New Paper Uses Physics Laws To
Disassemble Greenhouse Theory
Eight years ago, 2 physicists published a comprehensive 115-page scientific paper entitled “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” in the International Journal of Modern Physics.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009
Buttressed by a reference list of over 200 scientific publications, the authors addressed the merits of commonly held greenhouse “conjectures” as they relate to the laws of physics.
“By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33°C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”
From pages 35 to 44, Gerlich and Tscheuschner critiqued 14 different “fictitious” manifestations of the greenhouse effect theory as they have appeared over the course of the last several decades.
In a newly-published scientific paper, meteorologist and physical chemist Dr. Martin Hertzberg (and two other chemists) provide a condensed update to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner appraisal of the theoretical greenhouse effect.
Hertzberg and colleagues also apply the standard laws of physics to critique 6 current theoretical explanations for the role of greenhouse gases (CO2) in presumably keeping the Earth 15°C warmer than it would otherwise be.
Included below is an abridged, less-technical version of the paper in an ostensibly user-friendly format.
It should be noted that the conclusions may be controversial even for skeptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarm. That’s because the vast majority of climate skeptics at least accept the basic tenets of the greenhouse effect theory. Instead, the existing skepticism focuses on the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing in particular (low vs. high), not on whether the greenhouse effect as conventionally expressed is “real” or meets the standards applied by the laws of physics.
It is widely assumed that that the common understanding of how greenhouse gases operate in the climate system (the atmosphere and oceans) is both real and supported by scientific observation and physical tests. This paper, like Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), may challenge this assumption.
Role of greenhouse gases in climate change
Hertzberg et al., 2017
This study examines the various definitions of the greenhouse effect for compatibility with the laws of physics.
Definition 1
A greenhouse is a glass/plastic enclosure, warmed by sunlight, facilitating plant growth. Several definitions argue that the effect in the atmosphere is analogous to a greenhouse. It is stated that sunlight transmitted into an enclosure through transparent glass warms the interior of the enclosure, increasing the Infra Red (IR) radiation. As glass is partly opaque to IR radiation, it cannot freely pass outward through the glass and is thus retained within the enclosure. Several definitions infer the radiation is being ‘trapped’ and it is argued that atmospheric gases such as CO2 are analogous to the glass pane action of a greenhouse and this serves to ‘trap’ IR radiation within the atmosphere and obstruct radiative cooling.
The Critique
An early test of the ‘trapped’ radiation theory was conducted by R. W. Wood. He constructed two enclosures, one covered with a glass plate and the other covered with an IR transmitting rock salt plate. When adjusted so that both were exposed to the same solar input radiation, they both reached the same temperature of 55°C with ‘scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures’. His experiment clearly showed that it was the presence of the enclosure itself that enabled the warming. Therefore, it is the heat generated by absorbed sunlight that becomes ‘trapped’. In the absence of an enclosure, the warmed air near the ground would rise by buoyancy and be replaced by cooler air from the surroundings thus cooling it. This natural convective cooling process is restricted and suppressed by the enclosure. It is the same process that generates a cooling afternoon sea breeze on a beach with cooler air from the ocean replacing rising warmer air over land. To argue that an open gaseous atmosphere confines in the way that the top and sides of a greenhouse enclosure does is not valid. To the contrary, a gaseous atmosphere is conducive to the convective cooling that occurs in the absence of an enclosure. It could be argued that CO2 along with the other gaseous components of the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the Earth’s surface.
Definition 2
Another common theme among the various descriptions of the effect is that the ‘greenhouse gases’ serve as a ‘blanket’ keeping the earth warm.
The Critique
A simple experiment to test the validity of this argument is to appear naked outside on a cold evening and observe how long the blanket of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere keeps you warm. Air warmed by body heat rises by buoyancy and is replaced by cooler air from the surroundings, causing rapid cooling down and shivering. An actual blanket is a flexible insulating enclosure that reduces the rate at which body heat is lost to the surroundings. Thus the atmosphere is more given to being an agent for cooling by way of natural convection.
Definition 3
A regular description of the ‘greenhouse gas’ heating mechanism is that referred to as ‘back radiation’. Atmospheric gases such as CO2, having a dipole moment, absorb some incoming solar radiation and some of the IR radiation the Earth’s surface radiates toward free space. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘re-radiated energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere keeping the surface temperature warm’. This ‘trapping’ is assumed to occur as the surface radiates to the atmosphere and the atmosphere radiates back to the surface.
The Critique
The radiation emitted from the warmer surface absorbed by the colder atmosphere is readily detected by orbiting satellites. However, back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
There are two problems with that amount of down-welling radiation: the atmosphere is not a blackbody with unit emissivity and equally, is not radiating toward a receptive absorber. Yet it is depicted as radiating heat downwards to the warmer Earth’s surface in direct violation of the Second Law.
The flow of heat is always from the hotter surface to the colder surface as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nowhere in the radiation field between the two surfaces is the flux of radiant energy equal to that which either surface would emit if they were facing a complete void. Thus, the simple use of the Stefan-Boltzmann term, δT4 to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in the manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation, is a misapplication of the equation and the notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It would therefore be clear that the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann term to simply characterize radiant energy being transferred from an object to its surroundings without reference to the conditions of the surroundings in radiative contact with that object is a misapplication of the equation.
It would be incorrect to talk in terms of radiation exchanging, since transfer occurs only from warmer to cooler matter, from higher energy level to lower energy level.
Definition 4
A proposed new definition of the greenhouse theory to overcome the objections raised against warming by back radiation argues that IR absorbing ‘greenhouse gases’ hinder radiative transport from the Earth’s surface upwards and aid to keep the surface warm and warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of those gases.
The Critique
The definition ignores the fact that those gases themselves emit radiation to free space adding to radiation loss from the system. Radiation loss to free space from the earth’s surface and its atmosphere is essentially the same with or without presence of absorbing gases for the following reasons: the cooling by radiation to free space is a one-step process; in the presence of an atmosphere, it is a two-step process with the same loss, with or without, the absorbing and emitting gaseous atmosphere. When talking about radiation, it is absorbed radiation or emitted radiation that is being considered.
Definition 5
In many of the various definitions, attempt is made to prove that ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere keep the Earth warm, warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of an atmosphere as conveyed by the following [enviropedia.org] quote:
“This process (radiation trapping) makes the temperature rise in the atmosphere just as it does in the greenhouse. This is the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and keeps the Earth 33°C warmer than it would (otherwise) be without an atmosphere, at an average of 15°C.”
The Critique
Logically that argues that if the Earth had no atmosphere, its average temperature would be -18°C rather than its current temperature of 15°C. Such a temperature is based on calculated ones, that is ‘otherwise’ ones. The calculations arise from several mistaken assumptions. The most obvious one diminishes the solar radiation input by 37% from the Earth’s cloud albedo while simultaneously taking no account of any lessening of the IR radiation emitted to free space by the same blocking clouds. Equally, all IR radiating entities on the surface are assumed to be blackbodies with unit emissivity. The calculation that yields the -18°C temperature is obviously mistaken. The question is considered and covered in detail in the ‘Cold Earth Fallacy’.
Further argument used to illustrate the greenhouse effect of CO2 is the atmosphere of Venus, which is almost entirely [965,000 ppm] CO2. Based upon its distance to the Sun relative to that of the Earth, and using the Earth’s average temperature, Venus surface temperature should be about 280°C. Yet the measured value is about 465°C. This difference is attributed to the strong greenhouse effect of its higher CO2 concentration. The difference is more correctly attributable to Venus’ high surface pressure and the adiabatic compression of the atmosphere adjacent to its surface. Venus’ surface temperature would be just as warm if its atmosphere consisted of any gas whose compressibility was the same as that of CO2. The temperatures in the Mohave Desert and the Dead Sea are higher than the temperatures of surrounding areas at sea level. That is not a greenhouse effect but is caused by adiabatic compression of the higher pressures at their elevations below sea level.
Definition 6
All atmospheric gases that are believed to be ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb IR radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. Their absorption spectra are well known and it is relatively easy to calculate the radiation flux, those gases absorb from the Earth’s IR emission.
The Critique
The problem arises when those radiation fluxes are translated into a resultant temperature rise while ignoring the fact that atmospheric gas is being simultaneously cooled by radiating to the unlimited sink of free space.
Epilogue
In one of science’s first ‘thought experiments’ Pierre Prevost (1751–1839) conjectured that a hot body absorbed less radiation from a cold body than the reverse, and that both would eventually reach the same temperature. Thus, the theory of radiant exchanges came into being, a view that predated the more thorough understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics that came later. Yet it is noted that aspects of Prevost’s 200-year-old theory continue to be applied in regard to ‘net flow’ of heat – a concept that radiation flows both downhill and uphill. The latter flow is a violation of the Second Law, which informs us that a hot body can absorb no radiation from a cold body to make it warmer still.
Radiative greenhouse supporters have theorized a blackbody as an all-absorbing entity, capable of absorbing and retaining its own radiation to elevate its temperature and have used radiant exchanges in support of their arguments.
[S]o far no way has been found to be able to readily transpose or correlate experiments conducted in the contained, static, isothermal and isobaric conditions of a laboratory to the great vastness of earth’s atmosphere.
Conclusion
The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and application of the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. They were found to be unreal, and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with those laws, it can only be concluded that the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit.
“That’s because the vast majority of climate skeptics at least accept the basic tenets of the greenhouse effect theory.”
This is why “global warming” hasn’t been put to bed yet. There is more good discussion on these themes here and examination of the flawed theories of Arrhenius and Tyndall:
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net
“The “Greenhouse Effect” is defined by Arrhenius’ (1896) modification of Pouillet’s backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius’ incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material.
The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909.
The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation.”
As a simple layman, I just know that greenhouse gasses (as nearly any other materials) are absorbing and emitting IR radiation at certain wavelengths in average directions.
So there is a certain back radiation, and it can be measured. How much it does affect average global temperature, nobody knows exactly.
I tried to read through Tscheuschner and Ehlich several times but I found not out, how in their Universe CO2 & Co gasses are working.
You can debunk a theory, but you have to show how other Laws of Physics are working, e.g. radiation.
The “Colder objects cannot warm warmer objects, therefore CO2 cannot re-radiate” meme ist utter nonsene. Nearly every mataterial above 0 kelvin is radiating in an average direction. And there is no policeman directing the rays according to a certain law.
BTW, laws are made on ground of observations. They are not a commandmend to be observed by nature.
Conduction and convection rule in the lower atmosphere.
And absorption by the tiny amount of CO2 in a very narrow band is immediately thermalised to the remaining 99.96%.
The collision time between molecules is magnitudes lower than the relaxation time of the CO2 molecule, so basically ALL absorbed energy is converted. CO2 does not actually radiate much below about 11km , where collisions are reduced because of molecular sparseness.
This energy is then dealt with in by the normal convective and conductive conduits.
The atmosphere provides a “regulating” force which allows the atmosphere to retain only as much energy as the gravity based thermal gradient dictates.
As for CO2 “blocking” radiation…it has been shown that CO2 used between double glazing, actually transmits better than normal air.
Quite so. Observations clearly support the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I know of no exceptions. CO2 is a cooling agent in the atmosphere, not a warming agent.
I got a question about this comment on another blog, this was my answer: “Unlike some, I do not want to reject the views of so many very qualified theoretical physicists (Claes Johnson, Ferenc Miskolczi, Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Kramm and Dlugi) being somewhat inclined toward physics myself. I’m not saying I buy into all of it, I just cannot reject it. The meaning of the comment however was simple. CO2 has little effect in the lower atmosphere because the heat of the lower atmosphere and surface (especially the ocean surface) is transported mostly by water and water vapor or melting ice. CO2 plays a large role in radiating heat energy to outer space though from the upper atmosphere, especially in the stratosphere. It acts primarily to cool the Earth. Does a change in CO2 concentration somehow slow the transport of heat energy to outer space?? I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case, but I’m all ears.”
Johannes S. Herbst says
“BTW, laws are made on ground of observations. They are not a commandmend [sic] to be observed by nature.”
Are you quite sure about that?
Do you think various natural laws require an observer?
In definition 5 I think you mean minus 18C.
Remember this world is NOT a greenhouse but a robust wet and windy planet with much surface water, some land, and a thin envelope of atmospheric gases around it. This atmosphere is not static but dynamic and will rapidly change shape as external conditions dictate.
This planet is also the home of complex organic life for the best part of 4 billion years.
The basic premise that all this global warming founders is that heating or cooling the planet is somehow and isolated event. It is not.
If the planet is heated or cooled (even by the smallest amount), rapid physical changes take place mostly because of the enormous amount of water on the planet.
The atmosphere changes from the global through to macro scale, with changes in movement (in velocity and direction); in volumes, and in mass(humidity). Similarly such things happen to the oceans albeit at a slower pace.
This planet and it processes are a dynamic inter-coupling of natural systems, and as these rapid changes take place slower, systematic biologic changes occur. These biological changes ensures that nature traps all energy it requires to maximally flourish from moment to moment.
Reducing the planet to a theoretical rock with an atmosphere is scientific reductio ad absurdum.
“Reducing the planet to a theoretical rock with an atmosphere is scientific reductio ad absurdum.”
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
ScottM 3. June 2017 at 5:40 AM
You seem not to understand, by the definition you give for ‘reductio ad absurdum’ is exactly what I mean for “the planet to a theoretical rock” etc., — there is much more to this planet that the absurd notion of the atmosphere controlling the climate!
My point is that ‘climate science’ attempts to reduce this planet’s many intertwined processes to a simple ’cause:effect’ when it come to climate. That IS all BS.
This planet is dynamic, chaotic and influenced by off planet changes (the SUN, moon, orbital variations, etc.) more than ANY amount of CO2 level change. Man’s effect on and our generation of CO2 has a negligible effect on this planet’s climate, the rest of NATURE is still in full control of that.
Physics is an endeavour in reduction. That hardly makes it absurd. Contrast the unscientific strong emergence touted by the anti-science bunch, for example the fraudulent papers of “Volokin” and “ReLlez”, or the ratings of Cotton and Postma. You’re on shaky ground if you side with them.
As sometimes happens with landmark scientific papers, written in haste while understanding just begins to dawn, Revelle’s explanation was hard to grasp. Other scientists failed to see the point that was obscurely buried in the calculations, and continued to deny there was a greenhouse effect problem. In 1958, when Callendar published a paper to insist once again that CO
Another paper in support of Gerlich and Tscheuscher (2009) is Kramm and Dlugi (2011). Kramm and Dlugi, 2011, “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact,” Natural Science, vol. 3, no. 12, 971-998.
Link to the paper added to your comment.
Thanks
Awaiting moderation.
I be back some other day
Bye…
tom0.. happens to me all the time.
either I”in moderation” or “just vanished”.
But eventually they appear (mostly)
Its the auto-moderator… and I don’t think even the boss man himself has any idea what makes it kick in.
Be patient ! 🙂
Definition 5 is the easiest to refute (the low blackbody temp is -18, not 15). If the Earth had no atmosphere, then we would have no oceans. The albedo would be similar to the Moon’s. The max temp on Earth would be 109C when the sun is directly overhead. With the Earth’s current albedo of 0.3, the max temp would be 86C. With no water vapor (and its latent heat of evaporation) or convection the nighttime temp would quickly drop to -153C, for an average temp of -23C. Close to -18C, but silly. It is an average of 107C and -153C!
I imagine that the highest temperature occurs over sand (albedo of 0.4). Then the maximum temperature is somewhat lower, 74 degrees C.
“However, back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
Not sure about that one.
Try this experiment:
There are two black bodies a certain distance apart in free space.
One is hotter than the other.
1) Both will be radiating IR.
2) The radiation of each body that is incident on the other will be absorbed by the other. It must be, or conservation of energy would be contravened.
Question: Does the hotter body cool faster, slower, or at the same rate if it is next to the other, cooler body, instead of being on its own.
I think it cools down at a lower rate, as the incident energy when it is on its own is zero, and when the other body is near it, it is more than zero.
But I bow to others’ knowledge.
Sitting shivering, you are right. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the net flux of heat.
I am going to invoke the kinetic theory of gases to explain what ‘buoyancy’ means, for 1. gases are not dense, not condensed, the constituent atoms an molecules are moving rapidly on the order of 1km/sec at standard temperatures and pressures, and finally, because they are not dense nor condensed, there is a large mean free path for 3 dimensional translation, for which most of the internal kinetic energy is expressed. Thus, the ‘hot’ gas is moving faster relative to the surrounding ‘cool’ gas. It is moving against and through it. It displaces it in all 3 spatial dimensions, with the exception of downward at the surface, where it slightly increases the pressure and gets a bit of a kick on reflection from the surface.
So, what may really be happening is that the hot gas, possessing higher kinetic energy simply is less “dense” in that for any given imagined volume the faster moving particles are fewer in countable numbers for a specific time slice; and pushes upward against gravity relatively more, keeps moving faster vertically compared to the gas it is pushing aside and thus has a net upward force. Since gases are not dense and not condensed, they do not conduct heat well (net exchange of kinetic energy from one side to the next through collisions) but do mix well, unless confined. Add in the latent heat of vaporization/condensation of water, where the phase change does not change temperature (no net change of kinetic energy) but does have potential energy available that can be so converted later, you get the appearance of buoyancy. What you are actually seeing is convection in 3D.
One other thing, bodies in flight in a gravitational field retain their mass but are ‘weightless’, so there is no such thing in the open atmosphere of ‘heavier than air’ since the air is the full measure of all of its component gases. Yes, some fractions of said air have less molecular mass than others, but again, in flight, they all have the same ‘weight’ which is zero. ‘Heavier’ than air molecules will thus mix throughout its depth, given enough time, just like ‘heavier than water’ pigment molecules will color a full tank of water.
Unlike water, which is dense compared to a gas, being condensed, the diffusion time is a lot faster and you also have the physical mixing from surface heating, so it will be no surprise to find ‘heavy’ molecules at the top of the atmosphere.
IT’S OFFICIAL ! USA is OUT !!!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/01/its-official-trump-pulls-out-of-the-parisagreement-on-climate/
i watched the speech. Where are the arguments? this was a fact free speech.
Where is your post,.
Its a FACT FREE post.
i am a random guy on the internet.
Trump is supposed to be the president of the USA and the leader of the free world.
Why is there not a single scientific argument in his speech?
He cited an MIT study that concluded that even if all the emissions cuts in the Paris agreement were put in place and continued for the next 85 years, the amount of warming that would be “saved” would amount to only 0.2 C by 2100. That’s how negligible the warming effect associated with CO2 emissions is…according to the proponents of dramatic emissions cuts themselves!
–
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/2015%20Energy%20%26%20Climate%20Outlook.pdf
“Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates, under similar assumptions, for Copenhagen–Cancun.”
—
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full
All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.
—
Mahapatra and Ratha, 2017
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3262/full
The Paris deal is founded on a voluntary basis without any legally binding caps. The Paris Agreement is a relatively toothless one, which does not bind countries to actual emission limits, and has no mechanisms to impose actions. No sanctions will fall on any country that fails to come up to these intentions. The poor nations want clear promises to increase the aid for them, while the USA and other rich nations favour vaguer wording. Professor James Hansen—credited as being the father of climate change awareness— said that ‘the deal is worthless words’ (Wente, 2015). The final text contains only bland platitudes. There is no necessary connection between the legally binding nature of an international agreement and its effectiveness in producing outcomes (Lake, 2015). The agreement delineates an aim for reducing temperatures to a 2°C above pre-industrial levels, but does not commit.
—
Do you agree that the effects of emissions reductions as proposed by the Paris Agreement are so negligible that they amount to just 0.2 C in 85 years? Or do you have another scientific study to back up your claims that the Paris Agreement is meaningful and achieves dramatic reductions in temperature? If so, please cite your science. If not, why are you even here?
“Why is there not a single scientific argument in his speech?”
Because the Paris Agreement is not, and never was, about science.
There is absolutely zero science behind it, it is purely political.
The AGW scam to defraud the citizens of the world is not about the science. It’s never been about the science. All this is about is concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few elitists, at the expense of everyone else. Had Mr. Trump attempted some scientific justification beyond citing the MIT study, it would have shown he didn’t know what he was talking about.
Bottom line, President Trump said “NO!” to international corruption, which was exactly the morally correct choice to make.
The economic argument is easier than the scientific argument. As you can tell by the lack of response to the economics.
The paper was published in Energy and environment again. Please folks, why not stick to something that is peer reviewed?
You mean something like this? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/20/hilarious-peer-reviewed-climate-hoax-the-conceptual-penis-as-a-social-construct/
you are right. because the review process failed one time, the papers that never went through review are much better.
Here are the submission guidelines for the E&E journal: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/energy-environment/journal202462#submission-guidelines
Here is the peer-review policy for the E&E journal: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/energy-environment/journal202462#PeerReviewPolicy
You have claimed that this paper was not peer-reviewed, sod. Prove it.
Easy to prove.
Takesceptic Pielke (i posted tuis before, it was lost somehow):
“Roger Pielke Jr, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, said he regrets publishing a paper in the journal in 2000 – one year after it was established and before he had time to realise that it was about to become a fringe platform for climate sceptics. “[E&E] has published a number of low-quality papers, and the editor’s political agenda has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the outlet,” Pielke says. “If I had a time machine I’d go back and submit our paper elsewhere.””
Sorry, sod, but a 2011 quotation found in The Guardian does not “prove” that a physical chemist’s paper was not peer-reviewed in 2017. Do you understand what it means to prove something?
the quote from a sceptic proves that E&E is build around “pretending” to do peer review.
No, a 2011 Guardian quote does not “prove” that this June, 2017, Hertzberg et al. paper was not peer-reviewed. E&E is routinely cited by the IPCC. It is a SAGE journal, which has a clear peer-review policy. You have ZERO proof for your claim that this paper wasn’t peer-reviewed. And your failure to address the substance of the paper itself, instead choosing to focus on the journal that a paper written by a physical chemist and meteorologist was published in is tantamount to admitting that you have absolutely nothing of substance to offer as a rebuttal. It’s like calling someone names when you’re losing an argument.
Speaking of, your comment in which you called Dr. Spencer a “denialist” because he disagrees with you about the extent to which CO2 doubling causes warming — he thinks it’s 0.7 C, you think it’s…7.0 C (??) — was deleted. Calling people a name that evokes images of those who deny the Holocaust occurred is bigotry.
“to do peer review”
sob-sob, yet again proves he has ZERO comprehension of what peer-review is all about.
It has been told often enough, but absolutely REFUSED to understand.
” You have ZERO proof for your claim that this paper wasn’t peer-reviewed.”
again, i am quoting a “sceptic” who is directly attacking the “peer review” of E&E.
peer review has failed MANY time, especially in “climate” science.
There are MANY papers that should just never have been published, even in a comic magazine.
eg Mann’s hockey stick.
Now about Roger Pielke complaining,he never requested that ANY of his papers be removed from the list at Popular Technology,this from POP Tech FORUM:
Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. – “Better Recheck That List
“Roger Pielke Jr’s inaccurate and years old post misinterpreted why his papers were included and has no relation to the current version of the list. When the list was first published in 2009 an alarmist notified Roger Pielke Jr. (Ph.D. Political Science) that some of his papers as well as his fathers appeared on it. Contacting him was intentional as Roger Pielke Jr. is someone who spends extensive amounts of time arguing against alarmist positions but outright refuses to be labeled a skeptic and will spend just as much time arguing that he is not. He is thus great for alarmists to use for soundbites against skeptics. No attempt was ever made to imply a specific personal position to him or any of the authors. All of this was explained to him in the comments to his blog post. The irony here is every single alarmist using Roger Pielke Jr.’s comments to attack the list would never use his papers in support of their arguments but instead outright attack him.
Update – Roger Pielke Jr. added a misleading notice at the top of his post from Russell Dickerson who was a co-author on a paper [“Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases”] but was using strawman arguments for why it was included on our list (e.g. “Please remove this article from your list of skeptics” – The list is not a list of skeptics but a bibliographic resource of papers that can be referenced to support skeptic arguments.) The lead author Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands and explicitly stated in an email to the editor that their paper argues against the IPCC. Regardless, the paper has been removed as it is not worth investing the time to defend the real reason for its inclusion, that it supports the skeptic argument for CO2 not being the sole dominant human forcing as the IPCC has argued. The removal notice on Pielke Jr.’s website is over a year later from the actual time the paper was removed.”
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4019
=========================================================
Lot more in the link Sod,that shows Dr. Pielke objections were fully addressed.
sob-sob shows he know NOTHING about science.
peer-review is a journalistic thing, NOT part of the scientific process.
Isn’t it interesting that the best “rebuttal” that can be mustered is to claim that this paper wasn’t peer-reviewed. Nothing about the laws of physics. Nothing about the content of the paper itself. Nothing about the Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) paper published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Modern Physics that reached the same conclusions as this paper written by a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and meteorologist….
Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that is routinely found on the IPCC’s own reference lists. So apparently sod believes that the IPCC cites non-peer-reviewed papers in their reports. Well, they do, actually. The IPCC claim (2007) that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 came from a WWF article.
“Isn’t it interesting that the best “rebuttal” that can be mustered is to claim that this paper wasn’t peer-reviewed.”
it is not the best argument, just the fastest. This paper claims that the physics are wrong. This position should make it title story stuff in a paper like “science”.
I have no idea what this sentence means.
pretty sure sob-sob doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talking about, either.
Maybe the wrong mushrooms ?
“I have no idea what this sentence means.2
a breakthrough discovery on physics would not be published in E&E but in a magazine like “Science”.
It’s not considered a “breakthrough discovery” in physics that the hypothetical greenhouse effect is not “settled science”. Scientists have been writing about the problems with the hypothesis for decades.
Ellsaesser, 1984
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698184901185
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222622330_The_climatic_effect_of_CO2_A_different_view
If additional greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, it is logical to expect that the greenhouse blanket will thicken; i.e., the average altitude from which the atmosphere emits energy to space will rise above its present level of 6 km. But, since the absorbed solar energy which has to be rejected remains essentially unchanged, the radiating temperature also must remain the same. … It is obvious that water, including the dimer, (H2O)2 – believed to be responsible for the continuum absorption (and emission) of water vapor, is the principal emitter, without even considering the effect of clouds, which are also composed of water. And since this spectrum is taken at latitude 15.1°N, it appears quite credible that the global average temperature of this emitter is 255 K. On the other hand, the IR flux from the CO2 band centered near 15-microns, is both a small fraction of the total and is coming from an emitter with a temperature near 220 K (-50 to -55°C). Returning to Fig. 2, this temperature range is found in the altitude range 12 to 20 km. If the top of this CO2 greenhouse blanket were to be raised by the addition of CO2 and maintained at constant temperature, this would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool (i.e., if this radiating layer were pushed above 20 km without changing its temperature).
—
Willett, 1974
http://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/geofisica/article/download/39122/35567
W.J. Humphreys, (1940, pp. 585-6), and outstanding meteorological physicist, after careful consideration of CO2 absorption and the water vapor absorption spectrum, concludes that “either doubling or halving the present amount of carbon dioxide could alter but little the total amount of radiation actually absorbed by the atmosphere, and, therefore, seemingly, could not appreciably change the average temperature of the earth, or be at all effective in the production of marked climatic changes.”
“but in a magazine like “Science”
roflmao.
Now they don’t just have to be peer-reviewed and published…
… but it has to be in a magazine that sob-sob considers “special”.
“Nature” used to be considered “special” too.
and look where it is now due to cow-towing to the AGW scam.
You really have gone way past the RIDICULOUS stage sob-sob. !!
This is for you Sod,
”
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal
ISSN: 0958-305X
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
– Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.”
and,
“Cited by the IPCC:
Energy & Environment is cited 28 times in the IPCC reports;
IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (2000)
Fujino, K., 1994: International Cooperation for Environmental Coexistence and Technology Transfer of Hydropower Development in Developing Countries, Energy & Environment, 5(2), 159-171.
IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) (2001)
Working Group 3 (WGIII)
Chapter 5
Lofstedt, R., 1992: Lay perspectives concerning global climate change in Sweden. Energy and Environment, [3](2), 161-175.
Chapter 8
Barker, T., and N. Johnstone, 1993: Equity and Efficiency in Policies to Reduce Carbon Emissions in the Domestic Sector. Energy & Environment, 4(4), 335-361.
Chapter 9
Barker, T., 1995: Taxing pollution instead of employment: greenhouse gas abatement through fiscal policy in the UK. Energy and Environment, 6(1), 1-28.
Chapter 10
Edmonds, J., and M. Wise, 1998: The Economics of Climate Change: Building Backstop Technologies And Policies To Implement The Framework Convention On Climate Change. Energy & Environment, 9(4), 383-397.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007)
Working Group 1 (WGI)
Chapter 6
McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003: Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy database and northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy Environ., 14, 751–771.
McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005b: The M&M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index: Update and implications. Energy Environ., 16, 69–99.
Working Group 2 (WGII)
Chapter 2
Castles, I. and D. Henderson, 2003: The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic-statistical critique. Energ. Environ., 14, 159-185.
Chapter 4
Goklany, I.M., 2005: A climate policy for the short and medium term: stabilization or adaptation? Energ. Environ., 16, 667-680.
Chapter 5
Goklany, I.M., 2005: A climate policy for the short and medium term: stabilization or adaptation? Energ. Environ., 16, 667-680.
Chapter 6
Goklany, I.M., 2005: A climate policy for the short and medium term: Stabilization or adaptation? Energy Environ., 16, 667-680.
Chapter 11
Nicholls, N. and D. Collins, 2006: Observed change in Australia over the past century. Energy and Environment, 17, 1-12.
Working Group 3 (WGIII)
Chapter 3
Castles, I. and D. Henderson, 2003a: Economics, emissions scenarios and the work of the IPCC. Energy and Environment, 14(4), pp. 415- 435.
Castles, I. and D. Henderson, 2003b: The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic-statistical critique. Energy and Environment, 14(2-3), pp. 159-185.
Goklany, I.M., 2003: Relative contributions of global warming to various climate sensitive risks, and their implications for adaptation and mitigation. Energy and Environment, 14(6), pp. 797-822.
Grübler, A., N. Nakicenovic, J. Alcamo, G. Davis, J. Fenhann, B. Hare, S. Mori, B. Pepper, H. Pitcher, K. Riahi, H.H. Rogner, E.L. La Rovere, A. Sankovski, M. Schlesinger, R.P. Shukla, R. Swart, N. Victor, and T.Y. Jung, 2004: Emissions scenarios: a final response. Energy and Environment, 15(1), pp. 11-24.
McKibbin, W.J., D. Pearce, and A. Stegman, 2004a: Can the IPCC SRES be improved? Energy and Environment, 15(3), pp. 351-362.
Nakicenovic, N., A. Grübler, S. Gaffin, T.T. Jung, T. Kram, T. Morita, H. Pitcher, K. Riahi, M. Schlesinger, P.R. Shukla, D. van Vuuren, G. Davis, L. Michaelis, R. Swart, and N. Victor, 2003: IPCC SRES revisited: a response. Energy and Environment, 14(2-3), pp. 187-214.
Chapter 6
Bertoldi, P., S. Rezessy, and D. Ürge-Vorsatz, 2005: Tradable certificates for energy savings: opportunities, challenges and prospects for integration with other market instruments in the energy sector. Energy and Environment, 16(6), pp. 959-992.
Chapter 13
Betz, R., W. Eichhammer, and J. Schleich, 2004: Designing national allocation plans for EU emissions trading – A first analysis of the outcomes. Energy & Environment, 15(3), pp. 375-425.
Meyer, N.I., 2004: Development of Danish wind power market. Energy & Environment, 15(4), pp.657-672.
Moe, A., K. Tangen, V. Berdin, and O. Pluzhnikov, 2003: [E]missions trading and green investments in Russia. Energy & Environment, 14(6), pp. 841-858.
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (2014)
Working Group 1 (WGI)
Chapter 5
Loehle, C., and J. H. McCulloch, 2008: Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy Environ., 19, 93–100.
Chapter 13
Boretti, A., and T. Watson, 2012: The inconvenient truth: Ocean levels are not accelerating in Australia or over the world. Energy Environ., 23, 801–817
Working Group 2 (WGII)
Chapter 5
Nicholls, N., D. Collins, 2006: Observed climate change in Australia over the past century. Energy & Environment, 17(1), 1-12.
Working Group 3 (WGIII)
Chapter 2
Held H., M. Ragwitz, and R. Haas (2006). On the success of policy strategies for the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the EU, Energy & Environment 17 849–868 pp.
Chapter 6
Eisenberger P., R. Cohen, G. Chichilnisky, N. Eisenberger, R. Chance, and C. Jones (2009). Global Warming and Carbon-Negative Technology: Prospects for a Lower‐Cost Route to a Lower-Risk Atmosphere. Energy & Environment. 20, 973–984 pp.
Chapter 15
Klobasa M., J. Winkler, F. Sensfuß, and M. Ragwitz (2013). Market Integration of Renewable Electricity Generation – The German Market Premium Model, Energy & Environment 24 127–146 pp.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html
============================================================
Once again SOD, your ignorance and stupidity gets exposed.
sod has a 2011 quote from The Guardian. Therefore, this particular paper was not peer-reviewed. That’s his logic.
Sod is a troll. Waste no time on it.
Please dont use this argument: “back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
The colder atmosphere is not heating the surface, but avoid the heat to go out to the cold space, like when you isolate your house.
If you had no atmosphere you would look out to the cold space and all outgoing radiation would be lost. (400W/m2 at 17C)
With an atmosphere you have a layer with a higher temperature than the space, so relative to the case with no atmosphere you could say that you have some outgoing radiation and some ingoing. It is not violating any rules, because the therotically outgoing is anyway less than the ingoing.
Anyway, to blame CO2 for the greenhouse effekt is far out.
Clouds and water vapor makes up the main part.
Clouds by reflecting the direct sun, making rain and weather and water vapor doing the same as Co2.
I wonder how CO2 can be concidered the main culprit by any scientist.
From the paper:
“In Section 3.3.5 it was indicated how simple it is to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse hypotheses, namely by observing a water pot on the stove: Without water filled in, the bottom of the pot will soon become glowing red. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the pot will be substantially colder.”
I don’t know how to argue with that; I foolishly thought conduction heated the water. So here are a couple of papers written by people to challenge this paper.
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S021797921005555X
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324v1.pdf
The laws of thermodynamics are useful things. Here’s a web page that uses the laws of thermodynamics to prove that evolution cannot be true.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2786
You cannot argue with that. It is true that with a heat conducting layer (being the simple heat conductivity or coupled with convection aided by latent heats – in which case it can be very efficient) on top of a surface the surface can be cooler than without, despite the layer having a rich IR absorption/emission spectrum. Incidentally, that’s how for example some CPU coolers work.
To be fair, there are also challenges to the challenges, here is one for the first one, I think they mention also other replies to the second one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0421
Here is the challenge to the second challenge: https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2767
correction..
Here’s a web page that MIS-uses the laws of thermodynamics to prove that evolution cannot be true.
But I doubt Craig would realise the difference.
I would call it misapplying and miscalculating thermodynamics in both the Creationist page and this paper. The laws of thermodynamics are popular with individuals working outside the bounds of consensus science.
“The laws of thermodynamics are popular with individuals working outside the bounds of consensus science.”
But almost universally IGNORED by those working inside “consensus climate non-science”
And its totally irrelevant what you would call it.
Baseless AGW drone opinion. WORTHLESS. MEANINGLESS.
‘consensus science’ Consensus is not science Craig T
Yes, but if the consensus reaches the 97% threshold when classifying and counting abstracts, it becomes scientific truth. Because of peer review, of course.
If the assertion of consensus were even true. But it’s not.
In the only half-way legitimate poll of climate scientists, at most, 47% agree with the IPCC that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/
From Roy Spencer:
“In an e-mail I just responded to this evening, I once again found myself defending the existence of the Earth’s “greenhouse effect”. … I’ll admit I used to question it, too. So, many years ago Danny Braswell and I built our own radiative transfer model to demonstrate for ourselves that the underlying physics were sound.”
You can read all of it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
For the actual physics behind the greenhouse effect:
An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics
http://file.zums.ac.ir/ebook/100-An%20Introduction%20to%20Atmospheric%20Physics,%20Second%20Edition-David%20G.%20Andrews-0521693187-Cambridge%20.pdf
Correct, Craig. Spencer and Braswell have published two papers in the last 10 years reaching the conclusion that the Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 (560 ppm) is 0.7 C. Lindzen and Choi (2011) also have concluded that ECS is 0.7 C. Their paper was included among the ECS estimates in the last IPCC report. Both Spencer and Lindzen (and their co-authors) agree with AGW. As does Anthony Watts at WUWT. As does Christopher Monckton. As does Judith Curry. As does any skeptic scientist who agrees that humans cause at least some warming — even if its in the hundredths of a degree.
What matters is the magnitude of the CO2 impact. Low vs. high CO2 climate sensitivity. Whether or not someone agrees that the greenhouse theory is real or unsupported by physics is much less consequential to their standing in the climate “community” than whether or not they agree that the climate is headed for disaster because of the profound human influence. Spencer, Lindzen, Curry, Watts, Monckton, Pielke, Christy….are vilified as “deniers” not because they disagree with the basic tenets of the greenhouse theory (they don’t) or that they disagree that humans cause some warming (they agree we do), but because they don’t agree with the models that claim we shall get catastrophic warming and 10 feet of sea level rise by 2065 due to our CO2 emissions. One must accept that catastrophe looms or get branded a “climate denier”.
Here are 60 papers that conclude that the Earth’s sensitivity to doubled CO2 is in the tenths of a degree. In other words, CO2 doesn’t have much of an effect on climate.
https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpvONxkRCo
Here’s an interview with Roy Spencer in which he’s called a “denier” by a journalist even though he explicitly states he agrees with AGW, and that he’s part of the 97%. That’s not good enough. One must believe that the models forecasting climate catastrophe are correct to avoid being vilified. This is what it’s come to in this “debate”.
thanks for linking the video, i never saw this before.
but i am confused about the message: Spencer directly contradicts the story of this blog post.
Your defence of Spencer is incredibly weak. He obviously can no longer deny the physics (as this blog post does!). Working in science, such a position would open him to a constant ridicule by his fellow scientis in every day life. His own work in the UAH dataset is also contradicting his old position.
so he settled for the next best thing: the claim, that the physical effect is real but tiny. a view, that by full chance, is in agreement with the rest of his pretty extreme conservative positions.
But this still puts him in a tiny minority among scientists and it still makes it problematic to have him on TV, when you can not have literally dozens of other scientists who contradict his position.
Spencer agrees with greenhouse theory and that humans cause some warming. He does not agree that the amount of warming caused by CO2 variations is significant. This blog post cites papers that conclude the laws of physics and thermodynamics are violated when analyzing the many manifestations/explanations associated with the theoretical greenhouse effect. Both Spencer and the chemists/physicists cited here agree that the effect of CO2 on planetary temperatures is minor (Spencer) to non-existent (Hertzberg et al.). That’s why they’re characterized as the pejorative “deniers” by people like you. One must agree with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming to avoid that label.
Which “physics” are you referring to? Again, both Spencer and the authors of the cited papers in this blog post agree that the human contribution to temperature changes is negligible. They don’t agree on the greenhouse gas “blanket” explanation for planetary temperatures. Both are nonetheless classified as “deniers” by people like you.
Spencer doesn’t have an “old position”. He’s always agreed that humans contribute to warming with their CO2 emissions. Skeptics have known this for years. That was a 2013 video.
Spencer’s agreement with AGW just happens to be brand new information for someone like you, as you have obviously lumped anyone who doesn’t agree with you about very high climate sensitivity to CO2 (and thus the need to dump fossil fuels and embrace renewables) into the “denier” category. Most climate skeptics agree with AGW — even the most notorious like Monckton and Watts. They just don’t agree that the CO2 effect is significant, nor worth spending trillions on…especially due to the dire effects that befall the poor.
A splendid put down of Sod Kenneth. One of many on here I might add!
“Spencer agrees with greenhouse theory and that humans cause some warming.”
This is a trick. you are changing the subject. The title of this blog post claims, “the greenhouse effect is unreal”. Spencer directly contradicts this. fact.
KR: “Spencer agrees with greenhouse theory and that humans cause some warming.”
It’s not a trick, sod. You just don’t understand what’s going on here. I’ll try to explain this to you again. If you still don’t get it, I can’t help you.
Spencer, Lindzen, Curry, Christy, Monckton, Evans, Soon, nearly all the guest authors and regular contributors on WattsUpWithThat…agree that the greenhouse effect is real, CO2 warms the Earth, and thus humans contribute to global warming. In other words, they agree with AGW. They agree that humans contribute to global warming. They just don’t agree that the warming contribution from CO2 is high, or that it controls or dominates Earth’s temperatures. Instead, they have concluded that CO2’s effect on the climate is not significant. That’s enough of a reason for them to be smeared as deniers of “truth” by people like you…and John Cook, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, etc.
Physicists like Clark, Miskolczi, Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Kramm, Dlugi, Hertzberg…have published papers outlining the reasons why they have concluded the laws of physics and/or observations do not support greenhouse conceptualization. They necessarily agree with scientists like Spencer and Lindzen and Curry (above) that the warming contribution from CO2 is not significant, or negligible. Of course, they are also smeared as “deniers”.
Both groups have agreed that the CO2 contribution to planetary temperatures is insignificant to negligible. They disagree on their acceptance of the greenhouse blanket conceptualization. The first group accepts this conceptualization, the second group does not. Both groups are smeared as “deniers” by those of your ilk anyway.
Understand now, sod?
“Both Spencer and the chemists/physicists cited here agree that the effect of CO2 on planetary temperatures is minor (Spencer) to non-existent (Hertzberg et al.).”
Is that the threshold used to evaluate papers? Spencer tried to explain to sceptics that the greenhouse effect itself cannot be denied, that the physics behind it is sound.
“One of the points that Dr. Richard Lindzen made during his keynote speech at the 2nd International Conference on Climate Change, held in New York City March 8-10 this year, is that we global warming skeptics need to be careful about what aspects of the theory of manmade global warming we dispute.
And I fully agree.”
If papers like these are “little more than hand waving” (Spencer’s words) does it advance the credibility of the sceptics movement?
Spencer is himself vilified as a denier…because he doesn’t agree the temperature increase from doubled CO2 is high enough. The idea that no one can even question the physics with regard to a theoretical (non-observed, non-tested) conceptualization (the water vapor, cloud, and CO2 blanket keeps this water planet 33 degrees warmer) without people like you claiming that he is “denying” truth (Craig: it “cannot be denied”) is itself exactly where the problem lies. You are in the camp of the close-minded. You believe the science of the greenhouse effect is settled…even though it’s a hypothetical construct that is frequently contradicted by observations and non-correlations.
That’s your patronizing opinion (that these physicists are only engaging in hand-waving). I have yet to see you even challenge the points of the paper as they apply to the laws of physics. All you’ve done is dismiss the paper altogether…because it is your belief that the theoretical greenhouse effect is wholly supported by observational evidence. (It isn’t. It’s only a hypothesis that tries to explain how the Earth system might work.) But people like you are persuaded by the argument from authority (logical fallacy), groupthink, and “consensus”. True skeptics are not.
You fully agree with Lindzen on one point. But I doubt you agree with him on this one:
Lindzen: “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. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”
“All you’ve done is dismiss the paper altogether…because it is your belief that the theoretical greenhouse effect is wholly supported by observational evidence.”
That’s not the only reason I dismiss this paper but there are countless papers showing the greenhouse effect. Here’s one where the author calculated the expected downward longwave radiation at a location in northeast Brazil then compared that to measured DLR. The results were within 1% of the observed value.
http://imgbox.com/3PYb60QK
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbmet/v26n3/a10v26n3.pdf
If there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, where is all of this downward longwave radiation coming from during the night? Over 360 W/m2 of energy shining down at midnight in Brazil and never dropping below 340 W/m2 anytime in the 24 hour sample.
Craig, what you have there is an estimate of LW over land surfaces (Brazil). Nothing in that paper mentions LW affecting the heat content of the oceans, which is where 93% of the net heat changes from radiative imbalances occur in the Earth system (IPCC). In other words, the LW greenhouse effect from CO2 changes would have to be observed to heat the ocean depths to have relevancy to the topic at hand. Do you have any measurements of the downward longwave radiation over oceans that mention CO2 as an observed/important forcing factor?
—
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)0772.0.CO;2
Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
“[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space.The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting transmittance, or anywhere in the paper.]
—–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstract
The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux. [CO2 not mentioned as a parameter in determining surface flux, or anywhere in the paper.]
H2O, bozo !!
“Craig, what you have there is an estimate of LW over land surfaces (Brazil). ”
From the Brazil paper:
“The radiation parameters and atmospheric parameters were measured at every 10 min at the micrometeorological tower installed at the Frutacor farm (5º08’44″S; 38º05’53″W; altitude 147 m), within an approximate area of 250 ha of banana crop (Musa sp.), during the months of October 2005 to June 2006. This farm is located within the irrigation district of Quixeré, in the Lower Jaguaribe basin, in Ceará state, Northeast Brazil…. Downward longwave radiation was measured with a CG3 pyrgeometer contained in the CNR1 instrument. Microclimatic data of air temperature and relative humidity were measured using a Vaisala HMP45C probe. All sensors signals have been sampled at 1 minute intervals and averaged at 10 min intervals and were recorded using a Campbell Scientific CR23X datalloger, where the data were stored for processing later.”
The research was on better ways to estimate downward longwave radiation but the data shown was measured. And to be relevant to these claims that the greenhouse effect is impossible all I have to show is that it exists.
I have no idea why you decided to confirm that this paper has nothing to do with LW radiation heating the ocean, as it is only measuring land surfaces (Brazil).
You did realize that 93% of the net heat energy changes in the Earth system occur in the oceans, right? Therefore, for downwelling longwave radiation to have more than a negligible influence on Earth’s climate, it’s going to need to heat the oceans…and we’re going to need physical measurements verifying it.
Kenneth, you know that posting quotes from Nikolov and Zeller – the climate science skeptic clowns – isn’t helping your cause.
LW radiation doesn’t have to heat anything for the oceans to warm, after all the heat flow is in the other direction. As long as you don’t get that, this discussion is pointless.
If something radiates towards a heatsink the temperature of that heatsink matters. The atmosphere is the heatsink for the surface (water as well as land) and the heatsink for the whole system is space. The better the insulation, the higher the temperatures with the same amount of energy input. Will you continue to ignore how insulation works?
Other than their awkward/odd decision to publish a paper with backwards-spelled names, I see no reason to dismiss these two Ph.D. climate scientists as “clowns”. Of course, since you cannot actually support your beliefs with substance, name-calling (“Denier!”) and smearing are about all you have left to offer as a “rebuttal”.
Right. Because the oceans warm via direct shortwave radiation. And since 93% of the heat changes in the Earth system are manifested in the deep ocean, where LW cannot penetrate, this means that changes in absorbed SW radiation are easily the most dominant means by which the Earth’s temperature warms or cools.
So you believe the 0.0001 change in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1900 is what has caused the deep oceans to warm (even though you simultaneously acknowledge that downwelling LW doesn’t heat the ocean), but yet the Modern Grand Maximum or the reduction in cloud cover and volcanic aerosol depth — which DO affect the SW heat energy absorption directly — do not have much of anything to do with climate changes in the Earth system since 1900? At what point were the latter natural variables “ruled out” as factors affecting the change in ocean heat content?
We had this discussion, you didn’t understand back than, you wont today (probably).
Do you know how insulation causes the temperature of an object with a constant energy source to increase or not? Do you think the insulation somehow is an energy source heating back the object? Or is this how you understand the backradiation effect? It sure reads like it.
A pyrgeometer measures radiation potential.
Back to back pyrgeometers invariably show a net outwards radiation potential.
“Do you think the insulation somehow is an energy source heating back the object?”
We are not talking about CO2 here , you know 😉
poor seb, please explain how insulation aids cooling of a warm object..
..like the atmosphere does of the warmed earth’s surface.
Or are you going to go off to your alternate fantasy planet where the atmosphere doesn’t aid cooling when the surface gets warm?
The temperature pressure gradient allows the atmosphere to retain a certain amount of energy.
No more.
It is NOT a blanket, or any sort of insulation.
It does NOT reduce convection or conduction, they are a major part of it.
You are playing with CHILD-MINDED analogies to cover up your base-level ignorance.. ..
as always.
“I have no idea why you decided to confirm that this paper has nothing to do with LW radiation heating the ocean, as it is only measuring land surfaces (Brazil).”
Actually I was confirming that the Brazil study included instrumental measurements of downward longwave radiation not just an estimate. If you prefer, here is instrumental data measuring downward longwave radiation at sea in the equatorial Pacific. During the 4 months of the study downward LWR was over 400W/m2 for all but a few days.
http://imgbox.com/0lXxYFpg
Measurements were taken for 170 days during the Arctic spring and summer from the drifting ice station Tara. Solar radiation in the study peaked at summer solstice over 300W/m2 but measurements started and ended with less than 50W/m2 coming from the sun. Downward longwave radiation at the end of the study was around 250W/m2. At the start, months after the sun last went down on the Arctic ocean, DLR was still above 150W/m2.
http://imgbox.com/lhZj60Mg
Once again, Craig, you keep on avoiding addressing what I have pointed out to you again and again and again. You’re going to need to provide physical measurements for downward LWR heating the 0-2000 m ocean, not the surface air or sea temperature. As the image you link to shows, the ocean heat content is not addressed by these LW estimates, and the ocean heat content is where 93% of net heat changes in the Earth system occur. Not the surface. Not the atmosphere. Not the near-surface. The deep oceans. That’s where the heat from “global warming” is.
And the heat flux trajectory is (almost always) ocean-to-atmosphere. SW heats the ocean depths, the ocean depths heat the atmosphere. The downwelling LW necessarily has to heat the ocean (0-2000 m) to be the dominant source of global warming (or cooling). It doesn’t. Stop trying to pretend that I have not written this over and over again. You’ll need to provide measurements that show downwelling LW, or IR, heats the ocean depths more than direct shortwave radiation does. Since you know it doesn’t, you have decided to keep on attempting to provide measurements of surface and atmospheric LW forcing.
But you have an even bigger problem, Craig. I just completed reading the entire paper you linked to. Nowhere in that paper is CO2 mentioned as a factor affecting downwelling longwave variations. Clouds are mentioned. Humidity is mentioned. Wind is mentioned. Absolutely nothing about CO2 as a factor in the downwelling LW. And this isn’t surprising. I’ve read dozens of papers like this, and invariably they don’t mention CO2 as an influential factor in downwelling LW. Why do you keep on assuming that downwelling LW = CO2 when linking to papers that don’t even mention CO2 as a factor? (Rhetorical question, as I know it’s because of your beliefs and biases.)
—
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG022i002p00177/full
On the variability of the net longwave radiation at the ocean surface
The bulk formulae (BF) commonly used to estimate the net longwave radiation at the ocean surface (LW⇅) often give dissimilar results for given surface parameters. Because the differences are climatologically significant amounts of energy, it is important to understand the sources of these differences. …. The differences can best be understood through examination, using the RTE as the basic tool, of the variability of LW⇅ to variations in temperature, humidity, and cloud properties in the atmospheric column as well as at the surface. These calculations reveal that under clear sky conditions, two standard deviation perturbations of either temperature or specific humidity in the atmospheric column above the surface layer can introduce LW⇅, variations of 30–40 W/m². … The RTE studies also reveal that LW⇅ variations due to cloudiness effects can be very large. Low clouds can reduce LW⇅ from clear sky values by as much as 70 W/m². … The accuracy of BF for climatological applications cannot be assessed without information about the geographic and temporal distributions of cloud properties. The computed sensitivity of LW⇅ to variations in the atmospheric column illustrates the type of information and the level of accuracy necessary to attain a particular level of accuracy in LW⇅. [CO2 not mentied as an atmospheric property affecting estimates of net longwave radiation.]
—
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstract
The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux. [CO2 not mentioned as a parameter in determining surface flux, or anywhere in the paper.]
—
Hamdan, 2016
http://gradworks.umi.com/10/11/10110172.html
Global solar radiation data is very important for wide variety of applications and scientific studies. However, this data is not readily available because of the cost of measuring equipment and the tedious maintenance and calibration requirements. … The analysis showed that the main atmospheric parameters that affect the amount of global radiation received on earth’s surface are cloud cover and relative humidity. Global radiation correlates negatively with both variables. Linear models are excellent approximations for the relationship between atmospheric parameters and global radiation. A linear model with the predictors total cloud cover, relative humidity, and extraterrestrial radiation is able to explain around 98% of the variability in global radiation. [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting the radiation budget.]
It is certainly true that colder bodies cannot transfer heat to warmer bodies, via any means (radiation, convection, conduction, etc.)
However, it is not necessary for “Green House Gasses” (GHG) to do that, to create an average warming effect, over the diurnal cycle. GHGs need only to slow the transport of heat from a planetary surface to outer space for brief while, so have some affect on the average temp over the 24 hour day.
Water vapor and water droplets (clouds) certainly do a good job of that at night, but a major reason for water’s effectiveness in doing this, is its higher Specific Heat (i.e., heat holding capacity). Thus, atmospheric water, having been warmed during the day by the sun, stays warmer longer at night (i.e. takes longer to give up its heat to the dark sky, because it has more heat to give up) .
None the less, if the atmospheric water above a patch of dry ground is cooler than the ground (at night), it will not transfer heat to the ground. It can only slow the transfer of heat from at patch of dry ground, vs. the scenario with no atmospheric water. (e.g., perhaps a few hours longer, that otherwise). If you have ever camped outside without a tent, on both clear and cloudy nights, you may have experienced this.
If the atmospheric water at night is warmer than the dry ground beneath it (e.g., from catching more of the last rays of sun as it set, or having come in on a wind from the west), only then is some heat transferred back to your patch of cold ground.
CO2 however is not so effective at doing this, have only ~20% of water’s heat holding capacity per unit mass.course many fewer molecules per unit volume in the “relevant” lower layer of the air (~100x fewer) with clouds present. Also CO2 has much less heat absorbing capacity in the mid-IR waves (under 10 micron), and no absorption below 1.5 micron, as needed to capture significant heat from the sun directly (as water vapor and clouds can do). Therefore it is very poor at both capturing and holding heat.
I would even guess, in the presence of normal amounts of water vapor (and certainly within clouds), CO2 molecules are much more likely to be “heated-up” via collisions with H2O molecules which recently absorbed direct sunlight, than by the much, much cooler radiation coming from the surface of the earth.
So I can accept that CO2 is a GHG (in the much narrower definition as provided above, which must include consideration of its Specific Heat, to enable it to hold heat absorbed from the daytime). But CO2 is such a poor GHG compared to H2O that it is completely inconsequential (when water vapor or clouds are present in normal amounts), and nearly inconsequential in air with no water vapor or clouds.
H2O slows the upward convection rate…
… but DOES NOT slow the upward energy flow.
And yes, CO2 is totally inconsequential.
“H2O slows the upward convection rate…”
?????????
So you admit that you know NOTHING about basic hydrology and the effect of H2O on the lapse rate.
We KNEW that.. your ignorance is your only trait worth mentioning.
We have tried to educate you more than often enough, but you have proven to have a brick wall against EVER actually learning anything.
Go back to primary school and at least make an effort this time through. !!
please explain it to me.
How does H2O slow the upward convection rate?
I am NOT your teacher.
I gave up attempting to teach low-IQ juveniles, who have zero wish to be educated, 20 years ago.
Go and learn something yourself, bozo. !!
I will give you a hint.
Google at “dry lapse rate” and “wet lapse rate” and how they are related to specific energy. (and the fact at CO2 has essentially zero effect on the atmospheric cooling rate.)
Its not all that hard to comprehend..
But you do have to try. !!
Lapse rate is not convection rate. Lapse rate measures the temperature differential over an elevation change. Convection rate is a power flux. Citing a reduction in one is not evidence of a reduction in the other.
“He cited an MIT study that concluded that even if all the emissions cuts in the Paris agreement were put in place and continued for the next 85 years, the amount of warming that would be “saved” would amount to only 0.2 C by 2100. That’s how negligible the warming effect associated with CO2 emissions is…according to the proponents of dramatic emissions cuts themselves!”
as a majority of people here do not understand how an argument works, here is mine:
The MIT totally destroys this claim.
“Trump Misused MIT Research in Reasons for Ditching Climate Deal
MIT scientist says his study showed the Paris Climate agreement was a good first step, but more emissions cuts —not fewer — are needed.”
and
“In fact, the “two-tenths of one degree” figure seems to have come from an earlier study by the same group conducted in 2014, before the Paris deal was finalized the following year. It didn’t include all the eventual commitments to cut emissions by participating nations, or assume any continuation of those pledges beyond 2030, says Erwan Monier, coauthor of the study and principal research scientist at MIT’s department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608015/trump-misused-mit-research-in-reasons-for-ditching-climate-deal/
He lied about the number and he lied about the source. At least that is, what the source itself says.
Since we know as fact that not one single model, accurately models reality, any modelled projection as to the consequence of the US pulling out of the Paris Accord is bound to be wrong.
Further, we know as fact that all models are running too warm when compared to observation, and hence we know that any modelled projection of the consequence of the US pulling out of the Paris accord is bound to be exagerated on the high side.
But further and more significantly, what these model projections fail to take account of is that just like when the US was outside Kyoto, the US will still reduce its CO2 emissions more than any other developed nation even though the US is now outside the Paris accord.#
It is a false projection (the usual GIGO so much loved of climate modellers) to make a projection without taking account that US Co2 emissions will still fall. Even the BBC, which is about as extreme as anyone on the warmist side, recognises this. They are carrying a an article on the consequence of the US pulling out of the Paris Accord and they (correctly) observe:
The world will be just fine, even though China. India, Russia, Brazil and Germany will increase emissions in the coming decade.
“The world will be just fine, even though China. India, Russia, Brazil and Germany will increase emissions in the coming decade.”
The world be fine BECAUSE China. India, Russia, Brazil and Germany will increase emissions in the coming decade.
Add Africa, Vietnam (and other Asian countries), Indonesia, Turkey.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere still need boosting to a more sustainable level, and fortunately there is plenty of emission increase still in the pipeline.
The MIT analysis and quoted number comes directly from this MIT source. How is this “lying”?
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/2015%20Energy%20%26%20Climate%20Outlook.pdf
“Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates, under similar assumptions, for Copenhagen–Cancun.”
If you don’t agree the Paris Agreement as fully implemented would result in 0.2°C less warming, please cite the “correct” amount of warming reduction that will ensue had all nations followed through. Be sure to cite the source.
you are ignoring the important part of the sentence:
“Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our 2014 estimates.”
https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/signature/2015-energy-and-climate-outlook
NOT DEEPENED FURTHER.
This is an assumption of doing nothing over about 70 of 100 years. This is plain out stupid and an obvious LIE if you leave out this part!
Uh, I didn’t leave out that part. I’m the one who cited it. How much warming savings from “deepened further” emissions cuts are included in that MIT analysis? Was there a temperature associated with those “deepened further” emissions cuts?
And what do you believe the “correct” amount of the warming savings would be if the Paris Agreement was fully implemented?
You began this by saying that no “science” was included in the speech. I cited 3 scientific papers that did support it. Where is your science supporting your beliefs that the Paris Agreement will achieve significant reductions in temperature? Why can’t you cite your science, sod? Is it because you know that, as even James Hansen acknowledges, the Paris Agreement doesn’t do much of anything to affect planetary temperatures?
Trump left out this part:
“”Even if the Paris agreement were implemented in full,” Trump said Thursday, “with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a 2/10’s of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.””
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/trump-mit-study-paris-agreement/
his claim is obviously FALSE. It does not get worse than that the author of the study you cited comes forward to directly and fully contradict you. Trump’s “argument” was totally blown apart.
And apart from that: a 2015 paper is no reason to change something in2017. Trump MUST cite new results that explain the reason for the change of course of the administration. He completely failed to offer any new science.
“”Even if the Paris agreement were implemented in full,” Trump said Thursday, “with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a 2/10’s of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full
All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.
He’s just repeating this new science (below). What new science do you have to offer about the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement, sod? You’ve been asked to produce science of your own and…nothing. Again.
Mahapatra and Ratha, 2017
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3262/full
The Paris deal is founded on a voluntary basis without any legally binding caps. The Paris Agreement is a relatively toothless one, which does not bind countries to actual emission limits, and has no mechanisms to impose actions. No sanctions will fall on any country that fails to come up to these intentions. The poor nations want clear promises to increase the aid for them, while the USA and other rich nations favour vaguer wording. Professor James Hansen—credited as being the father of climate change awareness— said that ‘the deal is worthless words’ (Wente, 2015). The final text contains only bland platitudes. There is no necessary connection between the legally binding nature of an international agreement and its effectiveness in producing outcomes (Lake, 2015). The agreement delineates an aim for reducing temperatures to a 2°C above pre-industrial levels, but does not commit.
—–
Harris, 2017
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13412-017-0422-0
China’s Paris pledge on climate change: inadequate and irresponsible … China’s pledge is little more than business as usual. Significant ethical obligations arise from China’s role as the largest national source of greenhouse gas pollution and home to hundreds of millions of affluent consumers. The Paris Agreement disregards such obligations. The inadequacy and irresponsibility of China’s Paris pledge exposes some fundamental flaws in the international climate change negotiations and agreements, demonstrating that science and environmental studies cannot be disconnected from ethics and justice.
“This is an assumption of doing nothing over about 70 of 100 years…. yap, yap…”
Very few countries are “doing nothing”
Most have promised to increase their CO2 output significantly.
Do try to keep up, sob-sob. !!
I already gave you their latest number:
“The figure in the 2016 study, which incorporated all the pledges made by nations participating in the agreement, is actually between 0.6 and 1.1 °C.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608015/trump-misused-mit-research-in-reasons-for-ditching-climate-deal/
please READ what they say, what you do is cherrypick the one number you like in a series of reports that completely contradict your claims!
sod, the “between 0.6 and 1.1 C” reduction applies only to the change RELATIVE TO NO CLIMATE POLICY at all. The 2016 report even says that even with the “same level of commitment [to emissions reductions] as in the Paris agreement is extended until the end of the century“, surface temperatures still only fall by 0.1 C by 2050.
—
https://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-difference-will-paris-agreement-make-0422
The scenarios considered range from a pessimistic world where no further action is specified past 2030 to a world where the same level of commitment as in the Paris agreement is extended until the end of the century.
Assuming a climate system response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that’s of median strength, the three scenarios reduce the SAT in 2100 between 0.6 and 1.1 C relative to the “no climate policy” case. But because the climate system takes many years to respond to emissions reductions, in 2050 the SAT falls by only about 0.1 C in all three cases.
—
And even if there was a 0.9 C reduction in temperatures due to the highest level of emission reduction commitments, the increase in SAT is still projected to exceed 2.0 C anyway!
—
“Meanwhile, the rise in SAT since preindustrial times exceeds 2 C in 2053 [even with the emissions reductions], and in 2100, reaches between 2.7 and 3.6 C — far exceeding the 2 C goal.”
—
Below are some peer-reviewed scientific papers that also don’t agree with you about the substantive value of the Paris Agreement. See if you can cite some science of your own that support your beliefs.
—
Mahapatra and Ratha, 2017
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3262/full
The Paris deal is founded on a voluntary basis without any legally binding caps. The Paris Agreement is a relatively toothless one, which does not bind countries to actual emission limits, and has no mechanisms to impose actions. No sanctions will fall on any country that fails to come up to these intentions. The poor nations want clear promises to increase the aid for them, while the USA and other rich nations favour vaguer wording. Professor James Hansen—credited as being the father of climate change awareness— said that ‘the deal is worthless words’ (Wente, 2015). The final text contains only bland platitudes. There is no necessary connection between the legally binding nature of an international agreement and its effectiveness in producing outcomes (Lake, 2015). The agreement delineates an aim for reducing temperatures to a 2°C above pre-industrial levels, but does not commit.
—–
Harris, 2017
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13412-017-0422-0
China’s Paris pledge on climate change: inadequate and irresponsible … China’s pledge is little more than business as usual. Significant ethical obligations arise from China’s role as the largest national source of greenhouse gas pollution and home to hundreds of millions of affluent consumers. The Paris Agreement disregards such obligations. The inadequacy and irresponsibility of China’s Paris pledge exposes some fundamental flaws in the international climate change negotiations and agreements, demonstrating that science and environmental studies cannot be disconnected from ethics and justice.
“, surface temperatures still only fall by 0.1 C by 2050.”
yes. that is because of the slow reaction of the system, NOT because of the weakness of the action being taken.
your citations of people asking for countries to do MORE makes no sense, when Trump wants to do LESS.
you are just collecting citations and papers with utterly no relevancy to this subject.
MIT study (2016):“surface temperatures still only fall by 0.1 C by 2050.”
So you disagree with scientists like James Hansen that the Paris Agreement is too weak to be effective? You claim it isn’t too weak? Is James Hansen lying when he says the cuts are worthless? Or is Trump lying when he effectively repeats what Hansen said?
Sorry, but a 0.1 C drop in temperatures by 2050 because of Paris cuts when they’re projecting 2 C of warming by then anyway is effectively nothing. In other words, emissions cuts don’t do anything, just like CO2 emissions don’t do much of anything to the climate. The MIT studies (’15 and ’16) both indicated as much.
Don’t know why we are bothering to argue how much warming there will be from CO2 emissions.
The answer is NONE. !!
The Anti-CO2 agenda is based on zero real science.
There is no paper that proves that CO2 causes any warming over water or in a convective atmosphere.
Because rejecting Spencer, Lindzen, Christy, Curry — and most scientists in the non-CAGW camp — because they agree with the conceptualization that CO2 produces some modest to negligible warming when doubled, and only embracing those physicists who have concluded that CO2 does not cause any warming at all is just…silly. That’s my opinion, anyway. I’m for building bridges, not burning them.
Hi Kenneth,
Nice work. further observation that the atmosphere is ineffective at trapping heat.
If the atmosphere and CO2 was so effective at trapping heat, why is it that the heat released from the ocean during the recent El Nino went away so quickly instead of continuing to heat the planet?
“So you disagree with scientists like James Hansen that the Paris Agreement is too weak to be effective?”
yes.
i am watching renewables pretty closely. Most of those opinions come from a time BEFORE offshore wind and batteries hit grid parity.
A minor push (and that is, what the Paris agreement is about) will bring prices down so much, that a lot of the rest will simply be pure economics. Electric cars will dominate the market so fast, that people here will still climate that electric cars are useless while they already hit 30+% of sales/use.
Just like with renewables…
People aren’t willing to pay more for unreliable, intermittent energy (wind, solar) than they are for reliable, immediately available energy.
EVs have been around for many years. And yet this domination has yet to happen. Once generous tax credits are removed, sales plummet.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/04/early-ev-buyers-win-segment-stands-die-without-tax-credits-study/
“electric cars”
Have you got YOURS yet, sob-sob.
Why do you NEVER answer this question???
Did you know that just one model, the Ford F-series, outsold ALL EV’s in the USA by 7 to 1 last year ????
EVs ???????
ROFLMAO !!!!
Great to see that you are advocating a massive build-up of fossil fuel power stations to power this growth in EV’s.
“People aren’t willing to pay more for unreliable, intermittent energy (wind, solar) than they are for reliable, immediately available energy.”
at the moment, the price is LESS, not more and more and more places.
“EVs have been around for many years. And yet this domination has yet to happen. Once generous tax credits are removed, sales plummet. ”
the wind is changing. It is strange that you folks can not see this. Everybody with a working brain by now knows, that it is not a question IF EVs will dominate car market, it is just about WHEN they will do so.
Several manufacturers still want to keep the profits from their latest investment in diesel technology. They will fail badly.
“Great to see that you are advocating a massive build-up of fossil fuel power stations to power this growth in EV’s.”
as i told people here multiple times: there is ZERO need for additional power plants, especially not fossil fuel plants to change to EVs.
the additional electricity needed is a tiny amount (about 10-15% for high penetration of EVs). It is in the same ballpark as the change to LED lights. Many places will simply reduce electricity use at a higher percentage than EVs will consume.
I don’t care what you have “told” people.
You have been proven to be monumentally brain-washed and WRONG on basically everything you say.
You live in a FANTASY land !!!
“the wind is changing.”
Yes, used to be family sedans ruled.
Now its big suburban SUVs.
And of course, for the working man. (do you even know what that is?) Big Utility like the Ford F0series.
Hey sob-sob, did you that in the USA last year, The Ford F-series, all by itself, OUTSOLD all EVs by about 7 to 1 !!!
Doesn’t sound like EVs are doing very well , does it.
How is YOUR EV going.. or are you just continuing your vacant, hypocritical yapping !!!
“Hey sob-sob, did you that in the USA last year, The Ford F-series, all by itself, OUTSOLD all EVs by about 7 to 1 !!!”
for EVs, looking into the past is plain out stupid. The two big limiting factors (batteries, price) have just made dramatic advances.
“Now its big suburban SUVs.”
the majority of those big SUVs are used for small trips by soccer moms. They can be changed to EVs without any problem.
Anyone who is following the Diesel scandal in Germany must know, that fossil fuel cars are in dire danger of extinction. Stuttgart is thinking about blocking Diesel cars in 2018. The industry is forced to upgrade old (Euro 5) diesel cars, even though some of them are better than newer (euro 6) cars. This cheating is happening with support from al political parties, even the greens.
But the moves will be challenged in courts. Expect some nasty surprises for the polluters.
Hey sob-sob.. you still haven’t told us about YOUR EV.
Waiting , waiting
While you just keep up your hypocritical , mindless yapping, about something you obviously have very little knowledge of except propaganda pap from sales brochures..
They call that GULLIBLE and STUPID !!.
And yes, the use of diesel in cars was one of the stupidest things the green agenda accomplished….
…. up there with ethanol, and wind turbines and solar farms.
“They can be changed to EVs without any problem.”
And which EV do you own, as your only car.???
… and WHY are you running and hiding and REFUSING to answer this question?
Or do you drive a diesel Mercedes like seb does ???
A bit of lite reading for those who want to know about the gravity/thermal effect, which the so-called greenhouse effect is really all about.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/foundations-of-greenhouse-theory-challenged-by-new-analysis-of-solar-system-observations/
This begs the question, how long is a photon of IR emitted from the surface slowed down/delayed in its outward journey to space?
And herein lies the problem. If the planet’s energy budget was truly like that depicted in the K&T energy budget cartoon, you might have a worthwhile point. In that cartoon, the planet is said to receive energy from the sun, over its entire surface, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (366 in leap years). However, in practice the planet does not, over its entire surface, receive solar irradiance 24 hours a day, but on average only 12 hours a day over half its surface.
Thus the question becomes, is there sufficient time during the period when the planet received no incoming solar irradiance for a photon of IR emitted from the surface to exit the atmosphere into space?
If there is sufficient time for all the energy received by the planet during the day (the hours of sunshine) to exit from the planet during the hours of darkness (when one half of the planet receives no energy from the sun) then the planet does not warm. It may mean that the coldest time of the day is say 4.10am instead of say 4am, but overall it makes no significant difference to the overall temperature.
The K&T energy budget cartoon fails to appreciate that only one side of the planet receives solar irradiance in bouts of 12 hours (the strength varying throughout those 12 hours), but the entire planet radiates to space for the entire 24 hours of a day.
It should also not be overlooked that given the very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (about 400 ppm), each molecule of CO2 is separated from each other molecule of CO2 by about 13 molecules of non radiating gases. So when a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of IR from the surface and then re-radiates a photon say in a downwards direction so that it forms some part of DWLWIR, how does this re-radiated photon get absorbed by another molecule of CO2? The re-radiated photon is likely to impact a non radiating gas, and thus the chain of re-radiating photons in a downward direction is immediately broken.
problems, problems.
I might be missing something by skipping all this but I think it’s all being made too complicated and I see no equations .
The equilibrium ( radiative balance ) temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball is rather straight forward to calculate . http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#EqTempEq presents what is essentially a generalization of Hertzberg’s computation and the computation which produces the endlessly parroted 255K meme .
The divergence theorem says the average internal energy density must match that value calculated for the surface . No spectral effect can overcome that absolute .
As HockeySchtick and others have pointed out , gravity is left out of this energy accounting — and it cannot be . And in fact does complete the balance explaining why the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops .
I’ll wait to work thru and implement the computations until someone is interested in expressing the problem in CoSy , or some other APL . Then a succinct but thorough model of planetary temperature physics can start being constructed in a few score expressions as succinct as a physics text rather than 10k lines of Fortran .
People look at the greenhouse effect in the wrong way, in my opinion. We can clearly see the effect of it but it is not in daytime heating, it is in radiative cooling at night. GHE would not increase daytime highs so much as it would increase nighttime lows. We have all seen the results of this. For example, a day that is 35C but very humid. At night the sun goes down but it doesn’t cool. Maybe by dawn it has cooled to 25C. Now take a day that reaches 35C in a desert where the air is very dry. As soon as the sun sets the temperature drops rapidly and by dawn maybe the temperature is 15C.
People are doing the wrong tests. Take a box with a bottle of water in each one. One has a glass top, one has a salt top. Take them outside on a cool, dry night. Heat them both up to the same temperature and then turn off the heat source and notice the rate at which they cool off.
CO2 is fairly evenly mixed in the atmosphere, water vapor is not because it can condense out. Where one would expect to see the impact of greenhouse warming the most is in polar winter. The air there is extremely dry and CO2 would provide a larger proportion of the total atmospheric greenhouse effect. So increasing CO2 would be felt more readily in polar winter by moderating low temperatures. In polar summer when there is more water vapor, the total contribution of CO2 would be swamped by the larger contribution of the H2O.
This is why taking annual average temperatures can be misleading. It does not necessarily mean the earth is getting “hotter”, it likely means it is getting “less cold” and lowest temperatures are being moderated which raises the average but did not make the high temperature any “hotter”. There would likely be little difference in humid tropical regions and in daytime high temperatures in temperate regions.
“Where one would expect to see the impact of greenhouse warming the most is in polar winter.”
Interesting that UAH shows South pole temperatures dropping in winter since 1990, with a slight rise in summer.
https://s19.postimg.org/m2bw96e0j/South_Pole_summer_v_winter.png
@crosspatch
This is why taking annual average temperatures can be misleading. It does not necessarily mean the earth is getting “hotter”, it likely means it is getting “less cold” and lowest temperatures are being moderated which raises the average but did not make the high temperature any “hotter”. – See more at: https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/01/3-chemists-conclude-co2-greenhouse-effect-is-unreal-violates-laws-of-physics-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-1212847
What you claim is that the greenhouse effect is insulating earth. Because that is what thermal insulation does, it doesn´t heat anything, but it reduce heat loss. Like how a blanket is nice if it is cold. The problem is that a blanket, or any other thermal insulation, does the opposite. It prevents heat absorption in air(included GHG:s), and that is what “retains heat”. I want to make sure you understand the problem of your reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Read the citation carefully.
The EXACT same mechanism that you claim to raise average temperature, and the EXACT same “physics” that the greenhouse theory is built on, is the EXACT opposite of how thermal physics work. Increasing absorption in the surroundings of a body, both planets and naked ladies, will cool that body. Increasing absorption in the surroundings mean increased rate of heat transfer FROM the body. Just look at the SB-equation for transfer between two bodies at different temperatures. sigma(T1^4-T2^4). To increase absorption in the lower temperature body without the warmer body getting hotter first, what are your options?
Increasing absorption always mean increased rate of transfer from the warmer body. If the energy supply from the heat source is constant, the only outcome can be dropping temperature throughout the system. Absorption doesn´t cause emission, they are not cause and effect. Temperature/internal state is what cause emission, and absorption depends on temperature of the emitter that absorbs the heat. They are related through temperature, but they are not cause and effect.
It is a mystery why a theory which claim that increasing absorption from increasing amounts of dry ice in already cold, damp air, is a heating mechanism for a planet which for most parts consist of red glowing high temperature mass. When you add the fact that it is irradiated by a blackbody at 5770K it gets really funny, or annoying, its hard to decide.
Two glowing bodies in space. Let´s figure out the surface temperature of the colder one. Someone says: look, the colder body has a thin layer of gas, it is damp, there is some dry ice in it that absorbs heat effectively, and it has a mean temperature of -18C. THAT must be the main heat source.
It is f*****g unbelievable. How is it possible that this is the main theory of earth climate? It is a shame. The theory is so stupid that it is hard to avoid conspiracy thoughts. No one can be so stupid, it must be a deliberate deception. All the claims made in the greenhouse theory are violations of physics. It is a detailed list of violations, its like someone knew how it really works and then built the theory in the exact opposite way.
Argument from authority. The success of an appeal to “consensus” science. Funding.
ssat
AndyG, a lot can depend on weather, too. If the polar vortex stays more or less anchored at the pole for most of the season, it will get extremely cold and sequester the pole from warmer higher latitude air. If the vortex is knocked off the pole, as the NH vortex was this year, it allows warmer air to reach the pole. The problem is in trying to sort out multi-decadal scale patterns from “climate”.
We generally use a 30 year average to represent “climate” but that is probably too short a period. I would feel more comfortable with a 60 year average.
“We generally use a 30 year average”
Absolutely the silliest average period you could use.
And who is “we” …. don’t tell me you are a climate scientist !!!!
But OF COURSE that is what “they” wanted to use in the early 2000’s when the AGW scam was in full swing.
They may appear ignorant of things like the AMO, and the warm period of the 1940’s, but they really aren’t, they just think everyone else is.
@crosspatch
The problem is, what we know about thermodynamics say that it works in a different way. If the poles are colder than normal it necessarily includes a larger than normal rate of transfer from hotter areas. If the poles get warmer, that means that less heat is transferred to them. A warming pole means that there is less heat going in that direction. Beautiful self-regulation in a system with constant and limited supply of heat. Thermodynamics also leads to another interesting consequence:
If earth gets warmer, and it is not from the sun getting hotter, inevitably less heat will be transferred from the sun. That is how it works and I don´t understand why this isn´t discussed.
I think 30 years is way to much. I think 24-48 hours is enough. Why do you think it is slowly reacting? Heat is a question of instantaneous power. The unit is Watt which is Joule/second. If the power of the heat source would drop in an instant we would notice a difference the next day. Heat travel in and out of the earth system at light speed. If something changes the heat flow, the change is instantaneous. It may take 1-2 days before the system stabilizes into a new steady state. But 30 years, come on, that is ridicolous.
Climate is bullshit, there is only weather.
Typo in my last. Meant “it will get extremely cold and sequester the pole from warmer LOWER latitude air”
Understanding the true nature of the Sun is also important for understanding climate. Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille has released the first 8 lectures of his series of 40 on the condensed matter nature of the Sun and stars, and the importance of water for cosmology.
Lectures 1-6:
* History of the Gaseous Sun
* Is the sun a Gas? The Standard Model Explained!
* What is Occam’s Razor? (Law of Parsimony)
* Does the Sun have a Surface? Transverse Waves, Helioseismology, CMEs,
X-Rays and Flares!
* The 0th Law of Thermodynamics
* Stewarts’s Law (of radiative exchange)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL7QIOZteWPpBWBOl8i0e-g
Lecture 7:
The Life cycle of the Stars,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDn_0hwLsKM
Lecture 8:
The Structure of Liquid Water, (and its implications for cosmology)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3uZjdyrYeU
[…] Das Pariser Abkommen ist Vergeudung von Zeit und Geld – Die Welt […]
Just in case anyone is interested in the facts, May was warm looking at the Globe (UAH):.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2017-0-45-deg-c/
and in Germany:
http://www.dwd.de/DE/presse/pressemitteilungen/DE/2017/20170530_deutschlandwetter_mai.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4
The real data is of course driving another wedge between those who claim that the physics are wrong (they have to explain the warming) and those who think the effect is small (it is not).
The globe has warmed by a whopping 0.1 C since 1998…or since atmospheric CO2 rose from 360 ppm to 405 ppm.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017.4/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017.4/trend
Apart from El Nino events , there is basically ZERO warming in the whole satellite data.
El Ninos are not caused by increased atmospheric CO2 levels because CO2 does not effect ocean temperatures.
That means that there is ZERO CO2 warming signature in the last 39 or so years, while human emissions of CO2 have been continuing their plant-life enhancing upward trend.
el ninio condition for a start. cherrypick masterclass.
start in 1990 and things change completely.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1990/to:2017.4/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2017.4/trend
Oh, you have a problem with using ENSO events at the beginning or end of a trend line. Great. We’ll use the 15-year cooling trend between the two Super El Ninos. Why did it cool between 2001 and 2015, sod, with, you know, all that CO2?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/trend
Why would you complain about starting in 1998 when the IPCC even chose that year as a starting point to discuss the warming hiatus?
Sod,by your own link, you destroyed your warmist position,because the PER DECADE warming rate in your chart is well below the 1990 IPCC report that stated:
“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
likely increase in global mean temperature of about
1°C above the present value by 2025…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
========================================================
From 1990 to 2017 is 26 full years, now what is the Per Decade rate?
The IPCC says it is .30C per decade,while YOUR chart showed .40C after 26 years.
By the way how much has warmed since 1990? The IPCC says it should be about 1C warmer after 25 years,which means we have only 7 1/2 years to go, to get the other .60C.
When are you ever going to stop beating yourself down?
From the Roy Spencer blog:
” Nate says:
June 2, 2017 at 11:10 AM
Decade average UAH temps
80s: -0.142
90s: 0.001
00s: 0.105
10s: 0.219″
but that is just facts. Physics do not factor into this. There is no increase in temperature, when you ignore the decadal changes…
Between the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, Pacific ocean temperatures plummeted by -0.9 C. Since then, starting in the 1700s, they’ve risen by 0.25 C.
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png
Using facts, describe the physical factors that caused the ocean temperatures to drop. Describe the physical factors that caused the ocean temperatures to rise starting in the 1700s.
“Physics do not factor into this”
Physics never comes in to ANYTHING you say, sob-sob
Your continued IGNORANCE that 1979 was at the bottom of a COOLER period after a downward trend from the 1940’s, which were in reality a very similar temperature to now,
.. and your continued IGNORANCE about the fact that the Holocene Optimum, and the cooler MWP were still much warmer than now…
…makes you look like a nil-educated, non-learning AGW SPAM-BOT.
@sod
you wrote:
“The real data is of course driving another wedge between those who claim that the physics are wrong (they have to explain the warming) and those who think the effect is small (it is not)”
This is a common thing blanket-people say in debate. But the rising temperatures(which is questionable, it´s probably climate-science incompetence) doesn´t prove the greenhouse theory. Why would anyone have to explain a warming which is measured only on parts of the planet, and claimed to be largest where there is no data (arctic, deep sea)? We don´t have to believe in your religious beliefs just because there is no other complete explanation for the dynamics of the climate.
Your attitude is quite similar to Islam, soon you will be cutting throats of the infidels (skeptics) and pray five times a day with your heads directed towards the location where Al Gore happens to be at that moment. The prayer is: “forcing is a real physical concept even though everyone knows that in physics you either have a force or you don´t”.
“Forcing” is one of the flaws in GH-theory which is easiest to use for embarrassing climate scientists.
The earth is a system with constant limited supply of energy from the sun. The atmosphere has even tighter limits, since mostly longwave-radiation from the surface is available for absorption. A “forcing” is not work, it is not energy, it is not heat, it doesn´t add anything at all to the heat flow. On the contrary, absorption spectra show that it does the opposite. It´s action is decreasing intensity of radiation, observed as the “radiative imbalance”, which is another evidence of climate scientists lacking physics knowledge. It´s called less heat, not “radiative imbalance”. I don´t know why you even focus on what earth emits to space, as if that was the factor controlling surface emission. If emission to space decrease, it means that there is less heat/lower temperature in the system. Calling it “imbalance”, “forcing”, “blanket” or unicorn-balls doesn´t make a difference. The independent relationship between emissive power and Temperature is absolute. Prevost said: the emission of a body depends on the internal state only. I don´t know why you blanket-people think you can ignore that and say that “imbalance” is a “forcing” which can violate the independent relation between emissive power and temperature. Less emission which you call “imbalance” and “forcing”, is nothing else than less heat-lower temperature.
Now, please give a reference to your claim that physics allow such mechanisms, where you can increase the power of a system with constant limited heat flow, by dropping the temperature in the coldest part of the system. Because such a mechanism violates the foundation of thermodynamics from 200 years ago. The most solid relationship in the universe, temperature and emissive power, you seem unaware of it. If “forcing” was real, then I could increase the temperature of a running engine by cooling the exhaust.
Think about Prevost´s statement for a minute. Emission depends on the internal state, only. The internal state is what we measure in temperature.
Then think about what blanket-religion claims. That the emission of the surface depends on what? The EXTERNAL state of the atmosphere. Why not include some unicorns, leprichauns with pots of gold, fairys and a magic rainbow? Since you use only violations of physics anyway.
If your theory is based on the claim that increasing the amount of dry ice in the atmosphere, and that decreasing emission is a sign of rising temperature, and that “forcing” can raise temperature without doing any work or adding any energy, why is the problem that skeptics doesn´t have an explanation for your tortured data and graphs of doom?
The problem is not that we don´t have a theory of climate, the problem is that the greenhouse theory is the worst possible theory.
We don´t have a theory explaining how life is possible in a universe of dead matter either. Now, I have a theory about that. Life in the universe came from my ass. And you don´t have any other explanation, so I´m right.
Does that sound like a good approach? Because that is your argument about your crayon-drawings of temperature-anomalies that you claim shows how dry ice will burn the earth to death.
“Life in the universe came from my ass.”
To burro a question…. where did your donkey come from ? 🙂
It must have been alive, before it gave life.
It really is a chicken and egg quandary, isn’t it.
I am leaning towards that there is no life. Nothing out of the ordinary is happening where we observe life. Well, maybe one thing, it seems like humans have the ability to act as a catalyst, enhancing entropy-production. As a life form humans seems to be the only species that can make energy flow outside metabolism. That seems like a unique property of mass from what we know about the universe. A big win. On top of that, we release energy from locations which was not possible without us, like oil that was bound in the crust. But it is not really a big deal.
If humanity was erased tomorrow, what difference did we make during our existence?
We liked to burn stuff in general, explosions was also hip, shooting stuff into space by burning ridicolous amounts of fuel was also a hobby of humans, the more energy we used the better we liked it.
Looking at the night sky, the burning thing is popular in the universe. So, what makes life and humans special?
I know of a Botanist who grew some potatoes on Mars……
[…] Read More: 3 Chemists Conclude CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is ‘Unreal’, Violates Laws Of Physics, Thermodynamics […]
Probably important to read the official peer reviews:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
Who shred them, irreparably.