Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

Recommended Posts

Hi BFTV.....Thanks for the response which I do appreciate.  I'm not a screaming denier, nor one who's "denial" is based on not wanting extra tactics......but a growing sense of there being an awful lot of rubbish being spoken about it. So you may be right in that I am being unduly influenced by the hysterical media reactions rather than the science.  But i do wonder whether as our knowledge increases in certain fields, we tend to gravitate all our reasoning towards our understanding of those fields and eliminate or remove from consideration those fields in which our knowledge is sketchy.

For example.... you make a comment about "cooling factors".....how do we know that these were not in much more abundance in previous years and that the warming we are now experiencing is not just a natural cycle of the earth, something that a relative lack of such cooling activities has been currently aiding. How much do we really understand about the reasons behind the ices ages we've had before and the warming up that consequently ended them?

I certainly am aware it's been warmer in recent years.....though at the same time having a feeling that the "seasons" as we know them in the traditional sense seem to have come back more into line in the past few years. I've a spreadhseet of the mean CETs by month since 1700 with the top 25 ranked of each month (in terms of warmth) shown with a red cell and the bottom 25 shown with a blue cell. (so month has 50 of the 315 cells highlighted in one way or another)  All very simplistic stuff. Yet it is striking how many red cells there are since 1989 I'd say.  Before that there periods of dominance of one or the other colour without ever being near the same level of dominance. In fact the very very lovely December of 2012 ended a run of 175 months without a blue shaded cell in my spreadsheet! And all this time there was an average of four red cells in each year!  So the warming is there to see.....and at the same time perhaps the beginning of a switch, with the number of reds per year beginning to decline and another blue month registering (March 2013).

So it's easy to portray things either way......but I have issues with how things are only portrayed one way ...ie the apparent fact the climate is getting irreversibly warmer.  I do remember in the Seventies when analysis of the ozone layer led to frightening predictions about how cold the world was going to get and how we had to take drastic action to prevent it happening.  Well did that cooling stop because we stopped using aerosols?  Or was it more that the predictions made, by the very same people who have since led the "global warming science", were the result of our flawed understanding of how the Ozone layer works?   If the former, why don't we go back to using those aerosols to counteract the global warming  :-)

It seems like analysts will jump on a certain type of weather as being evidence of climate change, and then when the opposite happens, jump on the fact that extremes are being experienced and in general jump on about anything as "evidence".  Such "analysis" I find ridiculous.  I maintain that there are not many groups of years going way way back in history when such arguments couldn't be made with equal validity. 

In the 58 years between 1929 and 1986 we had nine of the 20 coldest Februarys since 1700 and just two of the warmest, Since then we've not had any of the coldest 25 Februarys.  that's 28 years without one when we had been averaging four in the same timeframe. Evidence of warming? Well in the first 39 years in the data range....ie from 1700 to 1739, there weren't any of the coldest 25 Febs either!   And what would ye olde Climate change ologists made of the successive Septembers from 1729-1731 if they had known that, getting on for 300 years later, they were still 3 of the 12 warmest Septembers ever recorded? 

I think there's lots we don't know still about the effect of different things such as the Sun and the varying degrees of axis tilt upon our climate. And we know that every so often the poles of the earth switch or move....but we've never experienced it in our lifetimes. Huge earthquakes and large volcanos can have dramatic effects. Maybe we are headed irreversibly for a big big change....but I think the greatest fallacy around now lies in the belief that we can do something about it. It's the modern equivalent of a raindance.....if it works, it was because raindancing really does work......if it doesn't , it's because not enough people were out raindancing.






 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's easy to portray things either way......but I have issues with how things are only portrayed one way ...ie the apparent fact the climate is getting irreversibly warmer.  I do remember in the Seventies when analysis of the ozone layer led to frightening predictions about how cold the world was going to get and how we had to take drastic action to prevent it happening.  Well did that cooling stop because we stopped using aerosols?  Or was it more that the predictions made, by the very same people who have since led the "global warming science", were the result of our flawed understanding of how the Ozone layer works?   If the former, why don't we go back to using those aerosols to counteract the global warming  :-)

 

 

I'm afraid you have completely lost me here. There were no frightening predictions on how cold the world was going to get with the reduction of ozone in the stratosphere, that wasn't the concern. The chemistry of the ozone layer is well understood, better now than it was then, but it was soon realised that chlorine can be an agent for the catalytic destruction of ozone.

 

The major concern was that the effects of reduced stratospheric ozone are particularly important for their potential biological damage to living cells and human skin. It is estimated that a i per cent reduction in total ozone will increase ultraviolet -B radiation by 2 per cent and ultraviolet radiation at .30 um is a thousand times more damaging for the skin than at .33 um.

 

You then say this

 

 

Or was it more that the predictions made, by the very same people who have since led the "global warming science", were the result of our flawed understanding of how the Ozone layer works?

 

As there was no prediction made so it follows the rest is incorrect. But just to cover it scientists such as Farman Shanklin, Molina and Rowland did not lead global warming science as you quaintly put it although I can vouch that Dr Jon Shanklin agrees ( big surprise there) with the science having had the privilege to discuss it with him on a couple of occasions.

 

In short I think that paragraph totally inaccurate and misleading and for someone who is not a screaming denier you seem to have a very poor opinion of the science (without saying why) and the integrity of the scientists.

 

The ozone hole does seem to played an important role in circulation patterns in Antarctica but that's another story.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Knocker

It was Stephen H Schneider I was thinking of who was a co-author of a paper in the early Seventies which concluded 

 

 

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production

With four fireballs seen in one night over the US last night, I wonder how much the earth's temperature in the past has been impacted by meteorites......can you imagine the impact of a large fireball plunging into one of the polar regions?  We're all doomed I tell you!! :)
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google pulled the plug on it’s support for the American Legislative Exchange Council,(ALEC) a Science denying, far right wing lobbying group, funded by the Koch Brothers.

 

 

“Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place,†Schmidt said. “And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.â€

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/09/24/dike-bursts-tech-giants-flee-climate-denying-koch-front-theyre-just-literally-lying/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BFTV.....Thanks for the response which I do appreciate.  I'm not a screaming denier, nor one who's "denial" is based on not wanting extra tactics......but a growing sense of there being an awful lot of rubbish being spoken about it. So you may be right in that I am being unduly influenced by the hysterical media reactions rather than the science.  But i do wonder whether as our knowledge increases in certain fields, we tend to gravitate all our reasoning towards our understanding of those fields and eliminate or remove from consideration those fields in which our knowledge is sketchy.

For example.... you make a comment about "cooling factors".....how do we know that these were not in much more abundance in previous years and that the warming we are now experiencing is not just a natural cycle of the earth, something that a relative lack of such cooling activities has been currently aiding. How much do we really understand about the reasons behind the ices ages we've had before and the warming up that consequently ended them?

I certainly am aware it's been warmer in recent years.....though at the same time having a feeling that the "seasons" as we know them in the traditional sense seem to have come back more into line in the past few years. I've a spreadhseet of the mean CETs by month since 1700 with the top 25 ranked of each month (in terms of warmth) shown with a red cell and the bottom 25 shown with a blue cell. (so month has 50 of the 315 cells highlighted in one way or another)  All very simplistic stuff. Yet it is striking how many red cells there are since 1989 I'd say.  Before that there periods of dominance of one or the other colour without ever being near the same level of dominance. In fact the very very lovely December of 2012 ended a run of 175 months without a blue shaded cell in my spreadsheet! And all this time there was an average of four red cells in each year!  So the warming is there to see.....and at the same time perhaps the beginning of a switch, with the number of reds per year beginning to decline and another blue month registering (March 2013).

So it's easy to portray things either way......but I have issues with how things are only portrayed one way ...ie the apparent fact the climate is getting irreversibly warmer.  I do remember in the Seventies when analysis of the ozone layer led to frightening predictions about how cold the world was going to get and how we had to take drastic action to prevent it happening.  Well did that cooling stop because we stopped using aerosols?  Or was it more that the predictions made, by the very same people who have since led the "global warming science", were the result of our flawed understanding of how the Ozone layer works?   If the former, why don't we go back to using those aerosols to counteract the global warming  :-)

It seems like analysts will jump on a certain type of weather as being evidence of climate change, and then when the opposite happens, jump on the fact that extremes are being experienced and in general jump on about anything as "evidence".  Such "analysis" I find ridiculous.  I maintain that there are not many groups of years going way way back in history when such arguments couldn't be made with equal validity. 

In the 58 years between 1929 and 1986 we had nine of the 20 coldest Februarys since 1700 and just two of the warmest, Since then we've not had any of the coldest 25 Februarys.  that's 28 years without one when we had been averaging four in the same timeframe. Evidence of warming? Well in the first 39 years in the data range....ie from 1700 to 1739, there weren't any of the coldest 25 Febs either!   And what would ye olde Climate change ologists made of the successive Septembers from 1729-1731 if they had known that, getting on for 300 years later, they were still 3 of the 12 warmest Septembers ever recorded? 

I think there's lots we don't know still about the effect of different things such as the Sun and the varying degrees of axis tilt upon our climate. And we know that every so often the poles of the earth switch or move....but we've never experienced it in our lifetimes. Huge earthquakes and large volcanos can have dramatic effects. Maybe we are headed irreversibly for a big big change....but I think the greatest fallacy around now lies in the belief that we can do something about it. It's the modern equivalent of a raindance.....if it works, it was because raindancing really does work......if it doesn't , it's because not enough people were out raindancing.

 

One of the interesting things about climate science is that you cannot take one area of invstigation in isolation, it's all connected and you have to understand many different phenomena to make predictions. The scientists that discovered many of the natural climate cycles are often the same ones working on the human influence too.

Without any doubt, CO2 will cause at least 1C of warming, this isn't disputed even among most climate "sceptics". It's how the climate will then respond to that slight warming that matters. When we look at the historical record of temperature changes taken from the Vostok ice core, we can see some large temperature swings, and a close relationship with CO2. Now we know that the ice age cycle are largely controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, changes in the Earths orbit and axis.

 

Vostok+Ice+Core+Data.png

 

But we also know that the Milankovitch cycles by themselves cannot cause the temperatures variations seen, they rely on positive feedback mechanisms to kick in to amplify the warming and cooling. Those feedback mechanisms include CO2, ice/albedo feedback, changes in water vapour and others. From these records, it seems that if you give the climate a slight push, feedbacks kick in and cause very large temperature changes.

 

With the CET, we can pick and choose warm and cold months, but the overall temperatures has been increasing, very much in line with global temperatures. Despite the record being so long, we've still set numerous warm month and years record in recent decades. Still, that says little to nothing about climate change in general.

WJk9L5p.jpg

 

As for the cooling scare in the 70s... (other than your mix up with ozone) time to blame the media again! Even then, the majority of scientific studies showed that warming was most likely, but a headline declaring an impending ice age sounds a lot more exciting!

1970s_papers.gif

 

The last link I provided in my previous post shows some lines of empirical evidence. We don't explain the warming trend currently seen as being caused by CO2, simply because they seem to correlate a bit. There is plenty of evidence that shows CO2 is causing the warming.

One of the best ones is measurements of the incoming and outgoing radiation. I'm sure you know the basics, but just incase... short wave energy leaves the sun, with much of the passing through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface. The surface heats up and releases longwave radiation (heat) in order to cool. CO2 in the atmosphere then absorbs some of that long wave radiation at specific wavelengths and then re-emits it in all directions, some goes back to the surface, some gets reabsorbed by other greenhouse gasses, while some eventually escapes into space. The overall effect is to slow the release of heat back into the space, causing warming. Now, knowing this, we should be able to measure the extra long wave radiation (heat) coming back down to the Earth's surface from the CO2, and at the wavelength that CO2 absorbs and emits. We should also be able to measure a reduction in the same wavelength of radiation leaving the atmosphere. This would be proof that the atmosphere, due to CO2 increases, is holding on to more heat and that CO2 is the cause.

These two measurement have been made and they've found exactly that, less longwave radiation leaving the planet and more coming down to the surface.

Here's the link for the first study that looked at the radiation leaving the planet, and a more recent one

Here's the link for the study that looked at the surface measurements, and another similar one that states:

 

"this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming"

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reply to BFTV:-

 

"One of the interesting things about climate science is that you cannot take one area of invstigation in isolation, it's all connected and you have to understand many different phenomena to make predictions. The scientists that discovered many of the natural climate cycles are often the same ones working on the human influence too."

You got that one pretty  much spot on.

 

"Without any doubt, CO2 will cause at least 1C of warming, this isn't disputed even among most climate "sceptics". It's how the climate will then respond to that slight warming that matters."

 

Yes that is pretty standard stuff as well but without any doubt is not a scientific certainty or in fact supported. It is theory only.

 

"When we look at the historical record of temperature changes taken from the Vostok ice core, we can see some large temperature swings, and a close relationship with CO2. Now we know that the ice age cycle are largely controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, changes in the Earths orbit and axis.

 

Yes the statement is essentially correct.

 

"But we also know that the Milankovitch cycles by themselves cannot cause the temperatures variations seen, they rely on positive feedback mechanisms to kick in to amplify the warming and cooling. Those feedback mechanisms include CO2, ice/albedo feedback, changes in water vapour and others. From these records, it seems that if you give the climate a slight push, feedbacks kick in and cause very large temperature changes.

 

Your statement lacks any evidence to substantiate your claims about the cycles themselves not being able to cause the variations. While I agree that feedbacks "the current buzzword" are probably involved there is no way we can at this time put any realistic or codged up number (sorry rude) on any such supposed feedback. The ice ages remain a scary and unknown/unpredictable reality of the worlds future and documented past. Documented as in the little ice age and ice core records. There are other theories regarding ice ages out there besides the orbital anomalies including the solar systems passage through the galaxy.

 

"With the CET, we can pick and choose warm and cold months, but the overall temperatures has been increasing, very much in line with global temperatures. Despite the record being so long, we've still set numerous warm month and years record in recent decades. Still, that says little to nothing about climate change in general."

 

Quite so, nothing at all.

 

"As for the cooling scare in the 70s... (other than your mix up with ozone) time to blame the media again! Even then, the majority of scientific studies showed that warming was most likely, but a headline declaring an impending ice age sounds a lot more exciting!

 

Sorry but the scare was real as was the cooling. Where does your majority of scientific studies come from?. Please show your work. Saying all this the whole issue is largely irrelevant other than showing unexpected and unexplained climate variation in a chaotic system. 

 

​As for the empirical evidence by satellite the error bars are wider than the conclusions and there is no evidence that we are retaining or losing energy/heat. If the instruments up in orbit were able to accurately measure the energy budget there would be no dispute but they are not able to do so. We will just just have to wait and see what happens here on the surface where we live. You claims of accuracy in energy flux from satellites are bogus (not your fault) but bogus none the less.

Edited by mikeworst
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Enough said on the 97%

less than 1% of the studies expressly disputed the impact by man. A good two thirds took no position on the topic – and so were not included.†-

 

Why would that be, Keith? Because the evidence - the point of this thread - simply does not stack-up in the 'sceptics'' favour? DLT got convicted on a 10-2 majority; I think that a 97-3 majority would be good for any jury, don't you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFTV, really?

"The surface heats up and releases longwave radiation (heat) in order to cool. CO2 in the atmosphere then absorbs some of that long wave radiation at specific wavelengths and then re-emits it in all directions, some goes back to the surface, some gets reabsorbed by other greenhouse gasses, while some eventually escapes into space."

With that statement you have proven that you know nothing about radiative heat transfer!!!! Or coupled thermal systems!!!

Oh dear.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reply to BFTV:-

 

"One of the interesting things about climate science is that you cannot take one area of invstigation in isolation, it's all connected and you have to understand many different phenomena to make predictions. The scientists that discovered many of the natural climate cycles are often the same ones working on the human influence too."

You got that one pretty  much spot on.

 

"Without any doubt, CO2 will cause at least 1C of warming, this isn't disputed even among most climate "sceptics". It's how the climate will then respond to that slight warming that matters."

 

1: Yes that is pretty standard stuff as well but without any doubt is not a scientific certainty or in fact supported. It is theory only.

 

"When we look at the historical record of temperature changes taken from the Vostok ice core, we can see some large temperature swings, and a close relationship with CO2. Now we know that the ice age cycle are largely controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, changes in the Earths orbit and axis.

 

2: Yes the statement is essentially correct.

 

"But we also know that the Milankovitch cycles by themselves cannot cause the temperatures variations seen, they rely on positive feedback mechanisms to kick in to amplify the warming and cooling. Those feedback mechanisms include CO2, ice/albedo feedback, changes in water vapour and others. From these records, it seems that if you give the climate a slight push, feedbacks kick in and cause very large temperature changes.

 

3: Your statement lacks any evidence to substantiate your claims about the cycles themselves not being able to cause the variations. While I agree that feedbacks "the current buzzword" are probably involved there is no way we can at this time put any realistic or codged up number (sorry rude) on any such supposed feedback. The ice ages remain a scary and unknown/unpredictable reality of the worlds future and documented past. Documented as in the little ice age and ice core records. There are other theories regarding ice ages out there besides the orbital anomalies including the solar systems passage through the galaxy.

 

"With the CET, we can pick and choose warm and cold months, but the overall temperatures has been increasing, very much in line with global temperatures. Despite the record being so long, we've still set numerous warm month and years record in recent decades. Still, that says little to nothing about climate change in general."

 

4: Quite so, nothing at all.

 

"As for the cooling scare in the 70s... (other than your mix up with ozone) time to blame the media again! Even then, the majority of scientific studies showed that warming was most likely, but a headline declaring an impending ice age sounds a lot more exciting!

 

5: Sorry but the scare was real as was the cooling. Where does your majority of scientific studies come from?. Please show your work. Saying all this the whole issue is largely irrelevant other than showing unexpected and unexplained climate variation in a chaotic system. 

 

6: ​As for the empirical evidence by satellite the error bars are wider than the conclusions and there is no evidence that we are retaining or losing energy/heat. If the instruments up in orbit were able to accurately measure the energy budget there would be no dispute but they are not able to do so. We will just just have to wait and see what happens here on the surface where we live. You claims of accuracy in energy flux from satellites are bogus (not your fault) but bogus none the less.

 

1: I missed out the word "doubling", but I think the general gist is clear.Increasing CO2 will cause a small amount of warming, it's the feedbacks where any uncertainty lies. However, Mike, you seem to forget that scientific theory is not the same as someone having an idea. You cannot dismiss gravity because it's a theory, or the existence of germs because of germ theory. I suggest you read up on the scientific method. 

 

2: Agreement!? There might be hope yet! However, you do know that the Milankovitch cycle as a cause of ice ages, is  just a theory? It's also based on mathematical models.

 

3: Based on the know shifts in the Earths orbit and axis, the change in the energy balance can be calculated. These calculations have shown that it's simply not enough to cause the large global temperature swings experienced. Here's a piece from realclimate, you know, actual experts, discussing this topic. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/?wpmp_tp=1

explaining the magnitude of global temperature change requires including CO2. This is a critical point. We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2

 

4: Another point of agreement? Twice in one post, must be a record!

 

5: I can't force you look at the graph showing what the published predictions were during the 60s and 70s. Sorry.

 

6: I also can't make you read the papers I linked to, which present a thoroughly different picture than you do. I will, however, suggest that maybe, just maybe, you should consider if the experts conducting the studies might be in a better position to draw conclusions from their work than you?

The claims the authors/experts make, such as

  • "Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."
  • "Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra."
  • "We found that daily Ld increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration."
  • "This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

seem entirely at odds with your claim of:

As for the empirical evidence by satellite the error bars are wider than the conclusions and there is no evidence that we are retaining or losing energy/heat. If the instruments up in orbit were able to accurately measure the energy budget there would be no dispute but they are not able to do so. We will just just have to wait and see what happens here on the surface where we live. You claims of accuracy in energy flux from satellites are bogus (not your fault) but bogus none the less.

 

Why don't you trust the experts, Mike? And why is it that experts from all around the world, over different decades, are coming to the same conclusion, yet you feel that you know better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will reply later bf because I am busy right now but

"Why don't you trust the experts, Mike? And why is it that experts from all around the world, over different decades, are coming to the same conclusion, yet you feel that you know better?"

Bf the experts do not agree, there is the rub.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFTV, sorry, bit lengthy (but so are some of yours).

Some may see this as off post. But I don't. There can be no 'definable human influence' if the current scientific stance and education put forward by authority is questionable.

And questionable it is.

Both NASA and our friend, Mr Trenburth, in their energy budget diagrams show massive, opposing 'energy' fluxes. The Earth emitting a massive upward radiative flux called 'energy' by NASA (that doesn't heat the atmosphere as it's not in the energy budget for the atmosphere). The 'back radiant', 'energy' transferred downward, and NASA do use the word 'energy' is held responsible for heating the surface with twice the efficacy of the solar flux, but is unavailable for work or power and is generally undetectable without special equipment!!!!!

Look, climate science is thinking in terms of photon fluxes. Photon fluxes give the WRONG ANSWERS.

Photons only describe REAL, as in NETTED, energy AT THE POINT OF ABSORPTION OR EMISSION ONLY.

In all other respects electromagnetic radiation is a wave quantity and has therefore to be treated and described so. In order to account for interference, diffraction and refraction we require a wave analogy. In calculation of 'energy' electromagnetic radiation is a VECTOR QUANTITY.

This is the difference;

Consider two high emissivity, infinite, parallel plates in a vacuum at equilibrium. Each plate emits the same photon flux Q. Therefore as photons carry energy and energy is always positive, so at all points between the plates the total energy density is proportional to 2Q, (1Q from each of the plates)!!!!

Energy multiplication is therefore available from zero thermal gradient. Work and power for nothing!!!! Hooray!!!

But,

Physical nonsense.

Now back to reality;

Two high emissivity, infinite parallel plates in a vacuum at equilibrium. Each is producing thermal excitations of the mutual fields as described by Maxwell's equations. The superposition of equal monochromatic but opposite vector flows across the entire spectrum of emissions cancel at all intermediate points, to, wait for it.....,...zero!!!

Slight difference there, eh?

So this analysis of the equilibrium condition yields that there is NO AVAILABLE ENERGY from the distinct lack of spontaneous exchange. There's is NO 'energy' flow to tap into for work or power, with NO thermal gradient.

Mmm....... correct answer.

With one plate at a higher temperature to the other the only 'heat transferred' is the 'vector sum', or 'difference' of the opposing electromagnetic waves, see Poynting vector,

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/electromagnetic.pdf

So in reality ONLY the netted flux leaves the surface as a quantity we can describe as 'energy' in Wm-2!

The superposition of the more complete and stronger surface em continuum annihilates all downward fluxes from cooler objects (sky). Downwelling signals can only be viewed as a temperature signal by a detector with an environmental shield. Fluxes from higher temperature sources (like solar) cannot be cancelled as there is no counterpart and impart themselves as REAL ENERGY UPON THE SURFACE.

When calculating the surface emissions, line by line monochromatic subtraction of the opposing vector components across the entire spectrum yields the surface losses. The only radiative heat transferred.

So to contradict you, IN CO2's spectral bands NO SIGNIFICANT ENERGY LEAVES THE SURFACE. It is not part of the surface energy budget any more! Therefore this energy cannot be 'absorbed' and re radiated by such gases. These gases obey local thermodynamic principles. Therefore double the CO2 if you like, this coupled thermal system is using other available routes. (Except for the slight broadening of lines, compensated by reduced energy reaching the surface and greater upper atmospheric losses to space.)

So if it doesn't go up, it cannot come back down!!!! Or be passed to other 'powerful greenhouse gases'!!!!

Ever wondered why your domestic 'radiator' is a convection heater?

Ever wondered why your car 'radiator' uses forced convection (conduction to the air and a fan)?

Ever wondered why the black CPU in your computer needs conductive paste and a heat sink and a fan?

Radiative heat transfer at low thermal gradients in a coupled thermal system is INEFFECTIVE.

The atmosphere is not in radiative balance.

Edited by Geoffwood
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff. Perhaps your intellect is simply beyond that of us in a weather forum with a small climate section. My advice would be to organise your thoughts, get it down on paper and submit it to peer review. Obviously none of us here are atmospheric physicists so we cannot dismiss or approve of your ideas mathematically, so perhaps by presenting them to an expert in the area you might get a proper appraisal of your ideas. If they dismiss your work with faulty arguments, then publish the reviewer comments, go to the press, at the very least you could get a guest post on WUWT!

As a first step before submitting to peer review, perhaps try posting on a site with a more expert knowledge base, such as realclimate?

 

If you think you have some revolutionary ideas that can completely overturn our current thinking on how climate and weather operates, pushing them here is going to achieve nothing more than an ego boost. If you really believe your ideas are true, put them to the test.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some quality technical posts in here today, which I would require time and an IQ implant to get my head round.

 

What I can get my head round is some posts that are not altogether pleasant in tone.

 

Let's carry on the debate without the personal goading please..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lewis and Curry

 

Nic Lewis and Judith Curry have had a new paper published called The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. This seems to be pretty much the same as Otto et al. (2013), except with different choices for some of the values of some of the parameters. The basic idea is to determine the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) using observations and models results for the changes in forcings. For example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFTV, sorry, bit lengthy (but so are some of yours).

Some may see this as off post. But I don't. There can be no 'definable human influence' if the current scientific stance and education put forward by authority is questionable.

And questionable it is.

Both NASA and our friend, Mr Trenburth, in their energy budget diagrams show massive, opposing 'energy' fluxes. The Earth emitting a massive upward radiative flux called 'energy' by NASA (that doesn't heat the atmosphere as it's not in the energy budget for the atmosphere). The 'back radiant', 'energy' transferred downward, and NASA do use the word 'energy' is held responsible for heating the surface with twice the efficacy of the solar flux, but is unavailable for work or power and is generally undetectable without special equipment!!!!!

Look, climate science is thinking in terms of photon fluxes. Photon fluxes give the WRONG ANSWERS.

Photons only describe REAL, as in NETTED, energy AT THE POINT OF ABSORPTION OR EMISSION ONLY.

In all other respects electromagnetic radiation is a wave quantity and has therefore to be treated and described so. In order to account for interference, diffraction and refraction we require a wave analogy. In calculation of 'energy' electromagnetic radiation is a VECTOR QUANTITY.

This is the difference;

Consider two high emissivity, infinite, parallel plates in a vacuum at equilibrium. Each plate emits the same photon flux Q. Therefore as photons carry energy and energy is always positive, so at all points between the plates the total energy density is proportional to 2Q, (1Q from each of the plates)!!!!

Energy multiplication is therefore available from zero thermal gradient. Work and power for nothing!!!! Hooray!!!

But,

Physical nonsense.

Now back to reality;

Two high emissivity, infinite parallel plates in a vacuum at equilibrium. Each is producing thermal excitations of the mutual fields as described by Maxwell's equations. The superposition of equal monochromatic but opposite vector flows across the entire spectrum of emissions cancel at all intermediate points, to, wait for it.....,...zero!!!

Slight difference there, eh?

So this analysis of the equilibrium condition yields that there is NO AVAILABLE ENERGY from the distinct lack of spontaneous exchange. There's is NO 'energy' flow to tap into for work or power, with NO thermal gradient.

Mmm....... correct answer.

With one plate at a higher temperature to the other the only 'heat transferred' is the 'vector sum', or 'difference' of the opposing electromagnetic waves, see Poynting vector,

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/electromagnetic.pdf

So in reality ONLY the netted flux leaves the surface as a quantity we can describe as 'energy' in Wm-2!

The superposition of the more complete and stronger surface em continuum annihilates all downward fluxes from cooler objects (sky). Downwelling signals can only be viewed as a temperature signal by a detector with an environmental shield. Fluxes from higher temperature sources (like solar) cannot be cancelled as there is no counterpart and impart themselves as REAL ENERGY UPON THE SURFACE.

When calculating the surface emissions, line by line monochromatic subtraction of the opposing vector components across the entire spectrum yields the surface losses. The only radiative heat transferred.

So to contradict you, IN CO2's spectral bands NO SIGNIFICANT ENERGY LEAVES THE SURFACE. It is not part of the surface energy budget any more! Therefore this energy cannot be 'absorbed' and re radiated by such gases. These gases obey local thermodynamic principles. Therefore double the CO2 if you like, this coupled thermal system is using other available routes. (Except for the slight broadening of lines, compensated by reduced energy reaching the surface and greater upper atmospheric losses to space.)

So if it doesn't go up, it cannot come back down!!!! Or be passed to other 'powerful greenhouse gases'!!!!

Ever wondered why your domestic 'radiator' is a convection heater?

Ever wondered why your car 'radiator' uses forced convection (conduction to the air and a fan)?

Ever wondered why the black CPU in your computer needs conductive paste and a heat sink and a fan?

Radiative heat transfer at low thermal gradients in a coupled thermal system is INEFFECTIVE.

Interesting stuff, but at the risk of sounding a bit thick, like with your example of 'if the earth was like the moon, it would be the same temperature as the moon', your theoretical example of parallel high emissivity plates in a vacuum doesn't represent reality that there is an atmosphere. Incidentally stratification means that convective processes from the surface are confined to the troposphere.

Moreover, the earth is spherical and at any one time half the surface receives no solar radiation. What happens at night? It should be obvious to all that radiative heat transfer from the surface can be VERY effective.

 

The atmosphere is not in radiative balance.

 

Yes, the troposphere is warming up, at least you got that bit right.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFTV, really?

"The surface heats up and releases longwave radiation (heat) in order to cool. CO2 in the atmosphere then absorbs some of that long wave radiation at specific wavelengths and then re-emits it in all directions, some goes back to the surface, some gets reabsorbed by other greenhouse gasses, while some eventually escapes into space."

With that statement you have proven that you know nothing about radiative heat transfer!!!! Or coupled thermal systems!!!

Oh dear.

Indeed. But not for the reasons you suggest?? :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interitus, you say,

"Interesting stuff, but at the risk of sounding a bit thick, like with your example of 'if the earth was like the moon, it would be the same temperature as the moon', your theoretical example of parallel high emissivity plates in a vacuum doesn't represent reality that there is an atmosphere."

Yes there is an atmosphere and the 'devil is in the detail'.

The accepted temperature of the Earth, from which the 'greenhouse effect' raises the temperature, is 255K or -18degC and is a 'black body' temperature. The calculation is exactly the same as the 'moon's' temperature, except the calculation for the moon is more accurate. 273K includes a real world estimation of the moon's emissivity and it describes the surface. I'll show you the details if you require.

255K or -18degC for the Earth assumes the Earth has no atmosphere (taken for granted that it represents the surface) and that the Earth emits as a perfect 'black body' when 83% comes from the atmosphere! For an atmosphere to be like a 'black body' it has to be optically 'thick', which the transmission window proves it isn't.

You are accepting the analogy whether you like it or not.

The moon comparison is to show that the total effect of having an atmosphere upon the Earth's surface is actually 15K not 33K

The calculation for 33K enhancement uses the raised albedo of having an atmosphere then neglects the FACTS that the average emission height is not the surface and that the average emissivity of the bodies that answer to space is not that of a black body. Again, I'll show the calculation if you require. ie it neglects the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere!!!!!

Thank you for allowing me to enlighten you. (Again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for allowing me to enlighten you. (Again).

 

Geoff you post some interesting thoughts and at least you trying to establish a discussion rather then some folk just posting a blog off a google search

 

However I wish you would use the quote tab when you referring to people previous comments much easier to follow.

 

https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/16103-need-help-on-the-siteforum/

Edited by stewfox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff you post some interesting thoughts and at least you trying to establish a discussion rather then some folk just posting a blog off a google search

 

However I wish you would use the quote tab when you referring to people previous comments much easier to follow.

 

https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/16103-need-help-on-the-siteforum/

 

 At least you trying to establish a discussion is an interesting interpretation of, "Thank you for allowing me to enlighten you. (Again)". I rather think it reads more like an arrogant statement of 'fact'.

 

 

255K or -18degC for the Earth assumes the Earth has no atmosphere (taken for granted that it represents the surface) and that the Earth emits as a perfect 'black body' when 83% comes from the atmosphere! For an atmosphere to be like a 'black body' it has to be optically 'thick', which the transmission window proves it isn't.

 

Another way of putting the first bit is that the earth receives 340w of solar energy for each square meter of it's spherical surface, For a stable climate on earth the planet must radiate the same amount of energy back into space. However that would leave an average surface temperature of -18C.

 

The earth  emits almost as a perfect black body (slight adjustment of Stefan's Law)  There are several gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit infra red radiation. Thus they allow incoming solar radiation but they trap radiation from the surface. Result reduced radiation back into space and an imbalance. So, quick adjustment and voila we have an average temp of 15C. The easiest way of seeing this is to look at a diagram of spectral distribution of solar and terrestrial radiation plotted logarithmically, together with the main absorption bands. So the atmosphere is partially 'thick'.

 

Pretty basic stuff but it has been accepted for many years and is in all the text books. But then of course you know all this.

 

 

then some folk just posting a blog off a google search

 

Heaven forbid you ever do that.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

knocker,

Posted Today, 10:00 by knocker

"And as we are tripping the light fantastic there is also Rancourt's alternative."

Attached Files

RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingfirst-revised-3.pdf 180.26KB 6 downloads

This is from the abstract,

"Earth’s radiative balance determining its surface temperature is shown to be two orders of magnitude more sensitive to solar irradiance and to planetary albedo and emissivity than to the atmospheric greenhouse effect from CO2."

Did you even bother to read it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

knocker, you need to revisit Trenburth's energy budget. 184wm-2 reaches the surface. You are obviously and embarrassingly talking about a point above the surface?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...