look down the river, may cover like 10% of its width. But the question is rather, what will be the accumulative effect on the water level at the entry point of this section with poles. And the answer is, I guess, close to none.
10-05-2017 21:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Leitwolf wrote:
In fact this is very similar to a bridge pier planted into a river and covering like 10% of its width. Then the remaining 90% must have an according stronger water flow. And also, although hardly recognizable, the water level will be somewhat higher just in front of the pier, which will be the reason why water flows just a bit faster.


More like a floating leaf.

CO2 does not impede radiation. Absorption converts electromagnetic energy to thermal energy (the CO2 gets a slight bit warmer).

What is absorbed is simply lost through conduction, convection, or radiance in a different color (lower frequency, since the CO2 is colder than the surface that thunked it in the first place.).


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2017 00:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
Not quite - this isn't in the atmosphere per se. NASA and NOAA both have recorded a 0.6 Wm^2 difference between energy in and energy out. This is attributed to the Earth absorbing that amount of energy.


Yes, and we're both interested, why this happens. As a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or for some other reason.


Is it just me or doesn't anyone understand that the so-called "greenhouse effect" is only pertinent to the atmosphere?

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
This is not a rise - it averages out to near zero. Because it appears to you to be a rise when there is a high spot on one end does not make it rising.


You completely ignore my point about using statistics to judge data.


You were presented with numbers. If you passed on looking up Dr. Spencer's web site to obtain the base data if you wanted to actually work out the statistics yourself where are you coming from that I'm ignoring anything at all about statistics?

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
What this is showing is that neither CO2 nor H2O are heating the lower atmosphere through radiation. That they use conduction and convection to move energy into the Tropopause and slightly above where heat radiates into space. Do not mistake radiation for conduction and convection. Even the NOAA models show that the Earth's radiation is "absorbed by the atmosphere" meaning that H2O which is 1000 times the energy sink of CO2 and 4,000 times as large as the so-called man's addition of CO2 is the the overwhelming source of energy transfer in the lower atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere radiation takes over. But again the water layer essentially blocks the Earth since this radiation is in the frequency band of water. So most of the energy doesn't return to Earth through radiation but is vented to space.


This is the most interesting part of your argument. So you are basically saying that neither CO2 nor H2O is a greenhouse gas (against conventional wisdom). And the case is that their radiative budget is negative, i.e. that they emit more heat radiation than they absorb? If that was the case, that would be big news indeed! And yes, I don't mix radiation with conduction and convection. These two act as internal transfer mechanisms within the atmosphere, but what ultimately counts is only the radiation, because heat is transferred in and out of the Earth system only through radiation.


I find your comments curious. Do you KNOW what a greenhouse is? Do you know the actual mechanism by which they work? No one seems to know what a greenhouse actually is - it's ONLY a layer preventing air circulation with the outside atmosphere. If you open the door on a greenhouse it gets COLD inside.

If it operated by trapping IR it wouldn't get cold from opening a door. Since where I grew up in the San Francisco bay area used to have acres of greenhouses they EVEN used to paint the panes white so that the glass would trap more heat to transfer to the inside air.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
My skepticism despite your belief is entirely science based. I have been in science for almost 50 years now. I have seen just about everything passed off as true science that wasn't.

By believing those who held PhD's on at least one occasion I was almost killed by a project when I realized that these "experts" didn't have a clue what they were talking about and derived my own equations and fixed a military project.

On other projects I was given faulty information on how to handle deadly disease pathogens. So I learned everything about it myself and the chief chemist won a Nobel Prize from my work that defined his theories. As well as saving literally millions of lives.

So my skepticism comes from practical reality. If you don't have at least equal experience perhaps you should not be critical of skeptics.


Sounds fantastic. Might I ask, how learning better lab procedures saved millions of people?


I could go into very detailed explanation of that but the short answer was the HIV got into the blood banking systems of the world. No one knew what it was and no one had any idea of how to detect it. Every day without the availability of blood banks thousands of people were dying. And before that millions of people had become infected via the blood banks.

Dr. Kary Mullis invented a chemistry called Polymerase Chain Reaction. Our wonderful PhD engineers in the major meeting said that we needed two IBM supercomputers to run the lab equipment to test the chemistry in large scale. I stated that I could automate it using microcomputers for pennies on the dollar of their estimate. So me and Professor (Dr.) Michael McCown completed the project on time and under budget and got the blood banking system back up and running. This demonstration of a world shaking chemistry won Dr. Mullis the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. And that was when the Nobel committee had credence.

I later expanded this mechanism to become the first method of analyzing DNA.

So do you believe that I have a religious skepticism and that the True Believers in man-made climate change do not? The scientific literature is FILLED with papers that disprove AGW from virtually every aspect. Why are these NOT advertised?

The True Believers have misrepresented MANY studies as being "pro-AGM" despite the claims of their authors that they are nothing of the kind.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

represents a few. Where there is one there is a thousand. But the CONSENSUS is backed up by the AMA - doesn't that give you completely confidence in AGW?
11-05-2017 02:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Leitwolf wrote:
Richard Lindzen's does not explain a lot, next to what we already know. Basically he only suggests that doubling CO2 would reduce emissivity by 2%, which is extremely high. Mind that estimates for temperature increase due to doubling CO2 itself range from 0-1K. If we took the high end of such estimates, which is 1K, we can determine (289/288) ^4 -1 = 1.4%. So the only thing Lindzen does is to unrealisicly overstate the role of CO2.

In my essay I added a short note to (really) explain greenhouse gases..

PS. Understanding "greenhouse gases": I think this is important, otherwise I would not write it. However I am not trying to provide evidence, but just analogies, which is always the path to understanding. The concept of greenhouse gases which scatter infrared back to surface makes actually a lot of sense. Think of it as a semitransparent mirror, covering 10% of the sky. As (infrared) radiation can not pass through it, the surface must emit to the remaining 90% at an accordingly higher rate. The higher rate of radiation would be achieved by higher temperatures, and we can even calculate that: (1 / 0.9) ^0.25 * Temp. If Temp was 255°K, that would yield 261.8, or a GHE of 6.8°K.
In fact this is very similar to a bridge pier planted into a river and covering like 10% of its width. Then the remaining 90% must have an according stronger water flow. And also, although hardly recognizable, the water level will be somewhat higher just in front of the pier, which will be the reason why water flows just a bit faster.
Now greenhouse gases are not a mirror, and neither they are reflective. They are just standing in the way of radiation. And even though they may cover a wide range of the radial spectrum, they are doing only so over a very long (accumulating) distance. How is that different?
Just think of the river again, where we do not have one massive pier, but a large number on tiny rods being put into the river bed, over a distance of let us say 5km. They altogether, if you look down the river, may cover like 10% of its width. But the question is rather, what will be the accumulative effect on the water level at the entry point of this section with poles. And the answer is, I guess, close to none.


Again, here is a paper where the effects of CO2 are actually measured and shown not to act at all like the True Believers think that it does:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

If you look at page 4-11 and figure 4-6 it shows that CO2 does not warm anything. It cools throughout the entire Troposphere and the lower Stratosphere.

The rest of the article explains how these results were achieved though measurement from a satellite.
11-05-2017 02:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
In fact this is very similar to a bridge pier planted into a river and covering like 10% of its width. Then the remaining 90% must have an according stronger water flow. And also, although hardly recognizable, the water level will be somewhat higher just in front of the pier, which will be the reason why water flows just a bit faster.


More like a floating leaf.

CO2 does not impede radiation. Absorption converts electromagnetic energy to thermal energy (the CO2 gets a slight bit warmer).

What is absorbed is simply lost through conduction, convection, or radiance in a different color (lower frequency, since the CO2 is colder than the surface that thunked it in the first place.).


I agree. And every test shows that to be true. The only radiation to escape from the lower atmosphere is in the 40 uM wavelength. This is the oft expressed "hole in the atmosphere". All of the rest of the Sun's emissions and the Earth's emissions are either reflected back into space or moved to the Stratosphere via conduction and convection before the atmosphere becomes too thin to conduct heat and the only escape method become radiation.
11-05-2017 03:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Rather long post. CO2 is only 0.04% of atmospheric gases. I like this article (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/) by Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
He states that
>> Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. <<

This is why I believe that more research involving the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges is important. Geologic forces play an important role. As NASA's graph shows, warming before about 1978 was independent of CO2 levels.
I think this is why claiming to have everything made known already is the wrong answer. I think it is bad science to pursue research with an already preconceived notion of what the correct answer is.

Jim


Ice ages do not occur "rapidly" except in the geological sense. It takes about 300,000 years for the climate to drive down to the ice age level - we are presently in an interglacial period of an ice age. While it is possible that we could fall into a true ice age again it is more likely that we will take the 120,000 year climb up to a temperature optimum.

If you look at: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File
hanerozoic_Climate_Change.png[/url]

you can see the slow dipping down to the ice ages and the rapid recovery. Of course this is relative to geologic time.


Wake wrote:


Ice core research is extremely iffy. The core research from the Antarctic is from an area of the globe that is totally cut off from the rest of the globe via the Antarctic vortex.


The person I quoted was referencing the Arctic which has Ice Ages. And the time frame you gave for Ice Ages was wrong as well. You said every 300,000 years when it's every 100,000 if our planet is cool or every 40,000 years when our planet is warm. Scientists haven't shown how a warmer planet increases the frequency of Ice Ages.
Wake, with me I think long posts help. This is because if someone desires to make a point they should be able to present a summary. With some of what is being posted it would take a lot of time for someone to study it.

https://phys.org/news/2015-05-ice-cores-atmospheric-million-years.html

Wake,
What everyone is missing is the reason for record temperatures globally is because the missing heat was found, it was in the Pacific Ocean. That heat could becoming from the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges.
If that's the case then the global warming pause happened when the ozone layer's depletion had slowed as well. Both statements come from the IPCC. Yet you seem to support CO2 as causing climate change. If not then your constant referencing CO2 makes it seem that way.


James, this is supposed to be a discussion and not argument. You are simply too touchy and are taking affront at what you believe to be an insult. We have a couple of True Believers posting here to do all of the arguing. We don't need to.

Ice ages occur only over the entire globe at one. But the oscillation in and out of the glaciation periods are of a (relatively) short term nature.

The ice ages themselves are MUCH further apart and much longer in duration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:GlaciationsinEarthExistancelicenced_annotated.jpg

As you can see we are presently in an Interglacial Period in an ice age. The question isn't whether we are going to warm up - it's when and how long it will take.

I can't put my hands on the oscillation at the moment but these Interglacial Periods lasted a total of about 450,000 years from peak to peak with the drop quite slow and the rise pretty rapid and taking about 120,000 years.

My theory is that when you work your way slowly down to the lowest temperature range all of the humidity is frozen out of the atmosphere. This means that without humidity in the air there are no clouds and energy from the sun with is about 43% reflected back into space is gone and the reflections only occur through minor losses such as reflections off of the oceans and Rayleigh scattering.

The atmosphere is a large heavy object and it requires a long time to rid itself of heat and humidity and to regain it.
11-05-2017 12:44
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Leitwolf:
Richard Lindzen's does not explain a lot, next to what we already know. Basically he only suggests that doubling CO2 would reduce emissivity by 2%, which is extremely high. Mind that estimates for temperature increase due to doubling CO2 itself range from 0-1K. If we took the high end of such estimates, which is 1K, we can determine (289/288) ^4 -1 = 1.4%. So the only thing Lindzen does is to unrealisicly overstate the role of CO2.

In my essay I added a short note to (really) explain greenhouse gases..

PS. Understanding "greenhouse gases": I think this is important, otherwise I would not write it. However I am not trying to provide evidence, but just analogies, which is always the path to understanding. The concept of greenhouse gases which scatter infrared back to surface makes actually a lot of sense. Think of it as a semitransparent mirror, covering 10% of the sky. As (infrared) radiation can not pass through it, the surface must emit to the remaining 90% at an accordingly higher rate. The higher rate of radiation would be achieved by higher temperatures, and we can even calculate that: (1 / 0.9) ^0.25 * Temp. If Temp was 255°K, that would yield 261.8, or a GHE of 6.8°K.


Well, at least you seem to understand, what my equation says. Can you give reference to your 0-1K? If this figure turned out to be consensus, then it would imply that most of the warming postulated by the consensus would come from feed-backs which are much more uncertain than the direct effect. It's funny, if Lindzen, of all people, overstates the role of CO2!


Leitwolf:
In fact this is very similar to a bridge pier planted into a river and covering like 10% of its width. Then the remaining 90% must have an according stronger water flow. And also, although hardly recognizable, the water level will be somewhat higher just in front of the pier, which will be the reason why water flows just a bit faster.
Now greenhouse gases are not a mirror, and neither they are reflective. They are just standing in the way of radiation. And even though they may cover a wide range of the radial spectrum, they are doing only so over a very long (accumulating) distance. How is that different?
Just think of the river again, where we do not have one massive pier, but a large number on tiny rods being put into the river bed, over a distance of let us say 5km. They altogether, if you look down the river, may cover like 10% of its width. But the question is rather, what will be the accumulative effect on the water level at the entry point of this section with poles. And the answer is, I guess, close to none.


Useful analogy, but only to a degree. Water flow is governed by fluid dynamics, and radiation emission/absorption is quantum chemistry. For one thing, the water does not interact with the rod when it passes around. Whereas the photon disappears when it interacts with matter. And yes, I think putting too much rods in a river can hinder the water flow.


Into the night:
More like a floating leaf.

CO2 does not impede radiation. Absorption converts electromagnetic energy to thermal energy (the CO2 gets a slight bit warmer).

What is absorbed is simply lost through conduction, convection, or radiance in a different color (lower frequency, since the CO2 is colder than the surface that thunked it in the first place.).


Well, CO2 donates heat through all those mechanisms to surrounding atmosphere, but as I stated above, heat only leaves Earth through radiation. This is the reason, why the radiative transfer interests me so much.


Wake:
You were presented with numbers. If you passed on looking up Dr. Spencer's web site to obtain the base data if you wanted to actually work out the statistics yourself -


Ok, must look into that one.


Wake:
I find your comments curious. Do you KNOW what a greenhouse is? Do you know the actual mechanism by which they work? No one seems to know what a greenhouse actually is - it's ONLY a layer preventing air circulation with the outside atmosphere. If you open the door on a greenhouse it gets COLD inside.

If it operated by trapping IR it wouldn't get cold from opening a door. Since where I grew up in the San Francisco bay area used to have acres of greenhouses they EVEN used to paint the panes white so that the glass would trap more heat to transfer to the inside air.


Yeah, I know what a greenhouse is and how it works. I can use wikipedia. True, the so-called 'greenhouse gases' do not have the same mode of operation, as a real greenhouse. They operate through radiative imbalance. I don't know what a better term would be. GW gases?


Wake:
Dr. Kary Mullis invented a chemistry called Polymerase Chain Reaction. Our wonderful PhD engineers in the major meeting said that we needed two IBM supercomputers to run the lab equipment to test the chemistry in large scale. I stated that I could automate it using microcomputers for pennies on the dollar of their estimate. So me and Professor (Dr.) Michael McCown completed the project on time and under budget and got the blood banking system back up and running. This demonstration of a world shaking chemistry won Dr. Mullis the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. And that was when the Nobel committee had credence.


Ok, impressive work. It is often the technicians and the 'lab rats' that do all the hard work, and then the big guns come in and get all the merit.


Wake:
So do you believe that I have a religious skepticism and that the True Believers in man-made climate change do not? The scientific literature is FILLED with papers that disprove AGW from virtually every aspect. Why are these NOT advertised?


If you notice, I prefer to call you a sceptic, not a denialist, as I think that term more appropriate. I know many True Believers who are certain that the world will end and the Antarctic will melt, if we do not stop all flight travel immediatelly. These people are just dumb. This is why I choose to make sense out of things myself.


Wake:
But the CONSENSUS is backed up by the AMA - doesn't that give you completely confidence in AGW?


AMA - do you mean American Medical Association? No, it doesn't give me that much confidence. They're just medical doctors, and I'm a scientist.


Wake:
Again, here is a paper where the effects of CO2 are actually measured and shown not to act at all like the True Believers think that it does:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf


Now you have referenced the same paper TWICE. First of all, that is not a scientific paper in the conventional sense, but an excerpt from somebody's lecture notes. As I said earlier, there is one figure (4.6) where CO2 appears as a net coolant, but so does H2O. The source of this figure is a paper written in 1978. It's very well possible that this paper has been refuted a number of times. BUT these issues are interesting, and as I said, I will look more into them.


Wake:
My theory is that when you work your way slowly down to the lowest temperature range all of the humidity is frozen out of the atmosphere. This means that without humidity in the air there are no clouds and energy from the sun with is about 43% reflected back into space is gone and the reflections only occur through minor losses such as reflections off of the oceans and Rayleigh scattering.


Can't follow you here. So you're saying the albedo drops when the clouds disappear? But how about growing ice sheets? They should increase the albedo, right? Oceans as such (I've understood) have a low albedo.
Edited on 11-05-2017 12:46
11-05-2017 14:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Wake:
Again, here is a paper where the effects of CO2 are actually measured and shown not to act at all like the True Believers think that it does:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf


Now you have referenced the same paper TWICE. First of all, that is not a scientific paper in the conventional sense, but an excerpt from somebody's lecture notes. As I said earlier, there is one figure (4.6) where CO2 appears as a net coolant, but so does H2O. The source of this figure is a paper written in 1978. It's very well possible that this paper has been refuted a number of times. BUT these issues are interesting, and as I said, I will look more into them.

As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with the paper / lecture notes or Figure 4.6. It's just that Wake, as usual, has misunderstood them.

As we know, the atmosphere is heated by convection, evaporation and the absorption of solar and ground radiation (by GHGs), and it is cooled by the emission of IR radiation (by GHGs). Conduction also plays a very minor role. The figure simply shows the extent to which the different greenhouse gases are responsible for cooling the atmosphere through emission of IR radiation as a function of height. Obviously, the same gases are also responsible for the absorption of IR emissions from the ground. The graph does not imply net cooling of the surface of the Earth, as Wake seems to imagine.

Also, I note that that particular graph is based on calculations, not measurements, as Wake has mistakenly assumed.
11-05-2017 14:39
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Surface detail, sounds plausible, but all of these curves go across zero at upper atmosphere, i.e. from cooling to warming. Thus, I guess they present something 'net'.
11-05-2017 15:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Surface detail, sounds plausible, but all of these curves go across zero at upper atmosphere, i.e. from cooling to warming. Thus, I guess they present something 'net'.

Yes, good point. Since the atmosphere gains heat through convection, evaporation and solar radiation as well as through IR radiation from the ground, but can only lose heat through IR radiation, then the IR radiation would have to have a net cooling effect, but not necessarily everywhere. That would tally with the graph.
11-05-2017 16:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@wake.
When you stated that ice core research was iffy, it is claimed by co2 supporters that the last Ice Age ended because co2 levels rose. You really don't understand why there's such a debate over it do you ?
11-05-2017 17:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
CO2 does not impede radiation. Absorption converts electromagnetic energy to thermal energy (the CO2 gets a slight bit warmer).

What is absorbed is simply lost through conduction, convection, or radiance in a different color (lower frequency, since the CO2 is colder than the surface that thunked it in the first place.).


Well, CO2 donates heat through all those mechanisms to surrounding atmosphere, but as I stated above, heat only leaves Earth through radiation. This is the reason, why the radiative transfer interests me so much.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface itself. The atmosphere is also radiant. ALL gases in the atmosphere play this role. There is nothing magick about CO2.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Yeah, I know what a greenhouse is and how it works. I can use wikipedia. True, the so-called 'greenhouse gases' do not have the same mode of operation, as a real greenhouse. They operate through radiative imbalance. I don't know what a better term would be. GW gases?

Here's the problem: The Stefan-Boltzmann law.

If you say CO2 blocks radiance then the total radiance of the Earth is reduced. At the same time, the Earth is warming up. The S-B law states the radiance is proportional to temperature, not inversely proportional.

If you say that CO2 somehow reduces emissivity, that is the same as saying albedo is going up, not down. Furthermore, it would STAY there. This again means you are violating the S-B law by suspending it for a time and then suddenly allowing it to work again using the old emissivity. Won't happen.

If CO2 somehow warms the surface, that means you are using a colder gas to heat a hotter object. This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
If you notice, I prefer to call you a sceptic, not a denialist, as I think that term more appropriate. I know many True Believers who are certain that the world will end and the Antarctic will melt, if we do not stop all flight travel immediatelly. These people are just dumb. This is why I choose to make sense out of things myself.

[quote]JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Can't follow you here. So you're saying the albedo drops when the clouds disappear? But how about growing ice sheets? They should increase the albedo, right? Oceans as such (I've understood) have a low albedo.

It is not possible to determine the albedo of Earth (or any other planet). It is not possible to separate out what you see reflected vs what you see emitted since they share frequencies.

The only way to measure the emissivity of anything is to use a contact thermometer and measure against the ideal black body reference. We don't know Earth's temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. Since albedo changes dramatically in a few inches on the Earth's surface, it is impossible to measure a total albedo that way.

We don't know if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.

It comes down to the simple question:

Just what IS 'global warming'? Is the whole Earth? Just the surface? The atmosphere? How high? The oceans? How deep? From what starting time to what ending time? Why are these times important? Why are any other times not important?

First, one must be able to define 'global warming'. The other non-sensical phrase 'climate change' is in the same position.

Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2017 18:11
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

We don't know if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.

It comes down to the simple question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?


IN,
I was going to say something nonsensical but there is no well defined definition of what Climate Change or Global Warming is. What we do know is that about 13,000 years ago an Ice Age ended of which why it ended is being debated.
One thing I would have liked to have seen demonstrated is if the heat generated by running something during the day is easily emitted at night. You know, how much heat needs to be generated during the day before it's emission at night slows.
And this could be from any source of heat. Maybe not the easiest thing to demonstrate considering the volume and ceiling height of our atmosphere.
Another demonstration that would be interesting is if a specific amount of emissions from a satellite were directed towards a receiver how much would be reflected by the ozone layer. Since the ozone layer has seasonal variances this would allow for varying thicknesses of the ozone layer to be tested.


Jim
11-05-2017 18:35
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Surface Detail wrote:
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Surface detail, sounds plausible, but all of these curves go across zero at upper atmosphere, i.e. from cooling to warming. Thus, I guess they present something 'net'.

Yes, good point. Since the atmosphere gains heat through convection, evaporation and solar radiation as well as through IR radiation from the ground, but can only lose heat through IR radiation, then the IR radiation would have to have a net cooling effect, but not necessarily everywhere. That would tally with the graph.


I think this is at the core of the debate (or it should be). If the net effect of radiation is positive on any one gas, then that gas acts as a GHG; the excess heat gained through radiation is transferred to surrounding atmosphere, land and ocean through conduction. But if the net effect is negative, then this gas acts as a coolant. Its ~constant temperature is maintained through absorbing heat from surroundings, through the mechanisms you mention.
Edited on 11-05-2017 19:19
11-05-2017 19:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

We don't know if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.

It comes down to the simple question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?


IN,
I was going to say something nonsensical but there is no well defined definition of what Climate Change or Global Warming is.

My point exactly. It is not possible to declare something undefined as science or even an observation.
James_ wrote:
What we do know is that about 13,000 years ago an Ice Age ended of which why it ended is being debated.
[quote]James_ wrote:
One thing I would have liked to have seen demonstrated is if the heat generated by running something during the day is easily emitted at night. You know, how much heat needs to be generated during the day before it's emission at night slows.

According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat flows based on the difference of energy between the two regions (assuming they are coupled together). If more energy arrives during the day, then more energy is lost at night. There is never a point where heat loss at night would be reduced due to heating during the day.

You can't 'slow' heat. You can increase it or reduce it, but it will always flow as long as there is some kind of coupling between a hot and cold region. Once both regions reach the same temperature, heat is reduced to zero.

James_ wrote:
And this could be from any source of heat. Maybe not the easiest thing to demonstrate considering the volume and ceiling height of our atmosphere.

It is easy to demonstrate in any lab. The atmosphere behaves the same way.
James_ wrote:
Another demonstration that would be interesting is if a specific amount of emissions from a satellite were directed towards a receiver how much would be reflected by the ozone layer.

This is frequency dependent. Ozone will reflect radio differently depending on their frequency.

Communications with space-borne radios must use a frequency that ozone won't reflect. This band (sometimes called the space band) is a set of frequencies that ozone is transparent to.

Tests for ozone thickness are conducted continuously, through the use of beacons stationed around the world (a continuous unmodulated carrier). These beacons operate on the HF band (including the AM broadcast band) to measure propagation paths of radio waves.

The thinner the ozone, the easier it is to see a beacon very far away. In radio we call this 'skip' propagation. It's why you hear more distant AM stations at night.

Ozone is created by UV-B and UV-A energy from the Sun interacting with oxygen in our atmosphere. It is destroyed by itself, and by interaction with UV-C energy from the Sun (which doesn't penetrate as far into the atmosphere). It is the reason the stratosphere has a temperature inversion.
James_ wrote:
Since the ozone layer has seasonal variances this would allow for varying thicknesses of the ozone layer to be tested.

Testing is continuous. Both amateur and government beacons are used.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-05-2017 19:11
11-05-2017 19:12
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Into the Night,

Sorry to ask, but are you familiar with differential equations? Because if not, my explanation may sound a bit technical.

Into the Night:
If you say CO2 blocks radiance then the total radiance of the Earth is reduced. At the same time, the Earth is warming up. The S-B law states the radiance is proportional to temperature, not inversely proportional.

If you say that CO2 somehow reduces emissivity, that is the same as saying albedo is going up, not down. Furthermore, it would STAY there. This again means you are violating the S-B law by suspending it for a time and then suddenly allowing it to work again using the old emissivity. Won't happen.


The S-B law actually says that the radiative power is proportional to the fourth power of temperature which sounds horrific, but it is still possible to have different equilibrium temperatures. The incoming radiation can be defined as aC where C is the gross radiation falling on Earth, and a is a parameter. I think it's necessary to add parameter a, if we want to discuss melting glaciers and other changes of local albedo. The outgoing radiation can be defined as bT^4. I call b emissivity, even if it involves a few other terms, such as the S-B constant. But these don't change.

The change of temperature per time unit can be defined as T' = aC - bT^4. Now, if aC > bT^4, the temperature rises, even as the S-B law is working all the time. The system is said to be out of equilibrium.

Another way to think of it is to say that the temperature is in equilibrium, when the two radiation flows match: aC = bT^4.

From this we have T = (aC/b)^0.25 which can be solved in Excel.

It is the effect of CO2 on a and b that I am interested in. The direct effect would come through b by reducing (or increasing) the IR radiation. Indirect effects could come also through a.

I don't know the professional terminology, it's possible that you call bT^4 / aC the total albedo of a planet, or something. In that sense, yes, I guess you can say that the emissivity affects the albedo, but when I have referred to albedo earlier, I have solely meant the term a in these equations.


Into the night:
If CO2 somehow warms the surface, that means you are using a colder gas to heat a hotter object. This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


When you invoke the second law of termodynamics, you should know that the Earth is not an isolated system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system.

More to follow...
11-05-2017 19:26
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Into the Night:
Just what IS 'global warming'? Is the whole Earth? Just the surface? The atmosphere? How high? The oceans? How deep? From what starting time to what ending time? Why are these times important? Why are any other times not important?


Once I understand the radiative balance of CO2, I can explain to you.


Into the Night:
You can't 'slow' heat. You can increase it or reduce it, but it will always flow as long as there is some kind of coupling between a hot and cold region. Once both regions reach the same temperature, heat is reduced to zero.


Yes you can slow heat. Think of a winter coat. But you are right that both bodies will eventually reach the same temperature, if the system is not perturbed. In human body, chemical reactions create heat. Thus, your eq. temperature on a winter day can stay higher than the surroundings. In Earth, solar radiation constantly feeds in new heat. Thus, the eq. temperature of Earth can stay higher, than the surrounding space.

What the equilibrium exactly is, depends on the different flows. Think of it. Is aC higher, or is bT^4 higher?
11-05-2017 19:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Into the Night,

Sorry to ask, but are you familiar with differential equations? Because if not, my explanation may sound a bit technical.

Into the Night:
If you say CO2 blocks radiance then the total radiance of the Earth is reduced. At the same time, the Earth is warming up. The S-B law states the radiance is proportional to temperature, not inversely proportional.

If you say that CO2 somehow reduces emissivity, that is the same as saying albedo is going up, not down. Furthermore, it would STAY there. This again means you are violating the S-B law by suspending it for a time and then suddenly allowing it to work again using the old emissivity. Won't happen.


The S-B law actually says that the radiative power is proportional to the fourth power of temperature which sounds horrific, but it is still possible to have different equilibrium temperatures. The incoming radiation can be defined as aC where C is the gross radiation falling on Earth, and a is a parameter. I think it's necessary to add parameter a, if we want to discuss melting glaciers and other changes of local albedo. The outgoing radiation can be defined as bT^4. I call b emissivity, even if it involves a few other terms, such as the S-B constant. But these don't change.

The change of temperature per time unit can be defined as T' = aC - bT^4. Now, if aC > bT^4, the temperature rises, even as the S-B law is working all the time. The system is said to be out of equilibrium.

Another way to think of it is to say that the temperature is in equilibrium, when the two radiation flows match: aC = bT^4.

From this we have T = (aC/b)^0.25 which can be solved in Excel.

It is the effect of CO2 on a and b that I am interested in. The direct effect would come through b by reducing (or increasing) the IR radiation. Indirect effects could come also through a.

I don't know the professional terminology, it's possible that you call bT^4 / aC the total albedo of a planet, or something. In that sense, yes, I guess you can say that the emissivity affects the albedo, but when I have referred to albedo earlier, I have solely meant the term a in these equations.

Albedo and emissivity are two sides of the same coin. They have a simple relationship:

emissivity = 1-albedo

These ARE the terms used in the math for the S-B law.

Emissivity is also the same as absorptivity. If it emits well, it can absorb well. If it can't emit well, it can't absorb well.

There terms are frequency independent.

We do not know the emissivity of the Earth. To measure it, we first must know the temperature of the Earth, which we do not have to any reasonable accuracy.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:

Into the night:
If CO2 somehow warms the surface, that means you are using a colder gas to heat a hotter object. This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


When you invoke the second law of termodynamics, you should know that the Earth is not an isolated system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system.


Makes no difference. The 2nd law applies to all systems where there is a difference in temperature. The 'isolated' system concept simply means you set the bounds of the system and they STAY SET. They do not move. In other words, if you set the bounds of the system to the Sun-Earth-space system, that's all you need consider as far as the 2nd law of concerned.

If you set the bounds to a hot cup of coffee and an ice cube you put it in, that's all you need concern yourself with as you watch the ice cube melt.

As soon as you start considering the temperature of the room for that cup of coffee, you've changed the bounds of the system. Now you can watch the ice cube melt while the coffee cools to the temperature of the room. In that case, the ice cube melting in the hot coffee doesn't really matter anymore. The ice melts to reach the temperature of the room, just as the coffee cools to reach the temperature of the room.

The universe is boundless. There is no 'isolated' system for the universe. The 2nd LoT makes no sense when applied against an infinite (or boundless) system.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2017 19:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Into the Night:
Just what IS 'global warming'? Is the whole Earth? Just the surface? The atmosphere? How high? The oceans? How deep? From what starting time to what ending time? Why are these times important? Why are any other times not important?


Once I understand the radiative balance of CO2, I can explain to you.


Into the Night:
You can't 'slow' heat. You can increase it or reduce it, but it will always flow as long as there is some kind of coupling between a hot and cold region. Once both regions reach the same temperature, heat is reduced to zero.


Yes you can slow heat. Think of a winter coat. But you are right that both bodies will eventually reach the same temperature, if the system is not perturbed. In human body, chemical reactions create heat. Thus, your eq. temperature on a winter day can stay higher than the surroundings. In Earth, solar radiation constantly feeds in new heat. Thus, the eq. temperature of Earth can stay higher, than the surrounding space.

What the equilibrium exactly is, depends on the different flows. Think of it. Is aC higher, or is bT^4 higher?

This is known by me as the Magick Blanket argument.

Winter coats, blankets, house insulation, Thermos bottles, etc., all reduce heat.

The atmosphere is not an insulator. Heat flows by conduction, convection, and radiance without impediment. There is nothing to reduce heat in the atmosphere. While YOU are an energy source (to keep warm), the surface is not. Put that same blanket on a rock and you won't make the rock warmer.

Assuming a perfect insulation, that reduces heat to zero, then the coupling to the outside is also zero. This means the interior will not change temperature at all, regardless of what is happening outside. The 2nd law still applies, this time with a coupling of zero, and with it, no heat.

The solar radiation 'adding' to 'trapped energy' in the Earth is also known by me as the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. It builds a paradox and also violates the S-B law.

The daylit skin of the ISS reaches 250 deg F. It has no CO2 or atmosphere. The daytime temperatures on the Earth are nowhere near that high. If CO2 or water vapor warms the Earth, why is the temperature on the Earth noticeably COOLER? Trapped energy while more comes in from the Sun???

The nonlit skin of the ISS reaches -250 deg F. It has no CO2 or atmosphere. The nighttime temperatures on Earth do not get anywhere near this cold. It isn't additional energy from the Sun, the Sun isn't there! If the Sun is required to provide the additional energy to add to the 'trapped' energy, what happens when there is no Sun to provide that energy? Why are we so much warmer?

To 'trap' energy means to reduce radiance, since that's the only way energy leaves the Earth. At the same time, you are using this reduced radiance to raise the temperature of the Earth. This is in direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

If you use CO2 to somehow reduce emissivity (another unsupported claim since there is no mechanism by how this magick happens), then you also reduce absorption. The Earth must therefore COOL DOWN, not warm up.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2017 20:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
If you use CO2 to somehow reduce emissivity (another unsupported claim since there is no mechanism by how this magick happens), then you also reduce absorption. The Earth must therefore COOL DOWN, not warm up.

The bit you're forgetting is that emissivity/absorptivity is wavelength dependent. It is perfectly possible to reduce the emissivity/absorptivity in the IR part of the electromagnetic spectrum while maintaining the same emissivity/absorptivity in the visible part. This is exactly what greenhouse gases do. They reduce the effective emissivity of the Earth in the IR while leaving the visible unaffected.

Since

Radiation = Emissivity * Constant * Temperature^4

the only way to maintain the same output of radiation when emissivity is reduced is to increase temperature. This, fundamentally, is why adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is raising the Earth's temperature.
11-05-2017 21:14
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Well, at least you seem to understand, what my equation says. Can you give reference to your 0-1K? If this figure turned out to be consensus, then it would imply that most of the warming postulated by the consensus would come from feed-backs which are much more uncertain than the direct effect. It's funny, if Lindzen, of all people, overstates the role of CO2!


This is true! I would not not go so far to say that 0 was still part of the consensus, rather the consensus ranges from 0.6-1K temperature increase for doubling CO2. Any result below that level will get you dispelled from the church of climatology. Yet there are some reasonable papers indicating just that.

Climate change disaster will be due to feedbacks, that is indeed the official position. The major feedback of course is H2O, as the atmosphere can (and will) hold 7.5% more H2O for every single °K temperature increase. So the story goes.

Then again I would humbly point to the fact, that I just happened to falsify the theory of the greenhouse effect, meaning that there are no greenhouse gases, and of course no AGW. It's the ocean, stupid!
I did attach the whole essay here (at the very end):

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/so-there-is-no-greenhouse-effect-and-i-can-prove-it-what-to-do-next-d6-e1399-s40.php#post_19834
11-05-2017 21:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If you use CO2 to somehow reduce emissivity (another unsupported claim since there is no mechanism by how this magick happens), then you also reduce absorption. The Earth must therefore COOL DOWN, not warm up.

The bit you're forgetting is that emissivity/absorptivity is wavelength dependent.

Not usable by the S-B law. The S-B law concerns TOTAL radiance across ALL combined frequencies.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is perfectly possible to reduce the emissivity/absorptivity in the IR part of the electromagnetic spectrum while maintaining the same emissivity/absorptivity in the visible part.
Makes no difference to S-B. It is specifically color-blind.
Surface Detail wrote:
This is exactly what greenhouse gases do. They reduce the effective emissivity of the Earth in the IR while leaving the visible unaffected.

Since

Radiation = Emissivity * Constant * Temperature^4

the only way to maintain the same output of radiation when emissivity is reduced is to increase temperature. This, fundamentally, is why adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is raising the Earth's temperature.

Reducing emissivity by CO2 (you never explain how this happens), means emissivity STAYS reduced. The Earth would be COOLER, not warmer. You can't use the 'old' emissivity anymore. Reducing emissivity reduces absorption. It also increases albedo.

Stefan-Boltzmann has no term for frequency in it. It calculates radiance for the combined total of ALL frequencies.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2017 00:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Leitwolf:
Richard Lindzen's does not explain a lot, next to what we already know. Basically he only suggests that doubling CO2 would reduce emissivity by 2%, which is extremely high. Mind that estimates for temperature increase due to doubling CO2 itself range from 0-1K. If we took the high end of such estimates, which is 1K, we can determine (289/288) ^4 -1 = 1.4%. So the only thing Lindzen does is to unrealisicly overstate the role of CO2.

In my essay I added a short note to (really) explain greenhouse gases..

PS. Understanding "greenhouse gases": I think this is important, otherwise I would not write it. However I am not trying to provide evidence, but just analogies, which is always the path to understanding. The concept of greenhouse gases which scatter infrared back to surface makes actually a lot of sense. Think of it as a semitransparent mirror, covering 10% of the sky. As (infrared) radiation can not pass through it, the surface must emit to the remaining 90% at an accordingly higher rate. The higher rate of radiation would be achieved by higher temperatures, and we can even calculate that: (1 / 0.9) ^0.25 * Temp. If Temp was 255°K, that would yield 261.8, or a GHE of 6.8°K.


Well, at least you seem to understand, what my equation says. Can you give reference to your 0-1K? If this figure turned out to be consensus, then it would imply that most of the warming postulated by the consensus would come from feed-backs which are much more uncertain than the direct effect. It's funny, if Lindzen, of all people, overstates the role of CO2!


Leitwolf:
In fact this is very similar to a bridge pier planted into a river and covering like 10% of its width. Then the remaining 90% must have an according stronger water flow. And also, although hardly recognizable, the water level will be somewhat higher just in front of the pier, which will be the reason why water flows just a bit faster.
Now greenhouse gases are not a mirror, and neither they are reflective. They are just standing in the way of radiation. And even though they may cover a wide range of the radial spectrum, they are doing only so over a very long (accumulating) distance. How is that different?
Just think of the river again, where we do not have one massive pier, but a large number on tiny rods being put into the river bed, over a distance of let us say 5km. They altogether, if you look down the river, may cover like 10% of its width. But the question is rather, what will be the accumulative effect on the water level at the entry point of this section with poles. And the answer is, I guess, close to none.


Useful analogy, but only to a degree. Water flow is governed by fluid dynamics, and radiation emission/absorption is quantum chemistry. For one thing, the water does not interact with the rod when it passes around. Whereas the photon disappears when it interacts with matter. And yes, I think putting too much rods in a river can hinder the water flow.


Into the night:
More like a floating leaf.

CO2 does not impede radiation. Absorption converts electromagnetic energy to thermal energy (the CO2 gets a slight bit warmer).

What is absorbed is simply lost through conduction, convection, or radiance in a different color (lower frequency, since the CO2 is colder than the surface that thunked it in the first place.).


Well, CO2 donates heat through all those mechanisms to surrounding atmosphere, but as I stated above, heat only leaves Earth through radiation. This is the reason, why the radiative transfer interests me so much.


Wake:
You were presented with numbers. If you passed on looking up Dr. Spencer's web site to obtain the base data if you wanted to actually work out the statistics yourself -


Ok, must look into that one.


Wake:
I find your comments curious. Do you KNOW what a greenhouse is? Do you know the actual mechanism by which they work? No one seems to know what a greenhouse actually is - it's ONLY a layer preventing air circulation with the outside atmosphere. If you open the door on a greenhouse it gets COLD inside.

If it operated by trapping IR it wouldn't get cold from opening a door. Since where I grew up in the San Francisco bay area used to have acres of greenhouses they EVEN used to paint the panes white so that the glass would trap more heat to transfer to the inside air.


Yeah, I know what a greenhouse is and how it works. I can use wikipedia. True, the so-called 'greenhouse gases' do not have the same mode of operation, as a real greenhouse. They operate through radiative imbalance. I don't know what a better term would be. GW gases?


Wake:
Dr. Kary Mullis invented a chemistry called Polymerase Chain Reaction. Our wonderful PhD engineers in the major meeting said that we needed two IBM supercomputers to run the lab equipment to test the chemistry in large scale. I stated that I could automate it using microcomputers for pennies on the dollar of their estimate. So me and Professor (Dr.) Michael McCown completed the project on time and under budget and got the blood banking system back up and running. This demonstration of a world shaking chemistry won Dr. Mullis the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. And that was when the Nobel committee had credence.


Ok, impressive work. It is often the technicians and the 'lab rats' that do all the hard work, and then the big guns come in and get all the merit.


Wake:
So do you believe that I have a religious skepticism and that the True Believers in man-made climate change do not? The scientific literature is FILLED with papers that disprove AGW from virtually every aspect. Why are these NOT advertised?


If you notice, I prefer to call you a sceptic, not a denialist, as I think that term more appropriate. I know many True Believers who are certain that the world will end and the Antarctic will melt, if we do not stop all flight travel immediatelly. These people are just dumb. This is why I choose to make sense out of things myself.


Wake:
But the CONSENSUS is backed up by the AMA - doesn't that give you completely confidence in AGW?


AMA - do you mean American Medical Association? No, it doesn't give me that much confidence. They're just medical doctors, and I'm a scientist.


Wake:
Again, here is a paper where the effects of CO2 are actually measured and shown not to act at all like the True Believers think that it does:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf


Now you have referenced the same paper TWICE. First of all, that is not a scientific paper in the conventional sense, but an excerpt from somebody's lecture notes. As I said earlier, there is one figure (4.6) where CO2 appears as a net coolant, but so does H2O. The source of this figure is a paper written in 1978. It's very well possible that this paper has been refuted a number of times. BUT these issues are interesting, and as I said, I will look more into them.


Wake:
My theory is that when you work your way slowly down to the lowest temperature range all of the humidity is frozen out of the atmosphere. This means that without humidity in the air there are no clouds and energy from the sun with is about 43% reflected back into space is gone and the reflections only occur through minor losses such as reflections off of the oceans and Rayleigh scattering.


Can't follow you here. So you're saying the albedo drops when the clouds disappear? But how about growing ice sheets? They should increase the albedo, right? Oceans as such (I've understood) have a low albedo.


I am not a technician. I am a self trained engineer and programmer that have worked in those fields for at least 40 years. And as a technician for a decade before that. I was even department manager making a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Competence is not especially related to formal education. If I hadn't thrown all of my awards away I could probably go on a cruise in Europe for the cost of the gold plating on that junk.

You are aware, I hope, that fully 80% of college graduates NEVER work in their fields of study? That means that they too have to self train. The problem with Master's and PhD's in engineering is that many of them never open a book again after leaving college. So while working in their field they really aren't - they become managers and can't even figure out what the workers are saying.

The worst of the bunch are PhD Physicists who do not do one lick of original work themselves and spend their time quoting the work of other that is wrong. There is certainly nothing wrong with being wrong but it destroys the very idea of "peer reviewed".
12-05-2017 10:11
JohannesDiCosmos
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Many points here concern basic physics. It would be interesting to discuss them all, but I have a day job. To this end, I will leave the forum for a while after this message. (But I will be back, believe me.)

Can't help to comment this one, though.

Into the Night
Reducing emissivity by CO2 (you never explain how this happens), means emissivity STAYS reduced. The Earth would be COOLER, not warmer. You can't use the 'old' emissivity anymore. Reducing emissivity reduces absorption. It also increases albedo.

Stefan-Boltzmann has no term for frequency in it. It calculates radiance for the combined total of ALL frequencies.


If emissivity is reduced, outgoing radiation is reduced. Thus, the body will be WARMER, not cooler. But yes, S-B calculates radiance from the total of all frequencies, and thus, the emissivity will be reduced, if some of the frequencies are blocked. This might happen by a gas that absorbs some of the frequencies.


Wake:
I am not a technician. I am a self trained engineer and programmer that have worked in those fields for at least 40 years. And as a technician for a decade before that. I was even department manager making a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Competence is not especially related to formal education. If I hadn't thrown all of my awards away I could probably go on a cruise in Europe for the cost of the gold plating on that junk.

You are aware, I hope, that fully 80% of college graduates NEVER work in their fields of study? That means that they too have to self train. The problem with Master's and PhD's in engineering is that many of them never open a book again after leaving college. So while working in their field they really aren't - they become managers and can't even figure out what the workers are saying.

The worst of the bunch are PhD Physicists who do not do one lick of original work themselves and spend their time quoting the work of other that is wrong. There is certainly nothing wrong with being wrong but it destroys the very idea of "peer reviewed".


Hey, full respect to your career! All I was saying is that the scientific system of meriting people is not always fair.




PS. Some of you must have CAPS LOCK broken.
13-05-2017 01:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
Many points here concern basic physics. It would be interesting to discuss them all, but I have a day job. To this end, I will leave the forum for a while after this message. (But I will be back, believe me.)

Can't help to comment this one, though.

Into the Night
Reducing emissivity by CO2 (you never explain how this happens), means emissivity STAYS reduced. The Earth would be COOLER, not warmer. You can't use the 'old' emissivity anymore. Reducing emissivity reduces absorption. It also increases albedo.

Stefan-Boltzmann has no term for frequency in it. It calculates radiance for the combined total of ALL frequencies.


If emissivity is reduced, outgoing radiation is reduced.Thus, the body will be WARMER, not cooler.

If emissivity is reduced, absorption is reduced with it. They are tied together. That means incoming energy from the Sun will be reduced. There is less energy to be emitted. The Earth is COOLER.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote:
But yes, S-B calculates radiance from the total of all frequencies, and thus, the emissivity will be reduced, if some of the frequencies are blocked. This might happen by a gas that absorbs some of the frequencies.


Reducing emissivity is reducing absorption, which is the same as increasing albedo. The Earth is COOLER, not warmer.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2017 02:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
If emissivity is reduced, absorption is reduced with it. They are tied together. That means incoming energy from the Sun will be reduced. There is less energy to be emitted. The Earth is COOLER.

Nope. If IR emissivity/absorptivity is reduced, as is the case here, it has very little effect on incoming energy because only a very small proportion of the incoming energy is in the IR part of the spectrum.
14-05-2017 02:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote: So you seem to be a type-3 sceptic. Fair enough.

Oh really? You have "types" of skeptics?

So how do you classify those that understand science well enough to know that your original article is complete crap? There is no such thing as "radiative forcing" in science. In fact, your essay by Richard Lindzen is describing an egregious violation of physics.

Additionally, CO2 does not have the miraculous superpowers to violate the laws of thermodynamics described in the essay.

The essay is dismissed as crap ... by those who understand physics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-05-2017 02:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote:... the excess heat gained through radiation is transferred to surrounding atmosphere, land and ocean through conduction.

Would you recognize a violation of the 1st LoT if one were put in front of you?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-05-2017 02:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If emissivity is reduced, absorption is reduced with it. They are tied together. That means incoming energy from the Sun will be reduced. There is less energy to be emitted. The Earth is COOLER.

Nope. If IR emissivity/absorptivity is reduced, as is the case here, it has very little effect on incoming energy because only a very small proportion of the incoming energy is in the IR part of the spectrum.

So you are trying to break Emissivity down into separate convenience values as opposed to the one, single, solitary constant Emissivity value that every body must have.

Your contention is dismissed.

You don't get to alter the science. You don't get to create your own terms, factors and equations to suit your fantasy. You can't break a body down below its atomic level. You don't get to alter Emissivity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-05-2017 02:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
JohannesDiCosmos wrote: If emissivity is reduced, outgoing radiation is reduced. Thus, the body will be WARMER, not cooler.

You clearly need an education on blackbody radiation. Two bodies of differing emissivity with equivalent energy input, the one with the lower emissivity will be cooler.

If you don't understand this then you need to brush up.

JohannesDiCosmos wrote: But yes, S-B calculates radiance from the total of all frequencies, and thus, the emissivity will be reduced, if some of the frequencies are blocked. This might happen by a gas that absorbs some of the frequencies.

You've got to be kidding me! Before you read up on blackbody radiation science, brush up on "cause -> effect." You really screwed that up a couple of times in this above quote.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Simple thermodynamics for climate sceptics:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
A very simple but meaningful fact about CO2, without it1210-01-2019 05:27
Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics35509-01-2018 15:22
Climate change is simple: David Roberts2928-11-2017 22:46
Every thread turns into a discussion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics1727-04-2017 06:09
Just one simple question3604-01-2017 18:58
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact